This is why it is so important to respect the other side of a political discussion. Shared values exist on both sides of the political spectrum and our system is based upon a predominantly market based capitalism with a roll for government where unbridled capitalism fails and everyone benefits from the laws of large numbers.
But our politicians are lost in the maze of partisanship and catering to bases and no one is being educated about the issues and trade-offs in solutions. Congressional hearings where this has traditionally happened are focused on gotcha politic, partisan angles and bolstering already hardened positions rather an open mind listening to problems and possible solutions.
Douthat's insight today really brings home where we are.
"In the Obama era, though, neither coalition has done a very good job selling such a vision, because neither knows how to deliver on it. (The left doesn’t know how to get wages rising again; the right doesn’t know how to shore up the two-parent family, etc.) Which has left both parties increasingly dependent on identity-politics appeals, with the left mobilizing along lines of race, ethnicity and gender and the right mobilizing around white-Christian-heartland cultural anxieties."
Link to Douthat's whole column
That is why I am so discouraged by the Democrat's post election populism. I am sympathetic with Senator Schumer's belief that the Democrat's need to focus on the middle class, not just the poor, if they are to win elections in red states, but the Democrats also need to defend the propriety of policies that balance both GOP reliance on the market and the need to defend the environment (which didn't used to be a partisan issue and doesn't have to be.) People like clean air and water, but they also like jobs. Globalization is tough for people who become uneconomic because of it. They need help, but they also need to be self-sufficient by cutting expenses and living within their means. And our representative's need to be sympathetic to both points of view.
The Tea Party is wrong when they think government doesn't need to pass laws. The world changes, the economy changes, there is change in the culture and laws need to change to reflect how society wishes to govern itself. The military needs to be funded because the world is a dangerous place and our veterans deserve to be taken care of, and the cost of doing so needs supervision because there are shysters out there who want to take advantage of government programs through fraudulent activities. The GOP designed ObamaCare the way they did because preventive health care is always less expensive for society than the treatment of illnesses and you need everyone in the system at all times because people can get sick at any time and they need to pay into the system to spread the cost fairly across everybody. I don't know why the GOP cannot acknowledge that nor why the Democrats cannot blast it into the debate during elections.
I guess Identity Politics don't allow for difficult messages.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Friday, November 28, 2014
Idiocy Observed: Neo-conservatives still fighting the Cold War and Liberal Democrats on Economic Expertise
My definition of Idiocy is knee jerk reaction in the name of political themes without thought as to the substance.
So we have neo-conservatives criticizing the Obama Administration for trying to limit our volunteer Army's exposure to situations where we have little hope of success. The Economist ran a thoughtful piece in their 2015 outlook on this issue. I will now quote Edward Carr, their foreign editor.
"Just now the world seems uncommonly hard to manage. Citizens are fed up with elites that govern them: Ukrainians rose up against their country's kleptomaniac nomenklature, student's occupied Central district in Hong Kong and Europe's populists, such as France's National Front and the UK Independence Party, are plotting to overthrow the technocrats in Brussels. The Jihadists of Islamic State threaten to wreck havoc in the Middle East and beyond. Whereas democratic governments seem weak and vacillating, authoritarians are busy arresting their opponents, muzzling their media and invading their neighbors."
"Part of the difficulty the world faces in reacting to these developments is that expectations of what governments can achieve in foreign policy run far ahead of what is feasible. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, American power was untrammeled. Far from declaring victory and going home. America became more involved than ever, across the globe. For while intervention seemed just a question of willpower and shrewd policies. But the past decade has shown up that view as naive. The world is messy. As they say, success in politics is not perfection, it is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm."
........................
"The charges against Mr. Obama distort his thinking and vastly overstate America's loss of power. The President who ordered special forces into Pakistan to seize Osama bin Ladan is not a defeatist, and the armed forces that carried out that mission have not suddenly become weak. Mr. Obama has put forward the argument that America cannot act alone as the world's policeman: Countries that benefit from open trade and the rule of law have a responsibility to help."
"Analytically, that argument has much going for it. Yet, politically, it has failed. When Mr. Obama advertises the limits to America's power, Americans hear defeatism, allies detect wavering American commitment to their security and America's rivals in Moscow and Beijing spot a chance to meddle."
"The lesson for Mr. Obama is that, because foreign policy abhors a vacuum, he has to fill the role of leader. That is what he has begun to do in the Middle East, by forming a coalition against IS.....America gets others to bear a burden not when it steps back, but when it engages the world's problems."
"The lesson of other countries is harder still...........When global economic and political collaboration suffers - all these countries suffer too. If 2015 is to count as a big improvement, America must have help."
While there are lessons in all that for the Democrats, my key takeaway is that America cannot go it alone. Our share of global GDP is declining even as our economic growth continue to be amongst the highest in the world. The cost of global military action is higher than ever and the GOP does not support raising revenues to pay for it, but America does have to lead. The President has problems with the Democratic Left over his middle of the road national security policies. He should be praised by the neo-conservatives and worked with through the traditional process of compromise and cordial discussions. You can't have everything but you have to work with the President and he is open to that on National Security issues. And if you want a bigger defense budget, revenues must be raised to pay for it.
Also, unwanted immigrants are a problem for conservatives all over the world. People all over the world do not desire to live in chaos or fear for safety. Those have vision, wisdom and courage will try to go the closest stable place. While I welcome those people because they are motivated workers and citizens of their new home, they also give the less motivated and less able citizens of the destination country more competition for employment, who in turn want to keep the immigrants out. But if you want to stop people from being motivated to move to your country, you need to work to make their home country more stable and a healthier economy. So for the U.S., that means stabilizing Central America and for Europe, it means stabilizing the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Left is going nuts over the nomination of Antonio Weiss to be Under-Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Policy. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and the AFL-CIO are actively working to derail his approval. They ignore 2 key facts: 1st, to be a credible national political party, the Democrats need to have competent people who understand their area of expertise and 2nd, that financiers can be supportive of Democratic policy initiatives while also understanding the appropriateness and need for sound economic policy. By liberal left's standards, I would not be qualified for anything in their world because I worked in the world of finance. But how can anyone be competent at crafting financial policies if they don't understand how finance works. Antonio Weiss is qualified to be an Under-Secretary and should be approved. I will not vote for a Democratic candidate that does not understand that. And that is why I never voted for Bernie Sanders when I was a resident of Vermont. He drove me to vote Republican. Thankfully, NY Democrats understand people who work in finance are not the enemy just because of what they do to make a living. Working in finance is just as honorable as working in any other job.
So we have neo-conservatives criticizing the Obama Administration for trying to limit our volunteer Army's exposure to situations where we have little hope of success. The Economist ran a thoughtful piece in their 2015 outlook on this issue. I will now quote Edward Carr, their foreign editor.
"Just now the world seems uncommonly hard to manage. Citizens are fed up with elites that govern them: Ukrainians rose up against their country's kleptomaniac nomenklature, student's occupied Central district in Hong Kong and Europe's populists, such as France's National Front and the UK Independence Party, are plotting to overthrow the technocrats in Brussels. The Jihadists of Islamic State threaten to wreck havoc in the Middle East and beyond. Whereas democratic governments seem weak and vacillating, authoritarians are busy arresting their opponents, muzzling their media and invading their neighbors."
"Part of the difficulty the world faces in reacting to these developments is that expectations of what governments can achieve in foreign policy run far ahead of what is feasible. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, American power was untrammeled. Far from declaring victory and going home. America became more involved than ever, across the globe. For while intervention seemed just a question of willpower and shrewd policies. But the past decade has shown up that view as naive. The world is messy. As they say, success in politics is not perfection, it is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm."
........................
"The charges against Mr. Obama distort his thinking and vastly overstate America's loss of power. The President who ordered special forces into Pakistan to seize Osama bin Ladan is not a defeatist, and the armed forces that carried out that mission have not suddenly become weak. Mr. Obama has put forward the argument that America cannot act alone as the world's policeman: Countries that benefit from open trade and the rule of law have a responsibility to help."
"Analytically, that argument has much going for it. Yet, politically, it has failed. When Mr. Obama advertises the limits to America's power, Americans hear defeatism, allies detect wavering American commitment to their security and America's rivals in Moscow and Beijing spot a chance to meddle."
"The lesson for Mr. Obama is that, because foreign policy abhors a vacuum, he has to fill the role of leader. That is what he has begun to do in the Middle East, by forming a coalition against IS.....America gets others to bear a burden not when it steps back, but when it engages the world's problems."
"The lesson of other countries is harder still...........When global economic and political collaboration suffers - all these countries suffer too. If 2015 is to count as a big improvement, America must have help."
While there are lessons in all that for the Democrats, my key takeaway is that America cannot go it alone. Our share of global GDP is declining even as our economic growth continue to be amongst the highest in the world. The cost of global military action is higher than ever and the GOP does not support raising revenues to pay for it, but America does have to lead. The President has problems with the Democratic Left over his middle of the road national security policies. He should be praised by the neo-conservatives and worked with through the traditional process of compromise and cordial discussions. You can't have everything but you have to work with the President and he is open to that on National Security issues. And if you want a bigger defense budget, revenues must be raised to pay for it.
Also, unwanted immigrants are a problem for conservatives all over the world. People all over the world do not desire to live in chaos or fear for safety. Those have vision, wisdom and courage will try to go the closest stable place. While I welcome those people because they are motivated workers and citizens of their new home, they also give the less motivated and less able citizens of the destination country more competition for employment, who in turn want to keep the immigrants out. But if you want to stop people from being motivated to move to your country, you need to work to make their home country more stable and a healthier economy. So for the U.S., that means stabilizing Central America and for Europe, it means stabilizing the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Left is going nuts over the nomination of Antonio Weiss to be Under-Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Policy. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and the AFL-CIO are actively working to derail his approval. They ignore 2 key facts: 1st, to be a credible national political party, the Democrats need to have competent people who understand their area of expertise and 2nd, that financiers can be supportive of Democratic policy initiatives while also understanding the appropriateness and need for sound economic policy. By liberal left's standards, I would not be qualified for anything in their world because I worked in the world of finance. But how can anyone be competent at crafting financial policies if they don't understand how finance works. Antonio Weiss is qualified to be an Under-Secretary and should be approved. I will not vote for a Democratic candidate that does not understand that. And that is why I never voted for Bernie Sanders when I was a resident of Vermont. He drove me to vote Republican. Thankfully, NY Democrats understand people who work in finance are not the enemy just because of what they do to make a living. Working in finance is just as honorable as working in any other job.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Climate Change & Voting
83% of Americans think the U.S. should do something to reduce greenhouse gases even if there is an economic cost. Unfortunately, out of 13 national issues that drive voting choice, global warming only comes in 11th so a candidate's position on global warming rarely determines how any one individual will vote.
52% of American think Congress should do more and 46% think the President should do more.
Link to Article
52% of American think Congress should do more and 46% think the President should do more.
Link to Article
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Thank you Grover Norquist
I know 60 Minutes is not beyond exaggeration. But when they say there are a lot of bridges that need replacing, I believe them. Water pollution treatment plants are becoming obsolete.
900 million people travel daily across bridges that are beyond their useful life.
Bridges are going to collapse. 33% of roads are in need of repair and the Federal government Transportation system fund runs out of money next year. and gas taxes which haven't been raised since 1996 are supposed to maintain that fund.
Thank you Grover Norquist.
900 million people travel daily across bridges that are beyond their useful life.
Bridges are going to collapse. 33% of roads are in need of repair and the Federal government Transportation system fund runs out of money next year. and gas taxes which haven't been raised since 1996 are supposed to maintain that fund.
Thank you Grover Norquist.
Vouchers are not sufficient without Regulation
The GOP understandably likes to promote vouchers as a way of providing a safety net while controlling the aggregate cost of public expenditure. I see the appeal. Allow individuals their private choice while making them aware of the cost and forcing them to pay any cost above the value of the voucher. That is a strategy that should provide balance to the system.
We sent our son to private school and paid dearly into the public (property taxes) and private education (tuition) systems in doing so. So I have some sympathy for the use of vouchers to allow people without our means to have access for their kids to the private education system. However, I also have reservations when I read about private schools only teaching creationism as the basis for the existence of life. And these reservations were increased by today's NYT article on what the Hasidic schools of New York are teaching the children while they are getting funding from the public, which by definition reduces the funding available to the public schools.
These Hasidic schools teach little English, science or math. The students come from large families, tend to marry young and have large families. The young man who is the focus of the story is one of 17 children. As a student at the College of Staten Island, he found he did not know a word being used in the classroom. The word was "molecule" He is a product of the NYC Yeshiva schools. The primary language is Yiddish. They study religious education from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Then for 90 minutes they are taught English and Math until they reach the age of 13 (Bar Mitzvah time) when they stop receiving non-religious education.
Why is this deserving of public funding? They are not meeting any standards of equivalency with what the public schools offer (and is needed to function in any modern society) which by the way, is the supposed standard they are to meet to receive public funding.
Where is the supervision of the standard? Don't we who provide $ to pay for public education deserve to know that our $ are being used to provide an education that is supportive of our societies ability to compete in the global economy? Don't we who provide the $ deserve to know that these students will be able to communicate with the rest of the citizens of the city, state, and country?
Vouchers without supervision and regulation are not good public policy.
Link to article
And I can only wonder how Israel deals with this system which is growing there and supports an increasing percentage of the population. These ignorant people are fueling the unending support for settlement expansion and they are exempt from both military service and pay little in taxes to support the system.
If this sounds personal to me, it is. My great grandmother abandoned her husband in Kovel, Russia (now Ukraine) and came to NYC. My great grandfather was a Talmudic scholar and did little else. 3 generations of living in secular society has put me where I am today. A successful U.S. citizen who is lawful, responsible, raised our child well, and funded my retirement. All I ask for is access to affordable health insurance with pre-existing conditions. I was never a leach on society which is what I see these yeshiva's doing with public funding. How can you pretend to be running a decent public school when you don't teach the basic subjects?
We sent our son to private school and paid dearly into the public (property taxes) and private education (tuition) systems in doing so. So I have some sympathy for the use of vouchers to allow people without our means to have access for their kids to the private education system. However, I also have reservations when I read about private schools only teaching creationism as the basis for the existence of life. And these reservations were increased by today's NYT article on what the Hasidic schools of New York are teaching the children while they are getting funding from the public, which by definition reduces the funding available to the public schools.
These Hasidic schools teach little English, science or math. The students come from large families, tend to marry young and have large families. The young man who is the focus of the story is one of 17 children. As a student at the College of Staten Island, he found he did not know a word being used in the classroom. The word was "molecule" He is a product of the NYC Yeshiva schools. The primary language is Yiddish. They study religious education from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Then for 90 minutes they are taught English and Math until they reach the age of 13 (Bar Mitzvah time) when they stop receiving non-religious education.
Why is this deserving of public funding? They are not meeting any standards of equivalency with what the public schools offer (and is needed to function in any modern society) which by the way, is the supposed standard they are to meet to receive public funding.
Where is the supervision of the standard? Don't we who provide $ to pay for public education deserve to know that our $ are being used to provide an education that is supportive of our societies ability to compete in the global economy? Don't we who provide the $ deserve to know that these students will be able to communicate with the rest of the citizens of the city, state, and country?
Vouchers without supervision and regulation are not good public policy.
Link to article
And I can only wonder how Israel deals with this system which is growing there and supports an increasing percentage of the population. These ignorant people are fueling the unending support for settlement expansion and they are exempt from both military service and pay little in taxes to support the system.
If this sounds personal to me, it is. My great grandmother abandoned her husband in Kovel, Russia (now Ukraine) and came to NYC. My great grandfather was a Talmudic scholar and did little else. 3 generations of living in secular society has put me where I am today. A successful U.S. citizen who is lawful, responsible, raised our child well, and funded my retirement. All I ask for is access to affordable health insurance with pre-existing conditions. I was never a leach on society which is what I see these yeshiva's doing with public funding. How can you pretend to be running a decent public school when you don't teach the basic subjects?
Friday, November 21, 2014
A running list of GOP Supporters of an Immigration Reform Bill that is balanced
Readers should feel free to add people in comments and I will add them to the list:
Marco Rubio (Florida US Senator)
Jeb Bush (Former Florida Governor)
John Kasich (Ohio Governor)
Marco Rubio (Florida US Senator)
Jeb Bush (Former Florida Governor)
John Kasich (Ohio Governor)
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Brrrr & other musings
I sure am glad I don't live the south Buffalo suburb's. 7 or 8 feet of snow, plus drifts, is too much for even the avid skier in me. And the geography south of Buffalo is not sufficiently hilly for any good skiing no matter how much snow you have.
So what I am doing tomorrow in the sub-32 degree morning? Trying to squeeze in one last golf round and practice some new stuff I just learned on my videos. Got to get those hips moving before the arms get there while keeping the hands forward.
I hear a pro-Israel radio ad this morning. It got me thinking. I am pro-Israel on every point except for the West Bank Settlements. I'm not always that forthright because the settlements drive me crazy. You can't make peace with someone who has insufficient land for their population. But, I do acknowledge that Israel must do whatever is necessary to preserve the physical safety of its population. And as I blogged a while ago, some 70% of American Jews agree with this. It is just the vocal 30% who say Israel can do no wrong who dominate the conversation from America toward Israel in the Jewish community. The ad was about Iran, and the need to hang tough with them. My brain hurts when I think about that because then we have to think about ISIS, and where ISIS gets it's money (Sunni Turkey buying the oil and rich Qatar's and Saudi's sending $, while Iran/Russia support Assad whose fighting ISIS and ISIS wants to fight the Iranians. Thank goodness the Saudi's are pumping oil so the price plummets and causes cash shortfalls in both Iran and Russia.
I am pro-immigration beyond the pale, but I just don't think by-passing the legislative process is the way to do it, despite the fact that apparently Reagan and Bush I did it this way.
And I am baffled by the strength of NIMBY's in this country. You can't always get what you want. Gotta go now, the Rolling Stones are running through my brain and I need to find my iPod to get some satisfaction.
So what I am doing tomorrow in the sub-32 degree morning? Trying to squeeze in one last golf round and practice some new stuff I just learned on my videos. Got to get those hips moving before the arms get there while keeping the hands forward.
I hear a pro-Israel radio ad this morning. It got me thinking. I am pro-Israel on every point except for the West Bank Settlements. I'm not always that forthright because the settlements drive me crazy. You can't make peace with someone who has insufficient land for their population. But, I do acknowledge that Israel must do whatever is necessary to preserve the physical safety of its population. And as I blogged a while ago, some 70% of American Jews agree with this. It is just the vocal 30% who say Israel can do no wrong who dominate the conversation from America toward Israel in the Jewish community. The ad was about Iran, and the need to hang tough with them. My brain hurts when I think about that because then we have to think about ISIS, and where ISIS gets it's money (Sunni Turkey buying the oil and rich Qatar's and Saudi's sending $, while Iran/Russia support Assad whose fighting ISIS and ISIS wants to fight the Iranians. Thank goodness the Saudi's are pumping oil so the price plummets and causes cash shortfalls in both Iran and Russia.
I am pro-immigration beyond the pale, but I just don't think by-passing the legislative process is the way to do it, despite the fact that apparently Reagan and Bush I did it this way.
And I am baffled by the strength of NIMBY's in this country. You can't always get what you want. Gotta go now, the Rolling Stones are running through my brain and I need to find my iPod to get some satisfaction.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Cicero
No, I don't mean Cicero, Illinois.
Cicero was a Roman Philosopher, who wrote a book called On Obligations some 2050 years ago. I recently read that after printing the Bible, the next book ever printed on that 1st printing press by Gutenberg was Cicero's On Obligations. Since I am not a big reader of the Bible, having had my fill of the torah when I had to and deciding the Virgin Birth was a hoax, amongst other hoax's, I thought I should read this other very historic and ancient book to see what was in it.
No one can accuse Cicero of succinctness, but the book is only 126 pages which I can summarize here. His thoughts are ones I wish our politicians would remember today, but I am not sure how much some of them read and fewer of them are contemplative or altruistic.
Cicero, as the title clearly shows, was concerned that his son, to whom these words were addressed, had a clear view on how to live a moral life. Paramount to that, was a living a life dedicated to Obligation in the both the physical world and as a tool of moral guidance. Unique to humans, Cicero pointed out the insatiable desire to know the truth as a key to living one's life. While providing for the family's essential needs, it is necessary to promote the cohesion of the community through justice and charity. Cicero also pointed out that benevolence cannot go beyond the means to afford it.
Cicero developed 5 approaches to managing obligations: What is fitting? What is honorable? How should Wealth be used? How should Talent by used? How should conflict in the answers to those 4 questions be resolved? Most importantly he said; "Avoid the conceit of making dogmatic claims by giving a wide berth to rash judgement which is greatly alien to true wisdom." He felt that Orators had the duty to make sure their words were useful in satisfying the goals of a society fulfilling its obligations.
Cicero concluded this book by pointing out that aiming for usefulness was never at odds with being honorable. And a little before the end, although he pre-dated Machiavelli by 1550 years, he hinted that he was well aware of the point of view that power could dictate control, but he felt that such control would not gain the support of the people and those who practiced such belief's without being true to Cicero's views on Obligations were doomed to unhappy endings. Of course, Cicero found himself on the wrong side of Mark Anthony after the death of Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony had him killed. But perhaps, Rome might not have fallen if Cicero's sense of duty and righteousness had been followed more closely by the subsequent leaders of Rome.
An interesting read and now I can say I read the 2nd book ever printed.
NIMBY's Win for the Moment, defeating other NIMBY's
As even a NY Times writer acknowledges, the Keystone Pipeline being built will have a negligible effect on green house gases. Link to Q&A on Keystone Pipeline But what it does offer us an insight into the length that NIMBY's go to arouse fear and anger in the ignorant. Not unlike what the Tea Party does on their perceived personal freedom issues.
One of the most interesting articles yesterday was a story about how the anti-tax crowd are after Senators to vote no on an increase in the cost of Duck shooting licenses because it would be an increase in fee income for the government (i.e. taxes). However, the bill authorizing this increase specifically states that the revenue will go to pay for duck breeding programs that will increase the number of ducks available to shoot, so Duck hunters are actually in favor of this. I didn't know there was a shortage of ducks to shoot, as there is certainly no shortage of Canadian Geese and they are a protected species and one I would like to let my dog chase.
But in any case, I thought the Republicans were in favor of use fees so that only people who use a service have to pay for it, rather than using general tax revenues. This is very personal for me as I was discussing the cost of driving I95, as I did 6 weeks ago, with a friend yesterday. My friend is helping a brother who has cancer remodel his house in Virginia and is driving I95 from Boston to D.C. and back every other week. He figures it costs him about $40 in tolls each way and I believe him. That adds up but at least these roads and bridges are being maintained. This is what the fee for use tax system is all about. It does seem outrageous to pay that much in tolls, but no one wants to be stuck in a traffic jam or lose a tire or two to a vicious pothole (as I did a 2 years ago). And if the government can't fund road maintenance, I guess tolls are the only way to do it. The economy needs the trucks to keep moving.
So anyway, some NIMBY's fought off the Keystone Pipeline for a moment, while other NIMBY's want the trains carrying that same crude to somehow stop. I find exploding trains much scarier than potentially leaking pipelines. And when a train derails, as we know they do with a certain unpredictable regularity, they pollute water because railroad tracks are almost always built next to river beds. You cannot have a functioning economy without energy and to have energy oil and natural gas need to be moved around the country. That requires pipelines.
So build Keystone. Build the natural gas pipeline from Binghamton to Albany. Trains and trucks are much more dangerous.
And if you have NIMBY tendencies, please at least try to be rational and articulate about why you oppose something.
And to the GOP, if I am going to be openminded about this, please be openminded about my desire to do something to control the increasing cost of healthcare in this country. The Affordable Health Care act is a Heritage Foundation designed effort to use the private sector to improve the delivery and cost of health care which now represents 18% of our GDP. The baby boom with drive that higher in their retirement and it needs to be controlled. Wise men designed RomneyCare and it deserves intelligent debate. It does not deserve NIMBY fear mongering.
One of the most interesting articles yesterday was a story about how the anti-tax crowd are after Senators to vote no on an increase in the cost of Duck shooting licenses because it would be an increase in fee income for the government (i.e. taxes). However, the bill authorizing this increase specifically states that the revenue will go to pay for duck breeding programs that will increase the number of ducks available to shoot, so Duck hunters are actually in favor of this. I didn't know there was a shortage of ducks to shoot, as there is certainly no shortage of Canadian Geese and they are a protected species and one I would like to let my dog chase.
But in any case, I thought the Republicans were in favor of use fees so that only people who use a service have to pay for it, rather than using general tax revenues. This is very personal for me as I was discussing the cost of driving I95, as I did 6 weeks ago, with a friend yesterday. My friend is helping a brother who has cancer remodel his house in Virginia and is driving I95 from Boston to D.C. and back every other week. He figures it costs him about $40 in tolls each way and I believe him. That adds up but at least these roads and bridges are being maintained. This is what the fee for use tax system is all about. It does seem outrageous to pay that much in tolls, but no one wants to be stuck in a traffic jam or lose a tire or two to a vicious pothole (as I did a 2 years ago). And if the government can't fund road maintenance, I guess tolls are the only way to do it. The economy needs the trucks to keep moving.
So anyway, some NIMBY's fought off the Keystone Pipeline for a moment, while other NIMBY's want the trains carrying that same crude to somehow stop. I find exploding trains much scarier than potentially leaking pipelines. And when a train derails, as we know they do with a certain unpredictable regularity, they pollute water because railroad tracks are almost always built next to river beds. You cannot have a functioning economy without energy and to have energy oil and natural gas need to be moved around the country. That requires pipelines.
So build Keystone. Build the natural gas pipeline from Binghamton to Albany. Trains and trucks are much more dangerous.
And if you have NIMBY tendencies, please at least try to be rational and articulate about why you oppose something.
And to the GOP, if I am going to be openminded about this, please be openminded about my desire to do something to control the increasing cost of healthcare in this country. The Affordable Health Care act is a Heritage Foundation designed effort to use the private sector to improve the delivery and cost of health care which now represents 18% of our GDP. The baby boom with drive that higher in their retirement and it needs to be controlled. Wise men designed RomneyCare and it deserves intelligent debate. It does not deserve NIMBY fear mongering.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Fox News & Professor Gruber
I am waiting for a routine car service at the dealer being subject to whoever controls the TV deciding that Fox News was the thing all these African Americans around me wanted to watch in the extremely Blue county of Westchester, NY.
Anyway, they are having a field day with Professor Gruber who you would have think learned long ago that colorful statements in public about things the country cares about have to be politically correct. But the point I want to make is that Fox News is making hay about ObamaCare having taxes in it.
Well, isn't that what the Supreme Court said when they upheld the Constitutionality of ObamaCare? Isn't that what the Republicans were saying when they opposed ObamaCare? Isn't that what all fees, taxes, excise duties, VAT's, Sales, Property, penalties are at the end of the day.
Yes, they are taxes and we must pay taxes if we are to have a functioning National Defense, a functioning legal system (which by the way is seriously underfunded at the Judicial Process level, our little condo legal dispute has taken over 5 years to wind its way to the point where the next appeal will finally bring our legal victory to completion), a functioning public health system, a functioning State Department, a functioning public education system, a functioning road maintenance and snow plowing system, a functioning fire department, and, yes, Republicans, a functioning safety net for the elderly and poor.
The way Fox News is carrying on, you would get the impression that taxes are unnecessary and we can do with no taxes at all. How is that working out for you KANSAS? And if the GOP was so upfront about everything, why aren't they putting forth their detailed alternative to ObamaCare? Oh wait, it is ObamaCare! or is it voucher's for everyone whereby people will see their co-pay's and deductibles ever increasing! or is it privatization of Social Security and Medicare so that every citizen has to save $1,000,000 over their life time to pay for retirement and end-of-life care and woe to those who don't do that. I know no GOP'er would campaign on Granny and Gramps dying in the gutter, but that is where Fox News would take us. Thank you Rubert Murdoch, you are driving me crazy when I cannot ignore you. I wish I could convince RSL to drop the Wall Street Journal from our newspaper delivery to send you a small message.
Anyway, they are having a field day with Professor Gruber who you would have think learned long ago that colorful statements in public about things the country cares about have to be politically correct. But the point I want to make is that Fox News is making hay about ObamaCare having taxes in it.
Well, isn't that what the Supreme Court said when they upheld the Constitutionality of ObamaCare? Isn't that what the Republicans were saying when they opposed ObamaCare? Isn't that what all fees, taxes, excise duties, VAT's, Sales, Property, penalties are at the end of the day.
Yes, they are taxes and we must pay taxes if we are to have a functioning National Defense, a functioning legal system (which by the way is seriously underfunded at the Judicial Process level, our little condo legal dispute has taken over 5 years to wind its way to the point where the next appeal will finally bring our legal victory to completion), a functioning public health system, a functioning State Department, a functioning public education system, a functioning road maintenance and snow plowing system, a functioning fire department, and, yes, Republicans, a functioning safety net for the elderly and poor.
The way Fox News is carrying on, you would get the impression that taxes are unnecessary and we can do with no taxes at all. How is that working out for you KANSAS? And if the GOP was so upfront about everything, why aren't they putting forth their detailed alternative to ObamaCare? Oh wait, it is ObamaCare! or is it voucher's for everyone whereby people will see their co-pay's and deductibles ever increasing! or is it privatization of Social Security and Medicare so that every citizen has to save $1,000,000 over their life time to pay for retirement and end-of-life care and woe to those who don't do that. I know no GOP'er would campaign on Granny and Gramps dying in the gutter, but that is where Fox News would take us. Thank you Rubert Murdoch, you are driving me crazy when I cannot ignore you. I wish I could convince RSL to drop the Wall Street Journal from our newspaper delivery to send you a small message.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Why We Are Where We Are: Neo-conservatives, Immigration and Economic Strength
or Sunday musings after reading the paper.
From a book review of Why We Lost "A General's Inside Account of the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars by Daniel Bolger.
"Since there aren't enough soldiers - "having outsourced defense to the willing" the American people stay on the sidelines - the generals asked for more time and more money. This meant sending the same troops back again and again, perhaps a bit better equipped than the last time. With stubbornness supplanting purpose, the military persisted, "in the vain hope that something might somehow improve.""
"Toward what end? Bolger reduces the problem to knowing whom to kill. "Defining the enemy defined the war," he writes. But who is the enemy? Again and again, he poses that question, eventually concluding, whether in frustration or despair, that the enemy is "everyone". But if all the Iraqi's and all Afghans are the enemy, then American failure extends well beyond matters of generalship."
That is a lesson I fear the neo-conservatives have not learned. The Muslim world is going through a tortured self-evaluation that has been long put off now that ISIS is rampaging across a landscape with divided loyalties from the Shia regimes. ISIS is really not all that different from the Wahhabi Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia, a violent, puritanical, non pluralistic government.
From Thomas Friedman's column this morning.
Sunni Islam must defeat ISIS. Shia and Sunni Islam must work together to form the government policies that will encourage young men to believe they have a stake in an orderly society.
Which brings me back to the U.S.A. Since Day 1 of the Obama Administration, Mitch McConnell has made it his stated objective to make the Obama Administration a failure. After 6 years, I think Obama has had enough and decided to spend his last two years fighting back with every power the President has. And it is ironic, that Justice Scalia has spent much of his legal career defending the right of the President to do such things. Justice Scalia believes the constitution authorizes a strong Presidency when it comes to matters of National Defense.
And what is more important in today's world than having a strong economy. Nothing, because economic strength is how we won the Cold War, WWII, and the North, the Civil War. And a working immigration system is key to the United States economy. Freedom in politics and dynamism in the economy draw talented and motivated people to work here. In doing so, they create jobs and kill other jobs. Globalization has created tremendous wealth in the United States but at the same time laid waste to rural industrial America as factories there closed. There is nothing more complicated than the global economy, so I will get to my point. 11 million illegal immigrants cannot be deported without sending the economy into a recession. You cannot shrink the labor force by 4%, shrink the consumption of the U.S. by 3%, shrink the demand for housing by 3% or 4% and not send the economy into a recession. We already have a budget deficit that is too large for this level of employment, need to reduce debt to meet the baby boomer demand on entitlements, and have used up the marginal strength of monetary policy. So, we cannot afford any attacks on economic strength and having a solution to immigration reform is essential. Immigrants are generally younger and help provide a solution to the baby boomer future draw on Medicare and Social Security.
Yet, I do not believe that cutting off negotiation with the GOP on this issue is a sound way to proceed. And despite Justice's Scalia's belief in the power of the Presidency, I think immigration is like abortion, a lasting sound solution can only be created through the legislative process, not the actions of a President, the beneficiaries of which, could see these policies reversed by a future President.
I know President Obama cannot be optimistic that the GOP led Congress will vote for anything he supports, but he has to try that first. Otherwise, we will have both parties following a torch the earth policy and that is not good for the country in any manner.
My only other comment is that usually I follow sports so that I am not too furious about asinine politics, but the NY teams are so awful there is no hope there. I can only hope that Derrick Rose somehow starts not having leg injuries and the Chicago Bulls have a lot of success. Last year, my Alma Mater Dutchmen found hockey success winning the NCAA Division 1 Frozen Four, but this year they are the target of motivated opposition and losing a lot of 1 goal games. Success is fleeting in this competitive world. That is also an apt way to view political/economic policy. The U.S. still has a competitive advantage in the world and I just hope that the Political War in D.C. doesn't squander it permanently. I do believe there is value on almost every issue in taking something from the Democrats and something from the Republicans to solve problems like Immigration, Tax Reform, the access to and cost of health care, putting entitlements on a sound financial footing. These are real problems that effect employment and full employment is how you get a strong economy.
From a book review of Why We Lost "A General's Inside Account of the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars by Daniel Bolger.
"Since there aren't enough soldiers - "having outsourced defense to the willing" the American people stay on the sidelines - the generals asked for more time and more money. This meant sending the same troops back again and again, perhaps a bit better equipped than the last time. With stubbornness supplanting purpose, the military persisted, "in the vain hope that something might somehow improve.""
"Toward what end? Bolger reduces the problem to knowing whom to kill. "Defining the enemy defined the war," he writes. But who is the enemy? Again and again, he poses that question, eventually concluding, whether in frustration or despair, that the enemy is "everyone". But if all the Iraqi's and all Afghans are the enemy, then American failure extends well beyond matters of generalship."
That is a lesson I fear the neo-conservatives have not learned. The Muslim world is going through a tortured self-evaluation that has been long put off now that ISIS is rampaging across a landscape with divided loyalties from the Shia regimes. ISIS is really not all that different from the Wahhabi Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia, a violent, puritanical, non pluralistic government.
From Thomas Friedman's column this morning.
“People are attracted to moderate religion because they are moderates to begin with,” argues Hamidaddin. “People are attracted to extreme black-and-white religious ideologies” because the warped social and economic context they live in produces an attraction to holistic black-and-white solutions.” (It is one reason Pakistani Muslims tend to be more radical than Indian Muslims.)
Yes, religious reform would help, added Hamidaddin. But “it was the complete deterioration of the economic, security and political situation [in Iraq and Syria] that demanded a clear black-and-white interpretation of the world. It takes the right [government] policies to counteract that.” Sunni Islam must defeat ISIS. Shia and Sunni Islam must work together to form the government policies that will encourage young men to believe they have a stake in an orderly society.
Which brings me back to the U.S.A. Since Day 1 of the Obama Administration, Mitch McConnell has made it his stated objective to make the Obama Administration a failure. After 6 years, I think Obama has had enough and decided to spend his last two years fighting back with every power the President has. And it is ironic, that Justice Scalia has spent much of his legal career defending the right of the President to do such things. Justice Scalia believes the constitution authorizes a strong Presidency when it comes to matters of National Defense.
And what is more important in today's world than having a strong economy. Nothing, because economic strength is how we won the Cold War, WWII, and the North, the Civil War. And a working immigration system is key to the United States economy. Freedom in politics and dynamism in the economy draw talented and motivated people to work here. In doing so, they create jobs and kill other jobs. Globalization has created tremendous wealth in the United States but at the same time laid waste to rural industrial America as factories there closed. There is nothing more complicated than the global economy, so I will get to my point. 11 million illegal immigrants cannot be deported without sending the economy into a recession. You cannot shrink the labor force by 4%, shrink the consumption of the U.S. by 3%, shrink the demand for housing by 3% or 4% and not send the economy into a recession. We already have a budget deficit that is too large for this level of employment, need to reduce debt to meet the baby boomer demand on entitlements, and have used up the marginal strength of monetary policy. So, we cannot afford any attacks on economic strength and having a solution to immigration reform is essential. Immigrants are generally younger and help provide a solution to the baby boomer future draw on Medicare and Social Security.
Yet, I do not believe that cutting off negotiation with the GOP on this issue is a sound way to proceed. And despite Justice's Scalia's belief in the power of the Presidency, I think immigration is like abortion, a lasting sound solution can only be created through the legislative process, not the actions of a President, the beneficiaries of which, could see these policies reversed by a future President.
I know President Obama cannot be optimistic that the GOP led Congress will vote for anything he supports, but he has to try that first. Otherwise, we will have both parties following a torch the earth policy and that is not good for the country in any manner.
My only other comment is that usually I follow sports so that I am not too furious about asinine politics, but the NY teams are so awful there is no hope there. I can only hope that Derrick Rose somehow starts not having leg injuries and the Chicago Bulls have a lot of success. Last year, my Alma Mater Dutchmen found hockey success winning the NCAA Division 1 Frozen Four, but this year they are the target of motivated opposition and losing a lot of 1 goal games. Success is fleeting in this competitive world. That is also an apt way to view political/economic policy. The U.S. still has a competitive advantage in the world and I just hope that the Political War in D.C. doesn't squander it permanently. I do believe there is value on almost every issue in taking something from the Democrats and something from the Republicans to solve problems like Immigration, Tax Reform, the access to and cost of health care, putting entitlements on a sound financial footing. These are real problems that effect employment and full employment is how you get a strong economy.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
The Supreme Court
I have long recognized the importance of Supreme Court appointments, but also have held onto my youthful naivety that the Justices were all wise men who rendered decisions using an open minded belief that the law should be based upon principles and words without prejudgements. Why else would Republican appointed Judges render more liberal decisions and Democratic appointed judges conservative decisions.
But now I have read the biography of John Scalia. This took me a while (I have yet to crack a birthday book and that was nearly 3 months ago), but I finished today. I am no longer naive (although after Citizens United that naivety was pretty much shot). John Scalia dresses up his belief in principle as Originalism in the belief that the Courts should not make determinations that more rightly belong in the legislatures, but the biography and many other conservative and liberal observers of the court are cited in the biography to demonstrate (as Justice Scalia does in his own words as well) that pre-determinations based on political beliefs are pervasive in Supreme Court decisions. Particularly, the important ones.
And furthermore, it is not necessary for these determinations to be consistent. There is a rampant protection of individual rights in any number of ways in these more controversial decisions, but there is also an inconsistent desire to expand individual rights to formerly disadvantage segments of society. Scalia even goes so far as to say, "All men are created equal" is specifically addressed as being white men and it is up to the legislative (not judicial) process to change the law in favor of others. He is not sanctioning discrimination, but rather expressing a desire that courts not be expansive in their use of judicial rulings to determine things that should be determined by legislature. Yet, Scalia, has done exactly that in trumping manufactured individual rights to corporate free speech and delinking the concept of militia from the unfettered right to own a gun for protection. It is clear that the political agenda trumped the legislative intent, so the conservative justices are just as prone to judicial overreach as the liberal justices were in the Warren Court.
Several decades ago, a friend who was an attorney said that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision because of its judicial activism. He also happened to support a woman's right to choose as a political basis, but felt the court had read into the "Right to Privacy" a right that is not in the words or intent, and that the legislative process had been cut short.
I have two minds on this. One it is not fair to have some medical practice be legal in one state, not legal in others, and only those with money get to travel to the legal state to get their condition treated. On the other hand, abortion rights have poisoned the political waters between the parties and it would have been far better if all this had been revolved in state legislatures than the courts. Then it would be settled and not a live issue.
This is also the reason I think Chief Justice Roberts is inclined to leave ObamaCare alone from the stand point of the Supreme Court. If, unlike Justices Thomas and Scalia who do not read newspapers, Roberts does read the newspaper, Chief Justice Roberts knows that ObamaCare is really RomneyCare and was designed by the Heritage Foundation. It is Republican policy aimed at controlling the growth in the cost of healthcare. That is a political issue, not a judicial issue. It is far too hot a potato for the Supreme Court to say to 10 million people, your health insurance is not legal. So I am cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will leave ObamaCare in the hands of the Congress and the President.
I am not optimistic about overturning Citizens United. The 5 conservative justices have made the political decision that corporations are people constitutionally and deserving of unfettered free speech. That will not change until one of those 5 retire and is replaced by judge who recognized the right of a legislature to control campaign spending by requiring disclosure of who is giving what to whom. Since Justice Ginsburg is the next likely retirement and she is a liberal, the timing of that could only turn the balance in the wrong direction, or maintain it, not turn it in a positive one.
And then there is the situation of consistency. No one wants the Supreme Court making a bunch of decisions today only to have them overturned the other way in 10, 20 or 30 years. That is not good either.
I wish the Supreme Court operated the way I thought it did when I was a kid.
But now I have read the biography of John Scalia. This took me a while (I have yet to crack a birthday book and that was nearly 3 months ago), but I finished today. I am no longer naive (although after Citizens United that naivety was pretty much shot). John Scalia dresses up his belief in principle as Originalism in the belief that the Courts should not make determinations that more rightly belong in the legislatures, but the biography and many other conservative and liberal observers of the court are cited in the biography to demonstrate (as Justice Scalia does in his own words as well) that pre-determinations based on political beliefs are pervasive in Supreme Court decisions. Particularly, the important ones.
And furthermore, it is not necessary for these determinations to be consistent. There is a rampant protection of individual rights in any number of ways in these more controversial decisions, but there is also an inconsistent desire to expand individual rights to formerly disadvantage segments of society. Scalia even goes so far as to say, "All men are created equal" is specifically addressed as being white men and it is up to the legislative (not judicial) process to change the law in favor of others. He is not sanctioning discrimination, but rather expressing a desire that courts not be expansive in their use of judicial rulings to determine things that should be determined by legislature. Yet, Scalia, has done exactly that in trumping manufactured individual rights to corporate free speech and delinking the concept of militia from the unfettered right to own a gun for protection. It is clear that the political agenda trumped the legislative intent, so the conservative justices are just as prone to judicial overreach as the liberal justices were in the Warren Court.
Several decades ago, a friend who was an attorney said that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision because of its judicial activism. He also happened to support a woman's right to choose as a political basis, but felt the court had read into the "Right to Privacy" a right that is not in the words or intent, and that the legislative process had been cut short.
I have two minds on this. One it is not fair to have some medical practice be legal in one state, not legal in others, and only those with money get to travel to the legal state to get their condition treated. On the other hand, abortion rights have poisoned the political waters between the parties and it would have been far better if all this had been revolved in state legislatures than the courts. Then it would be settled and not a live issue.
This is also the reason I think Chief Justice Roberts is inclined to leave ObamaCare alone from the stand point of the Supreme Court. If, unlike Justices Thomas and Scalia who do not read newspapers, Roberts does read the newspaper, Chief Justice Roberts knows that ObamaCare is really RomneyCare and was designed by the Heritage Foundation. It is Republican policy aimed at controlling the growth in the cost of healthcare. That is a political issue, not a judicial issue. It is far too hot a potato for the Supreme Court to say to 10 million people, your health insurance is not legal. So I am cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will leave ObamaCare in the hands of the Congress and the President.
I am not optimistic about overturning Citizens United. The 5 conservative justices have made the political decision that corporations are people constitutionally and deserving of unfettered free speech. That will not change until one of those 5 retire and is replaced by judge who recognized the right of a legislature to control campaign spending by requiring disclosure of who is giving what to whom. Since Justice Ginsburg is the next likely retirement and she is a liberal, the timing of that could only turn the balance in the wrong direction, or maintain it, not turn it in a positive one.
And then there is the situation of consistency. No one wants the Supreme Court making a bunch of decisions today only to have them overturned the other way in 10, 20 or 30 years. That is not good either.
I wish the Supreme Court operated the way I thought it did when I was a kid.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Interesting Thoughts on a Sunday
China announced yesterday a plan to invest something in excess of $100 billion in infrastructure. I hope it includes pollution control spending because the air in China is very dirty. I also contrast that with the U.S. where we can't even fund road maintenance adequately so that bridges don't collapse underneath innocent drivers. (Ok, that hasn't happened in a while, but it will happen again.)
Ross Douthat wrote an interesting column hoping that Marco Rubio and Rand Paul duke it out with a vigorous policy debate. He finds interesting policy proposals within both of their beliefs (as do I on occasion) but is not sure they will cut through the Tea Party obstructionism that propelled both into the Senate. I will say that Rubio did support and sculpt the now dead comprehensive immigration reform that the Senate passed last year and died in the Tea Party House of Representatives. Which is also where comprehensive Tax Reform died. But Rubio is closer to John McCain on foreign policy while Rand Paul is more isolationist than Obama, and I like Obama balance more than either of the other extremes.
Link to Ross Douthat column
Thomas Friedman wrote a column on Makers and Breakers using the internet and focused more on the Makers. But the observation of the Breakers is much more challenging. The internet allows Jihadists to communicate very easily and inspire the potential for anarchy almost anywhere. The government can try but they cannot protect us from this anymore then they can protect us from random acts of teenage gun violence. Sh*t has always happened and it will continue to happen. That is life in a global society of 7 billion people. Policy makers can only control the big impulses, they have no control over the details for every individual. And the individual must be responsible for themselves.
Ultra Conservative Republicans believe that Democrats don't understand that, but you cannot protect the upper class sense of safety if you don't prevent desperation from fostering anarchy in your midst. That is what has happened in Iraq and Syria.
So when we are discussing policy, politicians need to remember that they are there to foster the collective safety of the population by preventing anarchy while allowing the creative forces of capitalism to improve the standard of living for all.
On that front, it is interesting that politicians of both parties are anti-Uber and anti-AirBnB because they compete with regulated interests that contribute money to both parties. So you have local politicians of both parties trying to squash Uber and AirBnb which is really why you need a free press that is open to investigating both parties, not the partisan cable channel model in which one side does no wrong and criticisms of the other party are so constant they have no credibility.
Ross Douthat wrote an interesting column hoping that Marco Rubio and Rand Paul duke it out with a vigorous policy debate. He finds interesting policy proposals within both of their beliefs (as do I on occasion) but is not sure they will cut through the Tea Party obstructionism that propelled both into the Senate. I will say that Rubio did support and sculpt the now dead comprehensive immigration reform that the Senate passed last year and died in the Tea Party House of Representatives. Which is also where comprehensive Tax Reform died. But Rubio is closer to John McCain on foreign policy while Rand Paul is more isolationist than Obama, and I like Obama balance more than either of the other extremes.
Link to Ross Douthat column
Thomas Friedman wrote a column on Makers and Breakers using the internet and focused more on the Makers. But the observation of the Breakers is much more challenging. The internet allows Jihadists to communicate very easily and inspire the potential for anarchy almost anywhere. The government can try but they cannot protect us from this anymore then they can protect us from random acts of teenage gun violence. Sh*t has always happened and it will continue to happen. That is life in a global society of 7 billion people. Policy makers can only control the big impulses, they have no control over the details for every individual. And the individual must be responsible for themselves.
Ultra Conservative Republicans believe that Democrats don't understand that, but you cannot protect the upper class sense of safety if you don't prevent desperation from fostering anarchy in your midst. That is what has happened in Iraq and Syria.
So when we are discussing policy, politicians need to remember that they are there to foster the collective safety of the population by preventing anarchy while allowing the creative forces of capitalism to improve the standard of living for all.
On that front, it is interesting that politicians of both parties are anti-Uber and anti-AirBnB because they compete with regulated interests that contribute money to both parties. So you have local politicians of both parties trying to squash Uber and AirBnb which is really why you need a free press that is open to investigating both parties, not the partisan cable channel model in which one side does no wrong and criticisms of the other party are so constant they have no credibility.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Election Musings
Well the GOP swamped the Democrat's, even where the Democrats were reasonably conservative. And so-called independent voters were the reason for the strong GOP support.
What were the possible causes of such a loss of support in the ranks of the independents? It could be the weight of the GOP slander that Obama and his minions in Congress are incompetent, but I don't think that is the root cause. That just motivates the core GOP to get out and vote.
I think the there are two root causes. One is the inevitable disappointment that occurs in middle of a recovery from a credit induced recession. Income stagnation lasts for at least 5 to 10 years after such a burst in the best of times. Throw in globalization, which marches on without hinderance, and the perception that the U.S. could be like Japan, which has had stagnant incomes for 20 years, and you are left with an angry electorate that does not benefit from globalization. They blame Obama for not improving their situation.
The second root cause is the failure of Obama to find common ground with the GOP on any front. Now the GOP Congress may not have been willing to find any reasonable middle with Obama on any front, but by giving up and fighting the fight that hard left wanted fought, Obama basically abandoned conservative Democrats in conservative states. If you go through my history of this blog, you will find my skepticism that the GOP were willing to compromise preferring to ruin the Obama Presidency and slow down economic growth in the country in the process. This predominantly relates to infrastructure spending and immigration reform.
So, now the GOP has a decision to make. Compromise with the President or continue being obstructionist only. And the President has a decision to make, compromise with the Congress and make progress on something, or just let the market forces continue to reduce the budget deficit while income remains stagnant and the voters hate Washington for not doing something positive.
Remember this blog is named "Things Get Accomplished in the Middle".
What were the possible causes of such a loss of support in the ranks of the independents? It could be the weight of the GOP slander that Obama and his minions in Congress are incompetent, but I don't think that is the root cause. That just motivates the core GOP to get out and vote.
I think the there are two root causes. One is the inevitable disappointment that occurs in middle of a recovery from a credit induced recession. Income stagnation lasts for at least 5 to 10 years after such a burst in the best of times. Throw in globalization, which marches on without hinderance, and the perception that the U.S. could be like Japan, which has had stagnant incomes for 20 years, and you are left with an angry electorate that does not benefit from globalization. They blame Obama for not improving their situation.
The second root cause is the failure of Obama to find common ground with the GOP on any front. Now the GOP Congress may not have been willing to find any reasonable middle with Obama on any front, but by giving up and fighting the fight that hard left wanted fought, Obama basically abandoned conservative Democrats in conservative states. If you go through my history of this blog, you will find my skepticism that the GOP were willing to compromise preferring to ruin the Obama Presidency and slow down economic growth in the country in the process. This predominantly relates to infrastructure spending and immigration reform.
So, now the GOP has a decision to make. Compromise with the President or continue being obstructionist only. And the President has a decision to make, compromise with the Congress and make progress on something, or just let the market forces continue to reduce the budget deficit while income remains stagnant and the voters hate Washington for not doing something positive.
Remember this blog is named "Things Get Accomplished in the Middle".
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Roots & Immigration
I am watching Henry Louis Gates Jr's "Finding Your Roots".
Tonight he is showing what the search into 3 prominent Jews revealed about their Roots. No Yiddish Land Jew can look at such at history and not say "There but for the grace of God, go I."
28 Jews were allowed into the U.S. and escaped Nazi Germany because a brave man said they would have jobs when they got here. Alan Dershowitz said a truthful statement about my life: I am here because my great grandparents made brave decisions.
I am here because of brave great-parents and brave grand parents.
Immigration made me and made this country great. We should never ever turn people who want to be here away. They will work harder then any native born person to succeed.
I don't understand why the GOP hates immigrants.
Tonight he is showing what the search into 3 prominent Jews revealed about their Roots. No Yiddish Land Jew can look at such at history and not say "There but for the grace of God, go I."
28 Jews were allowed into the U.S. and escaped Nazi Germany because a brave man said they would have jobs when they got here. Alan Dershowitz said a truthful statement about my life: I am here because my great grandparents made brave decisions.
I am here because of brave great-parents and brave grand parents.
Immigration made me and made this country great. We should never ever turn people who want to be here away. They will work harder then any native born person to succeed.
I don't understand why the GOP hates immigrants.
Jon Stewart Nails a Truth
The GOP doesn't want anyone to check your ID (background checks) when you buy a gun, but they do want to check your ID before you vote.
How many people have been killed by guns randomly vs how many fraudulent votes have determined elections?
Just asking.
How many people have been killed by guns randomly vs how many fraudulent votes have determined elections?
Just asking.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
This is Why NYC Democrats Have to Have GOP Opponents
Uncontested elections lead to corruption, there can be no doubt about that. Proof of that statement has consistently arisen in Sheldon Silver's corrupt running of the NY State Assembly. Sheldon Silver runs the Brooklyn Democratic regime.
The Congressional District for that area is shared with Staten Island. Staten Island represents GOP strength and Brooklyn Democratic strength. The current GOP Congressman is under indictment for tax evasion. You would think any newspaper concerned with clean government would want to endorse the opponent for that corrupt Congressman.
But who do the Brooklyn Democrats nominate as the GOP Congressman's opponent?
I now quote the Daily News Editorial page endorsing the corrupt GOP Congressman.
"In Domenic Recchia, the Democrats have fielded a candidate so dumb, ill-informed, evasive and inarticulate that voting for a thuggish Republican who could wind up in jail makes rational sense."
"Should he be convicted, Congressman Grimm has promised to resign, paving the way for a match between two fresh candidates. All the better."
"Rechhia, a former city councilman, is clueless as to the issues. He accomplished the unprecedented feat of failing to give a single coherent answer when he was interviewed by the Daily News Editorial Board."
"He was equally incoherent in debates. He could not give a straight answer as to whether he supports an increase in the minimum wage."
"When asked about foreign policy credentials, he boasted of having run a student exchange program."
"Unfortunately, Grimm is the only alternative when the mantra must be anyone but Rechhia."
I have seen Recchia's ad's. Even in those scripted scenes he comes across as an idiot.
It is really too bad I don't live on Staten Island. Then I could have volunteered to run against Grimm and probably have won.
The Congressional District for that area is shared with Staten Island. Staten Island represents GOP strength and Brooklyn Democratic strength. The current GOP Congressman is under indictment for tax evasion. You would think any newspaper concerned with clean government would want to endorse the opponent for that corrupt Congressman.
But who do the Brooklyn Democrats nominate as the GOP Congressman's opponent?
I now quote the Daily News Editorial page endorsing the corrupt GOP Congressman.
"In Domenic Recchia, the Democrats have fielded a candidate so dumb, ill-informed, evasive and inarticulate that voting for a thuggish Republican who could wind up in jail makes rational sense."
"Should he be convicted, Congressman Grimm has promised to resign, paving the way for a match between two fresh candidates. All the better."
"Rechhia, a former city councilman, is clueless as to the issues. He accomplished the unprecedented feat of failing to give a single coherent answer when he was interviewed by the Daily News Editorial Board."
"He was equally incoherent in debates. He could not give a straight answer as to whether he supports an increase in the minimum wage."
"When asked about foreign policy credentials, he boasted of having run a student exchange program."
"Unfortunately, Grimm is the only alternative when the mantra must be anyone but Rechhia."
I have seen Recchia's ad's. Even in those scripted scenes he comes across as an idiot.
It is really too bad I don't live on Staten Island. Then I could have volunteered to run against Grimm and probably have won.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)