I don't want to jump the gun on this, but after seeing Paul Ryan blabber his way though another interview on many issues and then reading the column I will link to below, I think the headline is true.
I would rather be skiing today in the semi-blizzard that is hitting us right now, but I wasn't up for driving 2 to 3 hours through it both ways to do so. So here is one day when I would rather be living in BTV.
Anyway, despite Paul Ryan saying the GOP was working on a replacement for ObamaCare, it turns out that are not even talking about it quietly. I have gone into these reasons ad nauseum in prior posts, but I will do so again for any new readers.
The ACA, aka ObamaCare, was designed by the Heritage Foundation, a right wing think tank. It was designed to keep the private health insurance market solvent so it would be a viable alternative to Universal Health Insurance provided by the Federal Government, while controlling the aggregate cost of health care in the economy, which in the U.S. is close to 20% of GDP vs 10%-12% of most of the rest of the Industrial World. And of course, the 1st Governor to implement this design was Gov. Romney the 2012 GOP candidate for President.
So, the ACA is the best design the GOP has for controlling the aggregate cost of health care while not adopting a single payer health insurance plan, or even a public option for people who don't have health insurance through their employer and have too much money to be on Medicaid, the state run national plan for providing health insurance to the poor.
Of course, the key is forcing younger healthy people to buy health insurance so those who get cancer or some other horrible illness can be treated in a timely manner and are covered and older people who have even more go wrong sometime and with frequency can afford to buy health insurance.
And while I think all of this is an argument to offer Medicare for All as an option, the GOP doesn't want to do that and they don't want to require everybody to buy health insurance, except that is the only way the ACA can work. You have to require that healthy people share in the risk pool financially because they will end up in the risk pool eventually. It's the same risk sharing principle behind every other kind of insurance and even why we pay taxes to support the public safety system, the judicial system (to protect our rights) and to pay for national defense.
Link to WAPO column that prompted this
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Friday, April 1, 2016
The GOP's Problem from my RINO Point of View and the Democrat's Challenge
There are really two problems and they combine to make winning the Electoral College a challenge. One could say the same thing for the Democrats and I will below.
The biggest challenge to the GOP is trickle down economics which the high income people love doesn't work for Blue Collar workers and these people have lost their economic base over the last 20 years and have now woken up to that fact and are angry about it. So they like their social security and Medicare and Medicaid and don't want it messed with.
The second problem is the GOP has driven out its socially liberal financially conservative members such as myself by being disrespectful to anyone who thinks people of all persuasions deserve their liberties under the Constitution.
The Democratic's challenge is to protect the social safety net without going overboard with it, and that is why I will be voting for Hillary in two weeks in the NY primary because we cannot afford free college tuition for everybody. Bernie is raising young peoples hopes without a hope or prayer of it being affordable. And the Democrat's challenge is to keep the party respectful of gun owners rights and religious people so people like that will vote for a Democrat once in a while or maybe even more often than that.
The Democrat's have not done well with their challenge over the last 6 years, but I will say this. President Obama has one potential great achievement that will go down in history as one of the most unbelievable accomplishments when not trying to achieve something. The President has generated so much dislike that the energy emanating from the anti-Obama movement has exploded in 3 directions and threatens to cause the GOP to divide into two parties: The Trump movement which is attractive to the anti-immigration, we want respect and we don't trust GOP leadership crowd; the Cruz movement which is attractive to the socially conservative, anti-tax and we don't trust GOP leadership crowd; and the Big Business trickle down crowd which has historically provided the GOP leadership. RINO's of course are now Democrats or Independents.
The biggest challenge to the GOP is trickle down economics which the high income people love doesn't work for Blue Collar workers and these people have lost their economic base over the last 20 years and have now woken up to that fact and are angry about it. So they like their social security and Medicare and Medicaid and don't want it messed with.
The second problem is the GOP has driven out its socially liberal financially conservative members such as myself by being disrespectful to anyone who thinks people of all persuasions deserve their liberties under the Constitution.
The Democratic's challenge is to protect the social safety net without going overboard with it, and that is why I will be voting for Hillary in two weeks in the NY primary because we cannot afford free college tuition for everybody. Bernie is raising young peoples hopes without a hope or prayer of it being affordable. And the Democrat's challenge is to keep the party respectful of gun owners rights and religious people so people like that will vote for a Democrat once in a while or maybe even more often than that.
The Democrat's have not done well with their challenge over the last 6 years, but I will say this. President Obama has one potential great achievement that will go down in history as one of the most unbelievable accomplishments when not trying to achieve something. The President has generated so much dislike that the energy emanating from the anti-Obama movement has exploded in 3 directions and threatens to cause the GOP to divide into two parties: The Trump movement which is attractive to the anti-immigration, we want respect and we don't trust GOP leadership crowd; the Cruz movement which is attractive to the socially conservative, anti-tax and we don't trust GOP leadership crowd; and the Big Business trickle down crowd which has historically provided the GOP leadership. RINO's of course are now Democrats or Independents.
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Sequestration is Helping the GOP Destroy Regulation, while George Will speaks common sense
If the Democrat's don't start calling out the GOP for this in a concise easily understood manner, there are going to be more Flints and eventually a dismantling of Dodd Frank and another banking crisis, not to mention what other environmental disasters may happen.
After using sequestration to reduce many agencies ability to enforce laws, and passing other laws to make the Federal Agency subservient to the States, the Congressional GOP is accusing the EPA of failing to do their job when all they did was follow the instruction the GOP Congress gave them.
And people wonder why so many voters are disgusted with the GOP establishment. The only thing I wonder is why they flock to Donald Trump rather than the Democrats, but I guess his discriminatory bent is the answer to that.
Link to "poisonous conservative thinking that cause Flint crisis"
And George Will slams the Senate GOP on their desire to ignore the Supreme Court nomination.
Link to George Will
After using sequestration to reduce many agencies ability to enforce laws, and passing other laws to make the Federal Agency subservient to the States, the Congressional GOP is accusing the EPA of failing to do their job when all they did was follow the instruction the GOP Congress gave them.
And people wonder why so many voters are disgusted with the GOP establishment. The only thing I wonder is why they flock to Donald Trump rather than the Democrats, but I guess his discriminatory bent is the answer to that.
Link to "poisonous conservative thinking that cause Flint crisis"
And George Will slams the Senate GOP on their desire to ignore the Supreme Court nomination.
Link to George Will
Thursday, March 17, 2016
The GOP Leadership Tried to Delegitimize President Obama
and in the process they delegitimized themselves.
You might have thought that the rise of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz despite the absolute disgust most GOP Leaders have for both them would have been sufficient evidence for that statement.
But then I saw a news article that illustrates the difference in the delegate rules for each party. It is well worth reading as it shows the danger of market policies running amok without wise people being able to put a stop to out of control tendencies. And if you don't stop out of control tendencies when they are small, they become bigger.
If people were individually wise and moral, there wouldn't be religion. The powers that be 1394, 2016, 3102, 4714, 5774 years ago wouldn't have felt the need to encourage people to behave morally. By the way for the odd creationist who comes across this blog, those years are the year it is today for the Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Chinese and Hebrew calendars.
But I digress. I am a person of the markets and a product of big bank risk management processes. I believed to my great personal financial detriment that big bank risk management processes combined with regulation would be able to control greed and other motivating things that can cause a financial crisis. I was wrong and I now even more firmly believe that sound regulation is needed of certain things; banks, financial markets and monopoly industries for a start.
You would think the failure of the Bush II administration to balance the budget and regulate effectively would have caused the GOP to rethink there adherence to the wishes of Grover Norquist and the policies of less regulation. But no, so far the only effective policy implemented by the GOP during the Obama administration is sequestration which arbitrarily reduces the money available to run the government effectively. The result of this ineffectiveness is people are mad at Washington and a sufficient number of the GOP are voting for Donald Trump, who may or may not fund the government effectively, but will certainly try to keep Social Security and Medicare funded.
And the rise of Trump/Cruz can be directly tied to the GOP belief in the power of the market. That is the way their delegate rules are designed. The Democrats delegate rules reflect their belief that senior leaders should be able to control the masses. This campaign illustrates very well why the GOP is not a legitimate party at this time with their over reliance on a faith in markets should rule at all times. It was a very good article to read and I post the link below.
Link to Delegate Rules article
You might have thought that the rise of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz despite the absolute disgust most GOP Leaders have for both them would have been sufficient evidence for that statement.
But then I saw a news article that illustrates the difference in the delegate rules for each party. It is well worth reading as it shows the danger of market policies running amok without wise people being able to put a stop to out of control tendencies. And if you don't stop out of control tendencies when they are small, they become bigger.
If people were individually wise and moral, there wouldn't be religion. The powers that be 1394, 2016, 3102, 4714, 5774 years ago wouldn't have felt the need to encourage people to behave morally. By the way for the odd creationist who comes across this blog, those years are the year it is today for the Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Chinese and Hebrew calendars.
But I digress. I am a person of the markets and a product of big bank risk management processes. I believed to my great personal financial detriment that big bank risk management processes combined with regulation would be able to control greed and other motivating things that can cause a financial crisis. I was wrong and I now even more firmly believe that sound regulation is needed of certain things; banks, financial markets and monopoly industries for a start.
You would think the failure of the Bush II administration to balance the budget and regulate effectively would have caused the GOP to rethink there adherence to the wishes of Grover Norquist and the policies of less regulation. But no, so far the only effective policy implemented by the GOP during the Obama administration is sequestration which arbitrarily reduces the money available to run the government effectively. The result of this ineffectiveness is people are mad at Washington and a sufficient number of the GOP are voting for Donald Trump, who may or may not fund the government effectively, but will certainly try to keep Social Security and Medicare funded.
And the rise of Trump/Cruz can be directly tied to the GOP belief in the power of the market. That is the way their delegate rules are designed. The Democrats delegate rules reflect their belief that senior leaders should be able to control the masses. This campaign illustrates very well why the GOP is not a legitimate party at this time with their over reliance on a faith in markets should rule at all times. It was a very good article to read and I post the link below.
Link to Delegate Rules article
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Ross Douthat Analyzes Just How Bad GOP Policies Have Been and Are
Only a GOP policy pundit wonk could write this. While he is correct about immigration in his analysis of the GOP, he fails to look at it in broader terms of what is best for the country.
Link To column
And Thomas Friedman lays out how politicians from both parties are using global trade in a false manner.
Link to Friedman defense of Trade Treaties
Link To column
And Thomas Friedman lays out how politicians from both parties are using global trade in a false manner.
Link to Friedman defense of Trade Treaties
Sunday, March 13, 2016
The Trump Conundrum for the GOP
Finally, some parts of the GOP are saying that they will not support Donald Trump and will vote for the Democrat or not vote at all. These appear to be mostly neoconservatives who might vote for Hillary but are not likely to vote for Bernie.
But Ross Douthat has a radical idea that was a normal part of party politics in the 1800's; the smokey back room party leadership should just nominate who they want to. While this would upset the 30% to 40% of GOP primary voters who believe in Donald Trump and are angry at both party's leadership for failing to protect them from technological advance, globalization, and immigration, it would at least sustain the GOP as a party of some type of conservative standing at the likely cost of the 2016 Presidential election. But so would a Trump candidacy, I hope and secularly pray.
What Douthat does not address in this idea, is how will the GOP ever address the real world concerns of these angry voters. Doesn't it involve some concept of accepting a certain concept of the safety net? Doesn't it involve some concept that the Government has functions to perform and there is a need to pay for it with tax revenues? Doesn't it involve some concept of tax reform so our tax structure is competitive with other nations? Just campaigning on a pledge to cut taxes and never raise them again does not address these issues.
And let me say, I don't think anything would have protected many of these workers from: (i) technological advance - that is a home grown development; (ii) from globalization - China is an enormous engine and multi-national companies are free to go where the growth is; and (iii) immigration - most jobs undocumented immigrants do are jobs an insufficient number of white American's want to do.
So finding some policies that appease these angry voters should be a point of policy debate. I don't have the answer.
Link to Douthat column
And the Washington Post has 7 leaders of the GOP posting what they think. Jim Leach agrees with me and Ari Fleischer puts forth my worst fear. Also commenting are Eric Cantor, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol , Haley Barber and Danielle Pletka.
Link to 7 Conservatives
And lastly a view on how this may play out over time with a realignment of voters supporting which party.
Link to Realignment column
But Ross Douthat has a radical idea that was a normal part of party politics in the 1800's; the smokey back room party leadership should just nominate who they want to. While this would upset the 30% to 40% of GOP primary voters who believe in Donald Trump and are angry at both party's leadership for failing to protect them from technological advance, globalization, and immigration, it would at least sustain the GOP as a party of some type of conservative standing at the likely cost of the 2016 Presidential election. But so would a Trump candidacy, I hope and secularly pray.
What Douthat does not address in this idea, is how will the GOP ever address the real world concerns of these angry voters. Doesn't it involve some concept of accepting a certain concept of the safety net? Doesn't it involve some concept that the Government has functions to perform and there is a need to pay for it with tax revenues? Doesn't it involve some concept of tax reform so our tax structure is competitive with other nations? Just campaigning on a pledge to cut taxes and never raise them again does not address these issues.
And let me say, I don't think anything would have protected many of these workers from: (i) technological advance - that is a home grown development; (ii) from globalization - China is an enormous engine and multi-national companies are free to go where the growth is; and (iii) immigration - most jobs undocumented immigrants do are jobs an insufficient number of white American's want to do.
So finding some policies that appease these angry voters should be a point of policy debate. I don't have the answer.
Link to Douthat column
And the Washington Post has 7 leaders of the GOP posting what they think. Jim Leach agrees with me and Ari Fleischer puts forth my worst fear. Also commenting are Eric Cantor, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol , Haley Barber and Danielle Pletka.
Link to 7 Conservatives
And lastly a view on how this may play out over time with a realignment of voters supporting which party.
Link to Realignment column
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
David Brooks Analyzes the GOP
and in the process starts agreeing with Thomas Friedman and me. But his words are more eloquent and his thought process clearer than mine. Which is why he gets the big bucks for punditry.
"Since Goldwater/Reagan, the GOP has been governed by a free-market, anti-government philosophy. But over the ensuing decades new problems have emerged. First, the economy has gotten crueler. Technology is displacing workers and globalization is dampening wages. Second, the social structure has atomized and frayed, especially among the less educated. Third, demography is shifting."
"Orthodox Republicans, see no positive role for government, have no affirmative agenda to help people deal with these new problems. Occasionally, some conservative policy mavens have proposed such an agenda - anti-poverty programs, human capital policies, wage subsidies and the like - but the proposals were killed, usually in the House, by the anti-government crowd."
The 1980's anti-government orthodoxy still has many followers; Ted Cruz is the extreme embodiment of this tendency. But it has grown increasingly rigid, unresponsive and obsolete."
"Along comes Donald Trump offering to replace it and change the nature of the GOP. He tramples all over the anti-government ideology of modern Republicanism. He would replace the free-market orthodoxy with authoritarian nationalism."
"He offers to use government on behalf of the American working class, but in negative and defensive ways: to build walls, to close trade, to ban outsiders, to smash enemies. According to him, America's problems aren't caused by deep structural shifts. They're caused by morons and parasites......"
"If the GOP is going to survive as a decent and viable national party, it can't cling to the fading orthodoxy Cruz represents. But it can't shift to ugly Trumpism, either. It has to find a third alternative: limited but energetic use of the government to expand mobility and widen openness and opportunity. That is what Kasich, Rubio and Paul Ryan and others are stumbling toward."
I would add, on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders represents a similar set of policies to Donald Trump and Hillary is stumbling toward a moderate balanced set of policies with somewhat more energetic use of government than Paul Ryan.
Link to Brooks column
"Since Goldwater/Reagan, the GOP has been governed by a free-market, anti-government philosophy. But over the ensuing decades new problems have emerged. First, the economy has gotten crueler. Technology is displacing workers and globalization is dampening wages. Second, the social structure has atomized and frayed, especially among the less educated. Third, demography is shifting."
"Orthodox Republicans, see no positive role for government, have no affirmative agenda to help people deal with these new problems. Occasionally, some conservative policy mavens have proposed such an agenda - anti-poverty programs, human capital policies, wage subsidies and the like - but the proposals were killed, usually in the House, by the anti-government crowd."
The 1980's anti-government orthodoxy still has many followers; Ted Cruz is the extreme embodiment of this tendency. But it has grown increasingly rigid, unresponsive and obsolete."
"Along comes Donald Trump offering to replace it and change the nature of the GOP. He tramples all over the anti-government ideology of modern Republicanism. He would replace the free-market orthodoxy with authoritarian nationalism."
"He offers to use government on behalf of the American working class, but in negative and defensive ways: to build walls, to close trade, to ban outsiders, to smash enemies. According to him, America's problems aren't caused by deep structural shifts. They're caused by morons and parasites......"
"If the GOP is going to survive as a decent and viable national party, it can't cling to the fading orthodoxy Cruz represents. But it can't shift to ugly Trumpism, either. It has to find a third alternative: limited but energetic use of the government to expand mobility and widen openness and opportunity. That is what Kasich, Rubio and Paul Ryan and others are stumbling toward."
I would add, on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders represents a similar set of policies to Donald Trump and Hillary is stumbling toward a moderate balanced set of policies with somewhat more energetic use of government than Paul Ryan.
Link to Brooks column
Thursday, March 3, 2016
You Reap What You Sow
or once a seed is planted, the plant grows to whatever height it was genetically programmed for.
This analogy applies to the GOP. They trafficked in racist undertones ever since President Obama was elected with leadership that did not refute Birthism, Socialism, statements of being a Muslim which ties into birthism, and of course calling the President a liar during the State of the Union.
And now they have Donald Trump leading that hatred right out into the open and the leaders wonder why they can't contain it.
We can only hope the voters do a better job of refuting this bad behavior by the now dominate wing of the GOP.
Link to EJ Dionne column that inspired this rant
This analogy applies to the GOP. They trafficked in racist undertones ever since President Obama was elected with leadership that did not refute Birthism, Socialism, statements of being a Muslim which ties into birthism, and of course calling the President a liar during the State of the Union.
And now they have Donald Trump leading that hatred right out into the open and the leaders wonder why they can't contain it.
We can only hope the voters do a better job of refuting this bad behavior by the now dominate wing of the GOP.
Link to EJ Dionne column that inspired this rant
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Observe, Orient, Decide, Act or Do Not and Die: Today's GOP is doing the latter as they do not Observe or Orient
Thomas Friedman as usual has some coherent observations.
The link is below and you should read the entire column, but I cannot help but emphasize his observation that the GOP "deep" Presidential bench "resembled nothing more than the "Star Wars" bar scene at the planet of Tatooine - that assortment of alien species, each more bizarre than the last, from a "galaxy far, far away."
Link to Friedman column
The link is below and you should read the entire column, but I cannot help but emphasize his observation that the GOP "deep" Presidential bench "resembled nothing more than the "Star Wars" bar scene at the planet of Tatooine - that assortment of alien species, each more bizarre than the last, from a "galaxy far, far away."
Link to Friedman column
Sunday, February 14, 2016
My Week in Political Thought 2/14/16
I started the week learning a lot about a segment of the underclass of America because I am doing taxes for the working poor and elderly, pro bono, meaning I don't earn any money doing this so it will not help me stay in my high property tax condo two blocks from a train station. Or as my friend Howard said to me when I complained about my need to make some money to pay property tax increases in the future, "you haven't really downsized yet". There is some truth in that.
Anyway, I digress. The truth is that the working poor are very gracious and thankful that someone like me will help someone like them. If they are in a difficult situation, they try to find happiness in what they can and they are generous when they can. A disabled man, who lives in a rooming house, played a $1 on powerball and won $10,000. This automatically triggered tax withholding, so he came to our site. I asked him what he had done with his winnings. He said, he had given some to the mother of his child so she could do something for him. He had paid off some bills and he had helped some friends who needed help. I then asked him what he would do with his tax refund. He said, buy some dentures because he hadn't had any teeth for 5 years. Medicaid doesn't cover dental or vision, so he probably didn't take good care of his teeth and this is the result. And he is only one example of what I am finding across all my clients.
As for the primary election, I had to go north for an unfortunate funeral. I stayed with a friend, who like me, is pretty much middle of the road, has never voted for Bernie while either of us lived in Vermont (He still does), but are aghast at the right wing agenda and their dominance of the GOP. I asked him how his 3 boys felt about the election. He told me that they supported Bernie even though my friend sees the high risk that Bernie will lose all the swing states electing a GOP, and he has tried to explain that to them. But they see Obama as a Middle of the Road politician who failed them in their desire to see policies implemented that will save the environment. As much as I am a one issue person on access to health insurance, the environment is the most important issue for them. And either they don't trust Hillary or they see her as another Obama and they want someone to stand up for what they believe in and Bernie presents that to them.
So we will have a wide open election and the probability is high that the GOP will win. Because, if Bernie runs, Bloomberg will run and Bloomberg will have to attract 40% of the electorate and win the swing states as well as most of the Blue States to become President. And because I believe most of Bloomberg's voters would vote Democratic otherwise, that will likely throw the election in favor of the Republican, even if the Republican is Trump or Cruz.
The one caveat to all this is Mitch McConnell. He will stall on Obama's Supreme Court nomination to replace Antonin Scalia. If it looks like he is "trying to shut down the Judicial branch of the government" in doing so, he may give the Democrats and Bloomberg a chance to win especially if Trump or Cruz are the nominee because do you want to trust them with your Supreme Court appointments?
It is clear that the U.S. politics are polarized, volatile, and ironically, the likely Presidential candidates will be dedicated to policies that the other side hates and detests and this will make them even more angry.
Anyway, I digress. The truth is that the working poor are very gracious and thankful that someone like me will help someone like them. If they are in a difficult situation, they try to find happiness in what they can and they are generous when they can. A disabled man, who lives in a rooming house, played a $1 on powerball and won $10,000. This automatically triggered tax withholding, so he came to our site. I asked him what he had done with his winnings. He said, he had given some to the mother of his child so she could do something for him. He had paid off some bills and he had helped some friends who needed help. I then asked him what he would do with his tax refund. He said, buy some dentures because he hadn't had any teeth for 5 years. Medicaid doesn't cover dental or vision, so he probably didn't take good care of his teeth and this is the result. And he is only one example of what I am finding across all my clients.
As for the primary election, I had to go north for an unfortunate funeral. I stayed with a friend, who like me, is pretty much middle of the road, has never voted for Bernie while either of us lived in Vermont (He still does), but are aghast at the right wing agenda and their dominance of the GOP. I asked him how his 3 boys felt about the election. He told me that they supported Bernie even though my friend sees the high risk that Bernie will lose all the swing states electing a GOP, and he has tried to explain that to them. But they see Obama as a Middle of the Road politician who failed them in their desire to see policies implemented that will save the environment. As much as I am a one issue person on access to health insurance, the environment is the most important issue for them. And either they don't trust Hillary or they see her as another Obama and they want someone to stand up for what they believe in and Bernie presents that to them.
So we will have a wide open election and the probability is high that the GOP will win. Because, if Bernie runs, Bloomberg will run and Bloomberg will have to attract 40% of the electorate and win the swing states as well as most of the Blue States to become President. And because I believe most of Bloomberg's voters would vote Democratic otherwise, that will likely throw the election in favor of the Republican, even if the Republican is Trump or Cruz.
The one caveat to all this is Mitch McConnell. He will stall on Obama's Supreme Court nomination to replace Antonin Scalia. If it looks like he is "trying to shut down the Judicial branch of the government" in doing so, he may give the Democrats and Bloomberg a chance to win especially if Trump or Cruz are the nominee because do you want to trust them with your Supreme Court appointments?
It is clear that the U.S. politics are polarized, volatile, and ironically, the likely Presidential candidates will be dedicated to policies that the other side hates and detests and this will make them even more angry.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
The Conservative Case for Campaign Finance Reform by Richard Painter
"ALL Americans should be alarmed about the effects of money in politics. But it is conservatives who should be leading the fight for campaign-finance reform. Unfortunately, none of the Republican candidates for president have taken on this issue."
"Why should conservative voters care? First, big money in politics encourages big government. Campaign contributions drive spending on earmarks and other wasteful programs — bridges to nowhere, contracts for equipment the military does not need, solar energy companies that go bankrupt on the government’s dime and for-profit educational institutions that don’t educate. When politicians are dependent on campaign money from contractors and lobbyists, they’re incapable of holding spending programs to account."
"Campaign contributions also breed more regulation. Companies in heavily regulated industries such as banking, health care and energy are among the largest contributors. Such companies donate with the hope of winning narrowly tailored exceptions to regulations that help them and disadvantage their competitors. Politicians sometimes say they want to roll back regulations wholesale, but they rarely follow through because they know that less regulation will remove the incentive for future contributions. Some would call it extortion, but that is how the regulatory game is often played."
"Social conservatives and faith-based voters should care about big money in politics because it drowns out their voices on issues from abortion and euthanasia to gambling and pornography. Churches and other charitable groups are prohibited from contributing to campaigns or even endorsing candidates. Politicians pay them lip service, but their influence pales in comparison to large for-profit enterprises. Values don’t pay for campaigns; health insurance companies, entertainment businesses, the gambling industry and its online counterparts do."
"Remember the poor widow in the Gospel of Luke who contributed coins to the temple treasury? She is the values voter of today. If religious conservatives want to accomplish their goals, they first need to drive the big spenders out of the temples of our democracy."
"Our campaign-finance system is also a national security risk. In a global economy, corporate wealth is no longer mostly American. American companies are owned by, borrow money from, and do business with foreign governments, companies, sovereign wealth funds and oligarchs. Equating corporate wealth with free political speech, as the Supreme Court did in its 2010 Citizens United decision, means that global economic power will help choose our government. Organizations that are not required to disclose the identities of their donors use their “free speech” rights to produce election ads; only the most naïve can believe the money behind those organizations is all American."
"It is, of course, illegal for foreigners and foreign companies to contribute to American political campaigns. Those restrictions, however, are as easy to evade as underage drinking laws on college campuses. There is a big money party going on in Washington and telling well-heeled foreigners that they can’t attend simply won’t work. They may act more discreetly than their American counterparts, but they will be there, and that so little of what goes on at the party is disclosed makes foreign participation that much easier."
"All this is a betrayal of conservative values. Conservative political leaders from Edmund Burke in the 18th century to Senator John McCain in the 21st have expressed dismay over the cost of elections and the corrupting influence of money in politics. The 1964 Republican presidential nominee, Senator Barry Goldwater, in his 1960 book “The Conscience of a Conservative,” wrote: “In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions — or corporations — to participate in politics.” He also strenuously objected to the Supreme Court’s obstruction of campaign finance reform beginning in the 1970s."
"More important, the system is a betrayal of the vision of participatory democracy embraced by the founders of our country. They rebelled against oligarchy and corruption in England. They tossed the British tea into Boston Harbor in 1773 and demanded taxation only with representation. We should do the same."
"Taxation in the United States should be conditioned on every individual taxpayer’s being allowed to designate the first $200 of his or her taxes to support a political candidate. Such a “tax rebate for democracy” would bring billions of small donations to political candidates, who would no longer depend on a tiny sliver of the population for the money they need to get elected. Government contractors and other beneficiaries of wasteful spending would have less influence, and ordinary voters would have a fighting chance to make sure the rest of their tax dollars were spent conservatively and responsibly."
"This and other reforms, including greater transparency about who is paying for election ads, and a less activist Supreme Court that would allow Congress and state legislatures to address campaign finance, would go a long way toward restoring the republican form of government that our founders embedded in the Constitution."
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Why Flint, Michigan's Water is Important, Politically
There is lead in Flint, Michigan's water because local GOP officials, of all races, focused on cutting costs without thinking through other issues that needed thinking through. This was not environmental racism, although that may exist in certain places and may have existed in some individual's responses to information as it came to light, but it is not part of the defining moment here.
Background:
Flint, Michigan, a city of near 100,000, went bankrupt and was taken over administratively by the state, which has a GOP governor, who was a big time businessman. He had to figure out a way to fix Flint's finances, while minimizing the cost to Michigan taxpayers who are not residents of Flint or part of its local economy. So, one thing the new local administration did was switch from Detroit's water so the local river water because Detroit, also in state administration for poor financial management, was charging Flint a lot for sharing Detroit's water.
Danger of Sole Focus on Cost
What should have happened? After deciding that the Flint river was an option, experts should have been consulted as to whether the water was safe to drink. Apparently, water can be safe to drink but if chemicals are not added to it to protect the water pipes, the water pipes can corrode from stuff in the water from past pollution and the water pipes release stuff, including lead, into the water flowing through the pipe. There are water experts who know that this type of analysis is standard operating procedure in well run water departments.
It is easy to see why costs were a focus, but you see in today's GOP a distrust of expertise, if such expertise thwarts a political goal. And cutting costs so you can cut government revenues is the overriding policy of today's GOP at all levels of government. But when you cut the cost of things that protect the public's safety, you lose the support of the public. That is why our doomed to failure goal of zero terrorist events is unofficial policy. Politicians of every political persuasion practice a policy of trying to achieve 100% protection against terrorism because people want to be safe.
Well, fire response, policing, national defense are no more important to the population than environmental safety. That is the good fact that we see in both the voting population's response to Flint and the GOP governor's acknowledgment that he failed the people of Flint. It means that the GOP, despite numerous Presidential candidate's pledging to shut down the EPA, will face a political uproar if the Democrats paint accurately just what the EPA does to protect the population and what will happen if there is no more EPA. There will be degradation of the water and air in the country because pollution costs business nothing and the cost is spread across society; and preventing pollution costs business because they put the cost raises prices and reduces volumes, lower profits, but protecting society in ways which allow other businesses to sell products and satisfy social goods.
Why the Environment is Important
1st, lead has been removed from paint because lead is very dangerous to the development of the brain in children. It reduces their IQ and if they ingest enough, they become so mentally disabled they become retarded and wards of the state. So there is a cost that local governments must pay if they try to cut costs protecting the environment. Traditionally, lead has not been widely ingested, so, unfortunately, Flint is a major experiment in what happens to a population of all ages if there is wide spread consumption of lead in volume.
2nd, if there was no EPA, paper companies and other industry would be dumping stuff into the water. That is why the Flint river is polluted to begin with, the auto industry was dumping stuff into the river for decades before the Clean Water Act and the EPA forced them to stop. But they didn't force them to clean up the sediment in the river which still has all that bad stuff in it.
Why is Flint so Important?
Society pretty much takes for granted our current state of relatively clean water and air. Society is not divided about the need for clean drinking water and clean air. This is where the GOP governor's response is so important, if local GOP leaders start to acknowledge the environment is important, then GOP leaders in places where the rise is sea level is going to effect communities are going to have to develop some policy position on global warming other than denial or "it is too late and too costly to do anything about it". Society is very divided about green house gases, and this is where leadership is needed. Local leaders are going to have educate the population and do something to motivate a change in GOP national policy on Global Warming.
We can only hope that the Democrat's figure out a way to message all this, with a focus on costs and not on environmental racism. Not everything is racism, people of all races are effected by the environment.
Background:
Flint, Michigan, a city of near 100,000, went bankrupt and was taken over administratively by the state, which has a GOP governor, who was a big time businessman. He had to figure out a way to fix Flint's finances, while minimizing the cost to Michigan taxpayers who are not residents of Flint or part of its local economy. So, one thing the new local administration did was switch from Detroit's water so the local river water because Detroit, also in state administration for poor financial management, was charging Flint a lot for sharing Detroit's water.
Danger of Sole Focus on Cost
What should have happened? After deciding that the Flint river was an option, experts should have been consulted as to whether the water was safe to drink. Apparently, water can be safe to drink but if chemicals are not added to it to protect the water pipes, the water pipes can corrode from stuff in the water from past pollution and the water pipes release stuff, including lead, into the water flowing through the pipe. There are water experts who know that this type of analysis is standard operating procedure in well run water departments.
It is easy to see why costs were a focus, but you see in today's GOP a distrust of expertise, if such expertise thwarts a political goal. And cutting costs so you can cut government revenues is the overriding policy of today's GOP at all levels of government. But when you cut the cost of things that protect the public's safety, you lose the support of the public. That is why our doomed to failure goal of zero terrorist events is unofficial policy. Politicians of every political persuasion practice a policy of trying to achieve 100% protection against terrorism because people want to be safe.
Well, fire response, policing, national defense are no more important to the population than environmental safety. That is the good fact that we see in both the voting population's response to Flint and the GOP governor's acknowledgment that he failed the people of Flint. It means that the GOP, despite numerous Presidential candidate's pledging to shut down the EPA, will face a political uproar if the Democrats paint accurately just what the EPA does to protect the population and what will happen if there is no more EPA. There will be degradation of the water and air in the country because pollution costs business nothing and the cost is spread across society; and preventing pollution costs business because they put the cost raises prices and reduces volumes, lower profits, but protecting society in ways which allow other businesses to sell products and satisfy social goods.
Why the Environment is Important
1st, lead has been removed from paint because lead is very dangerous to the development of the brain in children. It reduces their IQ and if they ingest enough, they become so mentally disabled they become retarded and wards of the state. So there is a cost that local governments must pay if they try to cut costs protecting the environment. Traditionally, lead has not been widely ingested, so, unfortunately, Flint is a major experiment in what happens to a population of all ages if there is wide spread consumption of lead in volume.
2nd, if there was no EPA, paper companies and other industry would be dumping stuff into the water. That is why the Flint river is polluted to begin with, the auto industry was dumping stuff into the river for decades before the Clean Water Act and the EPA forced them to stop. But they didn't force them to clean up the sediment in the river which still has all that bad stuff in it.
Why is Flint so Important?
Society pretty much takes for granted our current state of relatively clean water and air. Society is not divided about the need for clean drinking water and clean air. This is where the GOP governor's response is so important, if local GOP leaders start to acknowledge the environment is important, then GOP leaders in places where the rise is sea level is going to effect communities are going to have to develop some policy position on global warming other than denial or "it is too late and too costly to do anything about it". Society is very divided about green house gases, and this is where leadership is needed. Local leaders are going to have educate the population and do something to motivate a change in GOP national policy on Global Warming.
We can only hope that the Democrat's figure out a way to message all this, with a focus on costs and not on environmental racism. Not everything is racism, people of all races are effected by the environment.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
The Jeb Bush Press Machine Gets Going
George Will slamming Marco Rubio
Link to George Will Column on Rubio's misjudgment
Jennifer Rubin slamming Ted Cruz
Link To Rubin column on Cruz's untrustworthiness
Peter Wehner, Reagan/Bush I/Bush II official, on why he won't vote for Trump even if he is nominated
Link to Peter Wehner column on Trump
Note to RedStateVT: This is liberal journalism? I think the newspapers are fairly balanced when overall. They do have a public track record that can be monitored and are accountable for mistakes, unlike Fox and Talk Radio.
Link to George Will Column on Rubio's misjudgment
Jennifer Rubin slamming Ted Cruz
Link To Rubin column on Cruz's untrustworthiness
Peter Wehner, Reagan/Bush I/Bush II official, on why he won't vote for Trump even if he is nominated
Link to Peter Wehner column on Trump
Note to RedStateVT: This is liberal journalism? I think the newspapers are fairly balanced when overall. They do have a public track record that can be monitored and are accountable for mistakes, unlike Fox and Talk Radio.
Friday, January 8, 2016
The U.S. Cannot Take Sides in the Sunni Shiite Civil War
The gung ho send the military everywhere GOP needs to remember that when the U.S. invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, it empowered the Shiites and we need the Shiites do counter ISIS/Al Qaeda who are Sunni Radicals and dedicated to over throwing regimes friendly to the U.S. even though residents of those countries are funding the terrorist organizations.
And there will be no peace in the Israeli Palestinian confrontation unless we can cajole Iran into better behavior and get Israel to give up the Settlements on the West Bank.
Inspired by the following column.
Link to column
And there will be no peace in the Israeli Palestinian confrontation unless we can cajole Iran into better behavior and get Israel to give up the Settlements on the West Bank.
Inspired by the following column.
Link to column
Friday, January 1, 2016
A Republican and A Democrat Remind Me Why I Entitled This Blog Things Get Accomplished in the MIddle
Trent Lott and Tom Daschle published a nice New Year's Column, obviously hoping to spur sales of their new book.
It has a couple of priceless comments on how American Democracy works, when it works, and why the current mess in D.C. is not working. It also highlights some of the important issues on which little progress is being made because of partisan attitudes.
"Our strength comes from the disagreement, but we need to harness it properly and use it for something beyond the destruction of the other side. Reaching for compromise is no less than the duty of our elected representatives."
It has a couple of priceless comments on how American Democracy works, when it works, and why the current mess in D.C. is not working. It also highlights some of the important issues on which little progress is being made because of partisan attitudes.
"Our strength comes from the disagreement, but we need to harness it properly and use it for something beyond the destruction of the other side. Reaching for compromise is no less than the duty of our elected representatives."
"Our current officeholders are embracing the conflict and ignoring its purpose. Representative democracy is not winner-take-all. The Constitution was designed as a harmonizing system, balancing the competing interests of all the people toward something that serves everyone. We need to insist that our representatives move beyond the ideological purity that reads compromise as betrayal."
"Our leaders have stalled on the major issues of our time: immigration, cybersecurity, energy policy, tax reform. Leadership takes genuine courage, courage to act on the recognition that the choice between right and left is a false one when it comes to getting things done. We must demand of our leaders that they actually lead."
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Where is Reflection in the Republican Party? Global Warming, Islamic Jihad
I am an analyst by inner sense of self, education and career. When I look at any issue, especially economic and political issues, I like to analyze the subject from all angles to decide what I think should be done.
So yesterday, while I enjoyed a Lobster Roll and beer for a holiday lunch in Manhattan after doing some shopping, I drifted into a contemplation of the state of the world. I was in such deep thought, that the server asked me if I was OK.
What captivated my brain was the fact that 195 nations signed the Paris Global Warming Agreement. 195 nations are concerned about this phenomenon, and have a substantial agreement on the science linking CO2 to global warming. This is not surprising as the English scientist, John Tyndall, discovered in 1859 that CO2 in the atmosphere is the reason the earth can maintain an atmosphere by trapping infrared light and maintaining the temperature that allows life to exist on earth. Scientists all over the world ever since have been verifying that basic fact of life and never disproving it.
Yet, hardcore Republicans call this junk science. If this was junk science, would China agree with it? Would India agree with it? Would Bangladesh, Brazil, Iran, Russia, Germany and the rest of the 195 countries agree with it? Wouldn't a large group of scientists somewhere in this world be broadcasting far and wide the error of this science?
Instead, in Donald Trump fashion, the hard core conservative wing of the GOP calls it junk science, slandering this 155 year old scientific discovery to preserve what? The right to burn any fossil fuel without paying for the social costs in the future. Creating economic opportunity from owning land at higher elevations. (For the record, while I am 42' above sea level, all the economic value from my home relies on economic activity at lower elevations).
While a century ago people did not think about what they were doing to future generations, they just wanted to survive, shouldn't our wealth and education give us a greater purpose in preserving this earth for future generations? Isn't that the purpose of living?
Why does the political party of the religious not think this way? I thought religion was supposed to make people reflective.
Instead, they want to do nothing about global warming, they want to send troops into situations that will only inspire thousands of have nots in the Islamic World to join Jihad so they can meet their virgins in heaven and take some of our troops with them. I don't understand why so many jihadists, who are mainly young men with their life in front of them, want to commit suicide and kill Americans or other Muslims.
I think the language of Wahhabism is a primary cause. I think RedStateVT is correct that violent video games, movies and words have motivational consequences that are a danger to society. And I think that politicians who speak in violent disrespectful terms of their opponents run the risk of inspiring inappropriate and illegal behavior. Yet, conservative talk radio is a leading source of violent political language in this country. But changing that in the U.S. requires a Constitutional Amendment and that isn't going to happen.
And the result of that is Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are rallying the KKK/John Birch successors as their supporters. This is similar to Prohibition when the country was divided in an similar fashion to the way it is today. It took a depression and a world war to created liberals and conservatives in both parties, but that only lasted about 50 years. Now while the Democrats still have liberals and conservatives, the GOP has only conservative purists and they are generally way over the deep end on many issues from my perspective.
I wish I knew some truly independent voters so I could understand what they are thinking, but I don't. I have some conservative friends and then a bunch of friends who see the world the way I do.
In 10 months, and two weeks, this will be over, and I can only hope that the Democrats win a monster victory to put an end to this insanity caused by a lack of reflection. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
So yesterday, while I enjoyed a Lobster Roll and beer for a holiday lunch in Manhattan after doing some shopping, I drifted into a contemplation of the state of the world. I was in such deep thought, that the server asked me if I was OK.
What captivated my brain was the fact that 195 nations signed the Paris Global Warming Agreement. 195 nations are concerned about this phenomenon, and have a substantial agreement on the science linking CO2 to global warming. This is not surprising as the English scientist, John Tyndall, discovered in 1859 that CO2 in the atmosphere is the reason the earth can maintain an atmosphere by trapping infrared light and maintaining the temperature that allows life to exist on earth. Scientists all over the world ever since have been verifying that basic fact of life and never disproving it.
Yet, hardcore Republicans call this junk science. If this was junk science, would China agree with it? Would India agree with it? Would Bangladesh, Brazil, Iran, Russia, Germany and the rest of the 195 countries agree with it? Wouldn't a large group of scientists somewhere in this world be broadcasting far and wide the error of this science?
Instead, in Donald Trump fashion, the hard core conservative wing of the GOP calls it junk science, slandering this 155 year old scientific discovery to preserve what? The right to burn any fossil fuel without paying for the social costs in the future. Creating economic opportunity from owning land at higher elevations. (For the record, while I am 42' above sea level, all the economic value from my home relies on economic activity at lower elevations).
While a century ago people did not think about what they were doing to future generations, they just wanted to survive, shouldn't our wealth and education give us a greater purpose in preserving this earth for future generations? Isn't that the purpose of living?
Why does the political party of the religious not think this way? I thought religion was supposed to make people reflective.
Instead, they want to do nothing about global warming, they want to send troops into situations that will only inspire thousands of have nots in the Islamic World to join Jihad so they can meet their virgins in heaven and take some of our troops with them. I don't understand why so many jihadists, who are mainly young men with their life in front of them, want to commit suicide and kill Americans or other Muslims.
I think the language of Wahhabism is a primary cause. I think RedStateVT is correct that violent video games, movies and words have motivational consequences that are a danger to society. And I think that politicians who speak in violent disrespectful terms of their opponents run the risk of inspiring inappropriate and illegal behavior. Yet, conservative talk radio is a leading source of violent political language in this country. But changing that in the U.S. requires a Constitutional Amendment and that isn't going to happen.
And the result of that is Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are rallying the KKK/John Birch successors as their supporters. This is similar to Prohibition when the country was divided in an similar fashion to the way it is today. It took a depression and a world war to created liberals and conservatives in both parties, but that only lasted about 50 years. Now while the Democrats still have liberals and conservatives, the GOP has only conservative purists and they are generally way over the deep end on many issues from my perspective.
I wish I knew some truly independent voters so I could understand what they are thinking, but I don't. I have some conservative friends and then a bunch of friends who see the world the way I do.
In 10 months, and two weeks, this will be over, and I can only hope that the Democrats win a monster victory to put an end to this insanity caused by a lack of reflection. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)