Something is amiss. Or rather, something has happened to the people of this country. It seems that too many voters, inexplicably (or maybe it can be explained but we refuse to believe it because it is too scary), have been swept off of their feet by Donald Trump. The presumptive Republican nominee is a man who knows no shame, decency or respect.
The list is endless -- a long history of sleights, insults, and demagoguery. A trickster who inherited his wealth, but somehow persuaded the public into believing that he was self-made, will be a serious contender for the white house in the general election. Even now, while writing this post, I cannot believe that he is in the lead. His opponents, just recently, are trying to employ the same juvenile tactics that he has used since the beginning of his campaign, i.e. name-calling, innuendo, and conspiracy theories.
An inquiry into how one major political party was hijacked is the subject matter of this post. Serious in tone, markedly different than my more light-hearted blogs, shows how grave I believe our political situation to be. Let us begin.
Beware of what you wish for. Pick any metaphor: Frankenstein, Terminator, or Icarus. Credit for creating Donald Trump the candidate belongs, in part, to the Republican party. For years now, since President Obama was sworn in, the GOP has made it a legislative, political and idealistic goal to oppose everything that the President stands for. It doesn't matter if the party use to adopt a similar policy in the past (see: Cap and Trade, Individual Mandate, Comprehensive Tax Reform). If Obama is for it, they must be against it.
A strategy of obstruction was meant to bear political fruit. Mitch McConnell, senate majority leader, believed that the gridlock would result in voters being frustrated. He knew that Congress would be blamed, but theorized that President Obama would be blamed more. Thus, inaction has become the norm.
In addition, Republicans have stepped up their bluster, hyperbole, and extremism. For purposes of inciting the base, and encouraging higher voter turnout, elected officials have swayed from the mainstream. Instead of "a president whom we disagree with", it has become normal to say that the "president is a traitor, terrorist-funding, dictator, who will do anything to dismantle the constitution." Such language riles the passions, particularly those who hold white nationalist beliefs (a core constituency of Donald Trump).
GOP primary voters are mad. They are angry with their economic station in life. For decades now, income and wealth inequality has benefited those at the top at the expense of everyone else. It is being felt everyday. Trade deficits result in layoffs. Soaring corporate profits culminate in lower wages. Beneficial tax rates for millionaires and billionaires lead to reduced tax receipts and social benefits. Who has advocated for the policies that exacerbate the problems above? Republicans.
Add it all up: an angry, frustrated populist movement exists in the Republican party and Donald Trump knows how to play into their anger. He offers easy solutions. The real estate mogul dumbs it down. Trump makes life a zero-sum game: it has to be the fault of undocumented immigrants (economists actually point out that immigrants increase innovation and GDP), or Muslims, or African-Americans. Complexity is shunned. Quick, streamlined justice according to "The Donald", and "The Donald" alone, is all that is needed for "America to be great again."
Donald Trump will likely be the general election candidate for the Republicans, and a large establishment majority within the party do not like it. They believed, incorrectly, that they could control the extreme elements within. Political death after political death should have been a warning (Dick Lugar, Eric Cantor, John Boehner); it wasn't. The monster movement that the GOP created is uncontrollable and strikes indiscriminately.
Pundits, establishment politicians, and wealthy insiders may be confused about the current state of affairs. Perhaps, they really didn't see a Donald Trump victory on the horizon. But any fan of science fiction knows, you have to be careful with what you create. Ultimately, your own creation can be your own demise.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Monday, February 29, 2016
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Bernie Already Won
American presidential elections are unlike any other in the world. For one, presidential campaigns start way too early -- years before a voter steps into the voting box. Two, billions of dollars are spent on the candidates. Thank you Citizens United (not really). Three, we have a primary system that puts an inordinate amount of responsibility on a Midwest state that does not reflect the broader electorate.
Tomorrow, February 1, the voting will begin. The state of Iowa will caucus and choose a candidate for the general election. Polls show a close race on both sides of the aisle. Donald Trump leads Senator Ted Cruz; Secretary Hillary Clinton edges Senator Bernie Sanders by a few points. Only time will tell who will end the night victorious.
For Democrats, even if Hillary were to win, Bernie Sanders will remain the champion. This observation is not meant as a dig to Secretary Clinton, who remains a strong, formidable progressive. No, it is a reflection on what has occurred during the summer and fall. Feel the Bern has become a movement that will not be extinguished with a loss in Iowa. A fire has been lit.
The popularity of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders lies in current economic realities. For the past four decades, income and wealth distribution has grown more unfair. By objective measures, America no longer offers equal opportunity for those willing to work towards their American Dream. Instead, corporate profits soar while wages remain flat. Executives receive a 300:1 pay ratio without having to deliver results.
Levels of inequality are obscene. Even conservatives cannot deny it. 100 White Americans own more wealth than every African-American throughout the country. One family, the Walton family, has more wealth than 40% of the entire country. Since 1979, the percentage of national income to the top 1% has doubled. Japanese, Italians, and Belgians are more wealthy than Americans.
With so much wealth, the privileged class has sole influence over our elected officials. Political scientists have done the research. Important issues to average Americans are not on the radar for representatives. Instead, lobbyists and campaign contributions make sure that corporate interests are catered to first, and usually to the detriment of the consumer. Monopolies run rampant; small businesses and entrepreneurship have declined. We do not have a capitalist system. We have a crony state.
Bernie Sanders has run his campaign on the promise to raise the middle class up rather than subjugate it to Wall Street. Labels do not matter, even if the media claims that his democratic-socialist identification will hurt his chances of a win in a general election. What ultimately matters is how this economic crisis will be solved. Americans, particularly millennials, who comprise a large percentage of his passionate supporters, know that if action is not taken together, collectively, we will slide into more unrest, bitter partisanship, and economic stagnation.
Republicans and Democrats feel the injustice. So, going forward, no matter the outcome of the Iowa Caucus, issues of economic fairness will be front and center. In a way, Bernie has already won.
Tomorrow, February 1, the voting will begin. The state of Iowa will caucus and choose a candidate for the general election. Polls show a close race on both sides of the aisle. Donald Trump leads Senator Ted Cruz; Secretary Hillary Clinton edges Senator Bernie Sanders by a few points. Only time will tell who will end the night victorious.
For Democrats, even if Hillary were to win, Bernie Sanders will remain the champion. This observation is not meant as a dig to Secretary Clinton, who remains a strong, formidable progressive. No, it is a reflection on what has occurred during the summer and fall. Feel the Bern has become a movement that will not be extinguished with a loss in Iowa. A fire has been lit.
The popularity of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders lies in current economic realities. For the past four decades, income and wealth distribution has grown more unfair. By objective measures, America no longer offers equal opportunity for those willing to work towards their American Dream. Instead, corporate profits soar while wages remain flat. Executives receive a 300:1 pay ratio without having to deliver results.
Levels of inequality are obscene. Even conservatives cannot deny it. 100 White Americans own more wealth than every African-American throughout the country. One family, the Walton family, has more wealth than 40% of the entire country. Since 1979, the percentage of national income to the top 1% has doubled. Japanese, Italians, and Belgians are more wealthy than Americans.
With so much wealth, the privileged class has sole influence over our elected officials. Political scientists have done the research. Important issues to average Americans are not on the radar for representatives. Instead, lobbyists and campaign contributions make sure that corporate interests are catered to first, and usually to the detriment of the consumer. Monopolies run rampant; small businesses and entrepreneurship have declined. We do not have a capitalist system. We have a crony state.
Bernie Sanders has run his campaign on the promise to raise the middle class up rather than subjugate it to Wall Street. Labels do not matter, even if the media claims that his democratic-socialist identification will hurt his chances of a win in a general election. What ultimately matters is how this economic crisis will be solved. Americans, particularly millennials, who comprise a large percentage of his passionate supporters, know that if action is not taken together, collectively, we will slide into more unrest, bitter partisanship, and economic stagnation.
Republicans and Democrats feel the injustice. So, going forward, no matter the outcome of the Iowa Caucus, issues of economic fairness will be front and center. In a way, Bernie has already won.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Hey Media: Do Your Jobs
Senator Ted Cruz was right during the CNBC debate in Boulder, Colorado. I, along with most people, do not like the media. But, Mr. Cruz's rationale was wrong. The debate moderators were not being biased or unfair, they were being too timid. Indeed, the whole media has let GOP candidates get away with falsehood after falsehood. When will they begin to do their job?
Watching the debate, without access to independent sources and facts, a viewer could conclude that the questions were prejudiced. Almost every speaker attacked the questioner, the debate, or the network that hosted the debate. The candidates exhibited emotions of denial or outright contempt when pressed. Republican voters ate it up; the pugnaciousness fed into the narrative that there is only one trustworthy network on television nowadays.
The problem: the country we live in does not lack access to the facts. Donald Trump denied having disagreed with Mark Zuckerberg on immigration visas. Anyone could have visited Trump's own website to find out that it was not true. Only a few fact-checker websites ran with the story.
Same for Tea Party favorite Ben Carson, whose mild manner allegedly shows a contrast to Trump despite them sharing similar, bizarre views. When asked why he would affiliate himself with a company that falsely advertised cures for autism and cancer, he responded that it was total propaganda. The gall on him. Mr. Carson was paid to give speeches and praise their products. He did have some "ties" to the company. When will a "journalist" follow-up with him on his false assertions?
Winner of the debate, Senator Marco Rubio, had one of the best applause lines of the debate. He declared that the entire media was a Super PAC for the Democrats. However, he could not defend his own tax proposal without misleading. John Hardwood, one of the moderators, asked why his plan would result in a greater tax reduction for the top 1%, rather than the middle class. Mr. Rubio demurred. First, he said it wasn't true -- even though it was, as scored by a conservative think tank. Then, he said something unrelated to the content of the question. After the debate, the media declared him the winner, although the middle class would be the losers if he were to win. No one seemed to care about that.
Where does one begin with Carly Fiorina, who was somewhat called out for refusing to acknowledge that she lied about a planned parenthood video at the last debate. She recycled a discredited line at the most recent debate -- there was not a disproportionate amount of job losses for women under President Obama. Yet, she still campaigns as if it makes no difference what she says or does not say.
Simply put, the media is horrible. There must have been a time in our polarized society when the media decided that it was better to appear unbiased at the expense of the truth. The bottom-line was to be protected even it meant taking it easy on the politicians who wantonly lie.
A democratic society depends on a vigorous free press. I fear that we have lost ours. The public should not have to search for the truth like Indiana Jones in a dark, insect-infested tomb. Presidential candidates must be scrutinized. The office holds too much power. If a presidential candidate believes, sincerely believes, that he or she can get elected by willfully misleading, then what will he or she do once in office. Hey media, you better do your damn jobs.
Watching the debate, without access to independent sources and facts, a viewer could conclude that the questions were prejudiced. Almost every speaker attacked the questioner, the debate, or the network that hosted the debate. The candidates exhibited emotions of denial or outright contempt when pressed. Republican voters ate it up; the pugnaciousness fed into the narrative that there is only one trustworthy network on television nowadays.
The problem: the country we live in does not lack access to the facts. Donald Trump denied having disagreed with Mark Zuckerberg on immigration visas. Anyone could have visited Trump's own website to find out that it was not true. Only a few fact-checker websites ran with the story.
Same for Tea Party favorite Ben Carson, whose mild manner allegedly shows a contrast to Trump despite them sharing similar, bizarre views. When asked why he would affiliate himself with a company that falsely advertised cures for autism and cancer, he responded that it was total propaganda. The gall on him. Mr. Carson was paid to give speeches and praise their products. He did have some "ties" to the company. When will a "journalist" follow-up with him on his false assertions?
Winner of the debate, Senator Marco Rubio, had one of the best applause lines of the debate. He declared that the entire media was a Super PAC for the Democrats. However, he could not defend his own tax proposal without misleading. John Hardwood, one of the moderators, asked why his plan would result in a greater tax reduction for the top 1%, rather than the middle class. Mr. Rubio demurred. First, he said it wasn't true -- even though it was, as scored by a conservative think tank. Then, he said something unrelated to the content of the question. After the debate, the media declared him the winner, although the middle class would be the losers if he were to win. No one seemed to care about that.
Where does one begin with Carly Fiorina, who was somewhat called out for refusing to acknowledge that she lied about a planned parenthood video at the last debate. She recycled a discredited line at the most recent debate -- there was not a disproportionate amount of job losses for women under President Obama. Yet, she still campaigns as if it makes no difference what she says or does not say.
Simply put, the media is horrible. There must have been a time in our polarized society when the media decided that it was better to appear unbiased at the expense of the truth. The bottom-line was to be protected even it meant taking it easy on the politicians who wantonly lie.
A democratic society depends on a vigorous free press. I fear that we have lost ours. The public should not have to search for the truth like Indiana Jones in a dark, insect-infested tomb. Presidential candidates must be scrutinized. The office holds too much power. If a presidential candidate believes, sincerely believes, that he or she can get elected by willfully misleading, then what will he or she do once in office. Hey media, you better do your damn jobs.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
The Fall of Boehner (And GOP Sanity)
What a week for those who follow politics. A lot happened. A visit from the Holy See. The White House hosted a China state dinner admidst cyber hacking allegations. Governor Scott Walker suspended his presidential campaign. President Putin of Russia met with President Obama despite fierce animosity over Ukraine and Syria. A looming government shutdown was barely avoided. And the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, announced his retirement and relinquishment of the gavel.
My brain nearly overloaded just writing that. Each event was serious and consequential in its own right. But, by way of tradition, I will be analyzing the one story that highlights the problems of the Republican party. Like a broken record, I know. The truth is: it's just too easy to mock the GOP.
Speaker Boehner was, and is, a conservative. Looking at his record one can see that he followed the Republican platform to a tee. A number of special interest groups ranked him in high regard, i.e. NRA, Pro-Life Groups, Conservative Tax Organizations, you name it. Unfortunately, it isn't enough these days. The party has moved so far to the right, so extreme in its ideology, that no "conservative" can ever vote with, talk to, compromise between, or negotiate with a liberal or Democrat.
Governance is not a goal for the Freedom Caucus, a group of legislators who ascribe to pure conservative principles. Any legislation that relies on a compromise with the opposing party is viewed with suspicion, contempt. It is much more important to make one's conservative views known, even if it involves symbolic, but pointless, parliamentary exercises.
Such is the reality in today's Congress. A splinter in the Republican party has resulted in the resignation of Speaker Boehner. Mr. Boehner knew that he was going to face a fight for his speakership. All because he refused to engage in a tactic that was doomed to fail. The "purest of pure conservatives" wanted to shutdown the government over Planned Parenthood funding. Mr. Boehner did not.
Believe it or not there are still some Republicans who believe that laws must be passed -- like necessary spending bills. They understand the dynamics of having three branches of government, of two chambers in Congress, of the mathematical requirement to override a Presidential veto. Some Republicans think that conservative values can be advanced through compromise and regular order.
I fear that this is only the beginning. On the right side of the political spectrum there is a deep desire for hyperbolic statements or gestures. The rise of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina reflect this. The truth is no longer relevant. Fiorina has double-downed on falsehoods directly to Fox News after being challenged by the friendly-to-Republican network. It is more important to control the narrative rather than surrender to actuality.
The fall of the Speaker of the House was just a symptom of a much larger problem. We have one of the two major political parties unable to function. The GOP now resembles an anarchic insurgent collective. Its mission is to destroy government, not operate within it. John Boehner was not a friend to Democrats, but he will certainly be missed.
My brain nearly overloaded just writing that. Each event was serious and consequential in its own right. But, by way of tradition, I will be analyzing the one story that highlights the problems of the Republican party. Like a broken record, I know. The truth is: it's just too easy to mock the GOP.
Speaker Boehner was, and is, a conservative. Looking at his record one can see that he followed the Republican platform to a tee. A number of special interest groups ranked him in high regard, i.e. NRA, Pro-Life Groups, Conservative Tax Organizations, you name it. Unfortunately, it isn't enough these days. The party has moved so far to the right, so extreme in its ideology, that no "conservative" can ever vote with, talk to, compromise between, or negotiate with a liberal or Democrat.
Governance is not a goal for the Freedom Caucus, a group of legislators who ascribe to pure conservative principles. Any legislation that relies on a compromise with the opposing party is viewed with suspicion, contempt. It is much more important to make one's conservative views known, even if it involves symbolic, but pointless, parliamentary exercises.
Such is the reality in today's Congress. A splinter in the Republican party has resulted in the resignation of Speaker Boehner. Mr. Boehner knew that he was going to face a fight for his speakership. All because he refused to engage in a tactic that was doomed to fail. The "purest of pure conservatives" wanted to shutdown the government over Planned Parenthood funding. Mr. Boehner did not.
Believe it or not there are still some Republicans who believe that laws must be passed -- like necessary spending bills. They understand the dynamics of having three branches of government, of two chambers in Congress, of the mathematical requirement to override a Presidential veto. Some Republicans think that conservative values can be advanced through compromise and regular order.
I fear that this is only the beginning. On the right side of the political spectrum there is a deep desire for hyperbolic statements or gestures. The rise of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina reflect this. The truth is no longer relevant. Fiorina has double-downed on falsehoods directly to Fox News after being challenged by the friendly-to-Republican network. It is more important to control the narrative rather than surrender to actuality.
The fall of the Speaker of the House was just a symptom of a much larger problem. We have one of the two major political parties unable to function. The GOP now resembles an anarchic insurgent collective. Its mission is to destroy government, not operate within it. John Boehner was not a friend to Democrats, but he will certainly be missed.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Join in on the Fun, Kanye
Kanye West accepted an award last night at the VMAs. During his off the cuff acceptance speech, "Yeezus" made a surprising announcement. He will be running for President in 2020. A SuperPac has already been formed. As of now, Twitter is still crazy about the "Ready for Kanye" movement.
Good for Kanye. At this point, why should he not run. The political process has already been turned into a quasi-reality television event. The 17 GOP candidates cannot go a day without making an absurd statement -- Governor Scott Walker wants to now build a wall along the Canadian - USA border. The media is loathed to cover anything of substance. He will likely add some excitement to the mix.
Seriously, he has the same political experience as two now-popular GOP candidates. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have never held elected office. The latter was fired from Hewlett-Packard after a disastrous tenure. Carson, a neurosurgeon, has been quick to utilize Nazi and slavery comparisons ("'[our society] is very much like Nazi Germany'... '[Obamacare is] the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery'... '...we live in a Gestapo age, people don't realize it.'").
It is not like we will be surprised by incendiary rhetoric. Kanye probably won't be as offensive as Governor Huckabee. Remember when Huckabee said that Obama was marching the Israelis to the oven because of the Iran agreement. There is no reason why the rapper shouldn't run as a candidate.
Kanye can brag just like Jeb Bush. If Kanye can sell albums, he will be able to sell the American people on his to-be-announced jobs program. Facts will make no difference. Look at Jeb Bush. He somehow claims that Florida owes its economic success to him, despite the fact that he rode the housing bubble and had luckily left office before it burst.
For those worried about our image abroad, do not worry. Reports already show that our political campaigns have been mocked. One British professor opined that, "[American] politics are even more unproductive, vulgar, captured by special interests than [British politics]." The United States' reputation has been tarnished because of Citizens United and hyper-partisanship. It cannot get much worse.
But Yeezy has no real policies, some will say. That is not a convincing argument as to why he should not run. The GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump, has been successful, in part, because he has no real policies. He provides quick, simple talking points that can be consumed and regurgitated by the masses. Who can do a better job than Trump when it comes to creating easy-to-remember sound bites? Kanye!
Our country has blurred the lines between governance and entertainment. Let's take the logical next step and elect Kanye West in 2020. I can already imagine: "Keeping up with the First Family" on E!. Set your DVRs. It's going to be a wild ride.
Good for Kanye. At this point, why should he not run. The political process has already been turned into a quasi-reality television event. The 17 GOP candidates cannot go a day without making an absurd statement -- Governor Scott Walker wants to now build a wall along the Canadian - USA border. The media is loathed to cover anything of substance. He will likely add some excitement to the mix.
Seriously, he has the same political experience as two now-popular GOP candidates. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have never held elected office. The latter was fired from Hewlett-Packard after a disastrous tenure. Carson, a neurosurgeon, has been quick to utilize Nazi and slavery comparisons ("'[our society] is very much like Nazi Germany'... '[Obamacare is] the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery'... '...we live in a Gestapo age, people don't realize it.'").
It is not like we will be surprised by incendiary rhetoric. Kanye probably won't be as offensive as Governor Huckabee. Remember when Huckabee said that Obama was marching the Israelis to the oven because of the Iran agreement. There is no reason why the rapper shouldn't run as a candidate.
Kanye can brag just like Jeb Bush. If Kanye can sell albums, he will be able to sell the American people on his to-be-announced jobs program. Facts will make no difference. Look at Jeb Bush. He somehow claims that Florida owes its economic success to him, despite the fact that he rode the housing bubble and had luckily left office before it burst.
For those worried about our image abroad, do not worry. Reports already show that our political campaigns have been mocked. One British professor opined that, "[American] politics are even more unproductive, vulgar, captured by special interests than [British politics]." The United States' reputation has been tarnished because of Citizens United and hyper-partisanship. It cannot get much worse.
But Yeezy has no real policies, some will say. That is not a convincing argument as to why he should not run. The GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump, has been successful, in part, because he has no real policies. He provides quick, simple talking points that can be consumed and regurgitated by the masses. Who can do a better job than Trump when it comes to creating easy-to-remember sound bites? Kanye!
Our country has blurred the lines between governance and entertainment. Let's take the logical next step and elect Kanye West in 2020. I can already imagine: "Keeping up with the First Family" on E!. Set your DVRs. It's going to be a wild ride.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Don't Bother Arguing with a Republican
Have you ever engaged in a social media political "debate?" A back and forth of 140 characters or less. If you haven't, good; don't bother! It's pointless.
Not because a civil dialogue with a person of a different viewpoint is harmful in of itself. Because conflicting evidence or data will not change the mind of the other person. As stated in a previous blog post, evidence shows that contrary facts will only make the belief-holder more entrenched in his or her own views, in direct opposition to the "facts."
A recent example would be the vaccine conspiracy theories. Celebrity activists, with no medical training or experience, persuaded parents to forego vaccines to avoid autism. Despite there being no medical studies to support the faux theory, some parents went along and perpetuated the anti-vaccination rhetoric. When they were told that there was no evidence to support their position, they grew more extreme in their beliefs, sometimes challenging the intentions of the doctors undermining their uninformed convictions. Fortunately, California lawmakers sent a bill to the Governor to mandate vaccines, which benefits public health and is consistent with sound medical science.
It doesn't end with vaccines. Take ObamaCare, climate change, or criminal justice reform. Most Republicans cannot and will not accept the facts.
ObamaCare has been upheld yet again by the United States Supreme Court. It isn't unconstitutional. Healthcare costs, overall, have bucked trends. Instead of double-digit inflation of medical costs, we are seeing a decline throughout the country. The uninsured rate has dropped significantly. Everything is working as projected -- similar to what happened in Massachusetts, the state that influenced ObamaCare.
Republicans are still calling ObamaCare a failure, and are demanding a full repeal.
Climate change is starting to make a noticeable impact. Refugees, due to climate change, have been displaced. 2015 is already the hottest year on record. Droughts are becoming more common. Ecological consequences are starting to affect a large number of animals.
Republicans either deny climate change or refuse to take steps to lower carbon emissions for fear of upsetting one of their most reliable special interest: big oil (Koch and Hamm).
Finally, systemic racism has been rearing its ugly head. Multiple police brutality stories have drawn attention to racial profiling and excessive force. Reliable data shows that Blacks and Latinos are arrested at a higher rate than Whites despite the fact that Whites are committing similar crimes at similar rates. A black man will be sentenced more harshly for the same crime that a white man has committed.
Republicans refuse to confront racial disparities and discrimination. Instead, they are pushing for Jim Crow policies, like: voter identification laws and mandatory minimum sentencing, which could impact a defendant's ability to vote later in life. They support the invalidation of the Voting Rights Act -- a staple achievement of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Don't bother raising your voice, or frantically typing at the keyboard. One cannot change the mind of a Republican extremist. However, liberals should always be open to discussing the issues with independents or moderates. It's important, especially in the months ahead, that more people see the GOP for what it has become: intolerant, impervious to the facts, and the wrong party to lead the country into the future.
Not because a civil dialogue with a person of a different viewpoint is harmful in of itself. Because conflicting evidence or data will not change the mind of the other person. As stated in a previous blog post, evidence shows that contrary facts will only make the belief-holder more entrenched in his or her own views, in direct opposition to the "facts."
A recent example would be the vaccine conspiracy theories. Celebrity activists, with no medical training or experience, persuaded parents to forego vaccines to avoid autism. Despite there being no medical studies to support the faux theory, some parents went along and perpetuated the anti-vaccination rhetoric. When they were told that there was no evidence to support their position, they grew more extreme in their beliefs, sometimes challenging the intentions of the doctors undermining their uninformed convictions. Fortunately, California lawmakers sent a bill to the Governor to mandate vaccines, which benefits public health and is consistent with sound medical science.
It doesn't end with vaccines. Take ObamaCare, climate change, or criminal justice reform. Most Republicans cannot and will not accept the facts.
ObamaCare has been upheld yet again by the United States Supreme Court. It isn't unconstitutional. Healthcare costs, overall, have bucked trends. Instead of double-digit inflation of medical costs, we are seeing a decline throughout the country. The uninsured rate has dropped significantly. Everything is working as projected -- similar to what happened in Massachusetts, the state that influenced ObamaCare.
Republicans are still calling ObamaCare a failure, and are demanding a full repeal.
Climate change is starting to make a noticeable impact. Refugees, due to climate change, have been displaced. 2015 is already the hottest year on record. Droughts are becoming more common. Ecological consequences are starting to affect a large number of animals.
Republicans either deny climate change or refuse to take steps to lower carbon emissions for fear of upsetting one of their most reliable special interest: big oil (Koch and Hamm).
Finally, systemic racism has been rearing its ugly head. Multiple police brutality stories have drawn attention to racial profiling and excessive force. Reliable data shows that Blacks and Latinos are arrested at a higher rate than Whites despite the fact that Whites are committing similar crimes at similar rates. A black man will be sentenced more harshly for the same crime that a white man has committed.
Republicans refuse to confront racial disparities and discrimination. Instead, they are pushing for Jim Crow policies, like: voter identification laws and mandatory minimum sentencing, which could impact a defendant's ability to vote later in life. They support the invalidation of the Voting Rights Act -- a staple achievement of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Don't bother raising your voice, or frantically typing at the keyboard. One cannot change the mind of a Republican extremist. However, liberals should always be open to discussing the issues with independents or moderates. It's important, especially in the months ahead, that more people see the GOP for what it has become: intolerant, impervious to the facts, and the wrong party to lead the country into the future.
Friday, May 29, 2015
The Perpetual Campaign Season
It is 2015, right? Sometimes I have to double check, because the political pundits I watch talk like it's the summer of 2016. I catch myself looking around the apartment for a mail-in ballot, in a fit of moral rage -- my face gets red and my eyes bulge out, until I realize that the presidential election is not until November of next year. Seventeen months away. My pulse slows down after I count to ten.
I blame the media for my feelings of excitement. Actually, I place the blame on more than just the media. Right now, our political process needs some serious reform. You get any voter in a room, Republican or Democrat, and they can agree about one thing: they're fed up. They may disagree on the solution, but they have similar feelings.
Americans are dissatisfied. There is too much disagreement and not enough "getting things done." Part of the reason why our representatives can get away with it is because we allow them to. As constituents, we lose focus on what is important.
Campaigns and promises are never ending. An incumbent urges her constituents to vote her party into office, and then states that a party majority could lead to real progress. An agenda, conservative or liberal, cannot be accomplished, until a majority is won. A majority seldom happens. And even if it does happen, it may not last long, or the minority party may procedurally obstruct.
Meanwhile, the money rolls in. Special interests buy up their favorite candidates, the media covers the electoral intrigue like a gossip column, and the voters are left with their favorite social media outlet to discuss the issues for ten minutes, before looking at the millions of selfies to follow in their news feed.
Significant issues are forgotten. Real policy debates are discarded like an old book on a dusty shelf. The next election down the road becomes the topic at hand. The election coverage resembles a beauty pageant more than a civic dialogue, with all the attention being placed on the candidate's personality or looks rather than the candidate's positions on the real issues facing our country. We must hold our elected officials to a higher standard.
Instead of arguing ideology for two years until the next election, we should demand that legislation be passed. Deals to be made. Infrastructure spending, an issue that has not been covered enough and use to be non-partisan, steadily decreases year after year. Our roads, bridges, railways, and airports are crumbling and we are losing an advantage in a competitive global environment.
Immigration reform, of any substance, could bring economic security to millions. Yet nothing has been done. Education investments are neglected; children are left ill-prepared to challenge the world's brightest in other nations.
Perpetual campaigns are hurting America. Politicians, journalists, campaign donors, and voters are all responsible, but if we make a conscious choice to change the ways things are done, I believe our country can remain the most powerful. Otherwise, we may have to settle for being the country with the best entertainment on earth.
I blame the media for my feelings of excitement. Actually, I place the blame on more than just the media. Right now, our political process needs some serious reform. You get any voter in a room, Republican or Democrat, and they can agree about one thing: they're fed up. They may disagree on the solution, but they have similar feelings.
Americans are dissatisfied. There is too much disagreement and not enough "getting things done." Part of the reason why our representatives can get away with it is because we allow them to. As constituents, we lose focus on what is important.
Campaigns and promises are never ending. An incumbent urges her constituents to vote her party into office, and then states that a party majority could lead to real progress. An agenda, conservative or liberal, cannot be accomplished, until a majority is won. A majority seldom happens. And even if it does happen, it may not last long, or the minority party may procedurally obstruct.
Meanwhile, the money rolls in. Special interests buy up their favorite candidates, the media covers the electoral intrigue like a gossip column, and the voters are left with their favorite social media outlet to discuss the issues for ten minutes, before looking at the millions of selfies to follow in their news feed.
Significant issues are forgotten. Real policy debates are discarded like an old book on a dusty shelf. The next election down the road becomes the topic at hand. The election coverage resembles a beauty pageant more than a civic dialogue, with all the attention being placed on the candidate's personality or looks rather than the candidate's positions on the real issues facing our country. We must hold our elected officials to a higher standard.
Instead of arguing ideology for two years until the next election, we should demand that legislation be passed. Deals to be made. Infrastructure spending, an issue that has not been covered enough and use to be non-partisan, steadily decreases year after year. Our roads, bridges, railways, and airports are crumbling and we are losing an advantage in a competitive global environment.
Immigration reform, of any substance, could bring economic security to millions. Yet nothing has been done. Education investments are neglected; children are left ill-prepared to challenge the world's brightest in other nations.
Perpetual campaigns are hurting America. Politicians, journalists, campaign donors, and voters are all responsible, but if we make a conscious choice to change the ways things are done, I believe our country can remain the most powerful. Otherwise, we may have to settle for being the country with the best entertainment on earth.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
The Politics of Greed
There is a misconception about Jesus. Christ did share a gospel of love, acceptance, and service. But, he also got angry; and it was not about gays and lesbians.
The gospels illustrate Jesus' target of anger: the money changers and traders at the temple in Jerusalem. In a fit of rage, Jesus overturned tables and bemoaned the evils of greed. Theologians may argue that the cause of Jesus' rage was the disrespect shown to the temple. Such an interpretation ignores Jesus' other sermons (remember the eye of the camel analogy?).
Christ always spoke of the corrupting nature of avarice. It twists the soul. Worship of money can impede a person's salvation. The theme repeats over and over. One can celebrate success and wealth, but one should always remember: love others, serve others, and fulfill your purpose.
Given this instruction straight from Christ, a political observer would think that Republicans would adhere to its message. One large branch of the Republican party is the social conservative tent, or evangelical base. Far too often the evangelicals cozy up with those who alienate the poor.
Take two recent developments. First, the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted and passed a bill that would eliminate the estate tax. The fiscal cost is estimated to be over $250 billion over ten years. The proposed law would only help .2% of households, or a little over 5,000 millionaire/billionaire families. When asked why there was a need to kill the estate tax, Republican representatives cited the hardship of farm owners, who may have to sell their farms because of the tax. However, none could provide an example.
Second, in Kansas, Republicans voted and passed a law that would prohibit welfare recipients from spending their assistance money on movie theaters, swimming pools, cruise ships, and nail salons. Other restrictions show a disdain for the impoverished. Again, not one lawmaker gave an anecdotal story of how they saw a welfare recipient living it up on a cruise ship.
These examples show how cruel the Republican party has become -- award the rich and punish the poor. There is a mindset now that tax cuts to the wealthy can be paid for by cutting government spending for the struggling citizen. They sell the plan by using a chimera, poor farm owners and welfare queens soaking up the sun on cruise ships. In the meantime, they secure themselves campaign war chests and wall street jobs after their congressional service.
Poverty is not a choice for millions of Americans. By the stroke of bad luck, they are born into circumstances out of their control. It is unchristian and inhuman to demonize those who work hard to get ahead but remain impoverished, with little hope. They should be treated with dignity, with respect, not ridicule.
My republican friends claim to have a monopoly on patriotism, fiscal responsibility, and Christian values. By most measures, they seem to be failing on all fronts. Is Jesus angry?
The gospels illustrate Jesus' target of anger: the money changers and traders at the temple in Jerusalem. In a fit of rage, Jesus overturned tables and bemoaned the evils of greed. Theologians may argue that the cause of Jesus' rage was the disrespect shown to the temple. Such an interpretation ignores Jesus' other sermons (remember the eye of the camel analogy?).
Christ always spoke of the corrupting nature of avarice. It twists the soul. Worship of money can impede a person's salvation. The theme repeats over and over. One can celebrate success and wealth, but one should always remember: love others, serve others, and fulfill your purpose.
Given this instruction straight from Christ, a political observer would think that Republicans would adhere to its message. One large branch of the Republican party is the social conservative tent, or evangelical base. Far too often the evangelicals cozy up with those who alienate the poor.
Take two recent developments. First, the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted and passed a bill that would eliminate the estate tax. The fiscal cost is estimated to be over $250 billion over ten years. The proposed law would only help .2% of households, or a little over 5,000 millionaire/billionaire families. When asked why there was a need to kill the estate tax, Republican representatives cited the hardship of farm owners, who may have to sell their farms because of the tax. However, none could provide an example.
Second, in Kansas, Republicans voted and passed a law that would prohibit welfare recipients from spending their assistance money on movie theaters, swimming pools, cruise ships, and nail salons. Other restrictions show a disdain for the impoverished. Again, not one lawmaker gave an anecdotal story of how they saw a welfare recipient living it up on a cruise ship.
These examples show how cruel the Republican party has become -- award the rich and punish the poor. There is a mindset now that tax cuts to the wealthy can be paid for by cutting government spending for the struggling citizen. They sell the plan by using a chimera, poor farm owners and welfare queens soaking up the sun on cruise ships. In the meantime, they secure themselves campaign war chests and wall street jobs after their congressional service.
Poverty is not a choice for millions of Americans. By the stroke of bad luck, they are born into circumstances out of their control. It is unchristian and inhuman to demonize those who work hard to get ahead but remain impoverished, with little hope. They should be treated with dignity, with respect, not ridicule.
My republican friends claim to have a monopoly on patriotism, fiscal responsibility, and Christian values. By most measures, they seem to be failing on all fronts. Is Jesus angry?
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Children of God
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." - Matthew 5:9
Throughout the history of our great country, the United States, there has not been an invite quite like the invite made by Speaker John Boehner. Earlier in March, our top leader in the House of Representatives invited the prime minster of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to speak before a joint session of Congress.
A foreign leader asked to speak before Congress is not unusual, especially if it is an ally of the United States. Japan's prime minister will be giving a speech later this year. What was unusual, however, was the nature of the speech given, and the protocol by which the speech came about.
Mr. Netanyahu explicitly requested that our legislative branch forego support for the president. The arrogant orator asked the legislators to undermine an ongoing foreign policy strategy being implemented by the executive branch -- a branch which was given immense power in foreign affairs by the Constitution.
The historic disrespect for the office of the president was orchestrated by Republicans in Congress behind the back of the administration. No one from the White House, including Secretary of State John Kerry, who had met with the ambassador of Israel shortly before the invite was announced, was notified. They learned about the invitation after the fact. An unprecedented breach of protocol led to the controversial speech.
All of these events took place right before a close and heated election in Israel. The whole affair stunk of putrid politics.
Given the incomparable sleight, one would have expected it to be for a peaceful cause. To the contrary, the speech called for the nuclear negotiations with Iran to cease. Calling it, "a bad deal," although a deal had not been reached, Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that he favored war. Because without a diplomatic deal, or a framework to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, war is more likely than not to occur.
Iran is backed into a corner, and rightfully so. The economic sanctions put into place by President Obama and the other security council members of the UN have been effective. But, the purpose of the sanctions was to get Iran to the negotiating table. By refusing to negotiate, Iran hardliners will be empowered and Iran will have to forge ahead lest it appear weak.
A majority of Americans support the talks, including myself. War and military campaigns should be the last option. Those who favor all or nothing diplomacy put the world at risk; each and every hawkish rhetoric puts our troops into the potential line of fire. Our leaders need to take that seriously. Our military men and women should have an unambiguous reason for putting their own lives at risk.
Peace through understanding can be accomplished. Certainly, we should celebrate those who are willing to fight for peace even if it is unpopular. At the very least, they should be given a chance.
Throughout the history of our great country, the United States, there has not been an invite quite like the invite made by Speaker John Boehner. Earlier in March, our top leader in the House of Representatives invited the prime minster of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to speak before a joint session of Congress.
A foreign leader asked to speak before Congress is not unusual, especially if it is an ally of the United States. Japan's prime minister will be giving a speech later this year. What was unusual, however, was the nature of the speech given, and the protocol by which the speech came about.
Mr. Netanyahu explicitly requested that our legislative branch forego support for the president. The arrogant orator asked the legislators to undermine an ongoing foreign policy strategy being implemented by the executive branch -- a branch which was given immense power in foreign affairs by the Constitution.
The historic disrespect for the office of the president was orchestrated by Republicans in Congress behind the back of the administration. No one from the White House, including Secretary of State John Kerry, who had met with the ambassador of Israel shortly before the invite was announced, was notified. They learned about the invitation after the fact. An unprecedented breach of protocol led to the controversial speech.
All of these events took place right before a close and heated election in Israel. The whole affair stunk of putrid politics.
Given the incomparable sleight, one would have expected it to be for a peaceful cause. To the contrary, the speech called for the nuclear negotiations with Iran to cease. Calling it, "a bad deal," although a deal had not been reached, Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that he favored war. Because without a diplomatic deal, or a framework to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, war is more likely than not to occur.
Iran is backed into a corner, and rightfully so. The economic sanctions put into place by President Obama and the other security council members of the UN have been effective. But, the purpose of the sanctions was to get Iran to the negotiating table. By refusing to negotiate, Iran hardliners will be empowered and Iran will have to forge ahead lest it appear weak.
A majority of Americans support the talks, including myself. War and military campaigns should be the last option. Those who favor all or nothing diplomacy put the world at risk; each and every hawkish rhetoric puts our troops into the potential line of fire. Our leaders need to take that seriously. Our military men and women should have an unambiguous reason for putting their own lives at risk.
Peace through understanding can be accomplished. Certainly, we should celebrate those who are willing to fight for peace even if it is unpopular. At the very least, they should be given a chance.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
The Republican Model of Governance
Four republican governors, three of whom are running for president in 2016, have shown a model for governance. The substance and style of their state leadership possibly could be adopted nationwide. By looking at the numbers, one can determine whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing -- ultimately, the voter will have to decide for himself or herself.
Wisconsin has an all-star governor, at least right now in the conservative polls. Governor Scott Walker has survived a recall election, won campaign after campaign, and stood foot to foot with aggressive labor unions. He is agnostic on the faith and patriotism of the president. Mr. Walker, on a recent trip abroad, "punted" on a question related to evolution.
On economic issues, he has some problems. Wisconsin went from a $517 million surplus in June of 2014 to a projected $2.2 billion deficit. Like you will see throughout this post, Mr. Walker implemented supply-side (a.k.a. "trickle down") tax cuts. Considered orthodoxy in conservative politics, it is believed that tax cuts can result in higher revenues because of increased economic activity. Right-leaning economists have debunked this crank theory.
In conjunction with less revenues, Wisconsin has not expanded Medicaid via ObamaCare. The costs for Medicaid are squeezing the state budget, yet Mr. Walker remains obstinate on his position. It is estimated that if Medicaid were expanded, the state could save $200 million a year. With choices having to be made, Mr. Walker has decided to cut education. The university system in Wisconsin will have to deal with a 13% cut to its operations. Naturally, students and teachers are not happy.
Hundreds of miles east, Governor Chris Christie -- known for his pugnacity and straight talk, and bridge politics-- manages the state of New Jersey. Mr. Christie faces problems of his own. Recently the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that his unilateral cuts to the state pension fund were unconstitutional. Like Mr. Walker, Mr. Christie has to answer for a structural deficit of $7.3 billion. Since Mr. Christie refuses to raise taxes, he has proposed withholding property tax rebates, and refusing to fund state pensions. Toxicity surrounds Mr. Christie so now wealthy Republican donors are backing Jeb Bush rather than the New Jersey everyman.
Louisiana's governor is not quiet about his conservative credentials. Even after no-go Muslim zones were mocked and fact-checked, Governor Bobby Jindal stuck with it. Mr. Jindal embraces creationism, mocks climate change scientists, and courts birther voters. He isn't shy when explaining why the state's coffers are so depleted. It is all planned -- he wants to reduce the size of government.
Next year, Louisiana anticipates a $1.6 billion shortfall. Mr. Jindal has already spent money allocated for senior citizens, infrastructure, and reserve saving. His frantic strategies to pay for his own tax cuts have resulted in buildings sold and tax amnesties declared. Over $1 billion was added up from "gimmicks, games, and accounting tricks." Next year, Mr. Jindal may not be so fortunate -- the one-time sources may be dried up.
Like Messrs. Walker, Christie, and Jindal, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback ran passionately on his promise to cut taxes. He stated proudly that his conservative model would be a model eventually replicated across the country. Unfortunately for him, and for Kansas residents, the state is in trouble. Mr. Brownback has to find a way to fill a $280 million shortfall.
Similar to Mr. Christie, the Kansas Supreme Court declared Mr. Brownback's education cuts illegal. The schools are underfunded and the governor has to address it appropriately. One of the biggest tax cuts in history has led to fiscal ruin for the Midwest state.
One can see how a Republican would govern the nation. On the campaign trail, promises would be made about tax cuts, increased economic opportunity, and fiscal responsibility. When eventually it came to governance, however, reality would kick in. A president cannot fudge the numbers; they would have to find a way to pay for their proposed tax cuts.
The data is out there. We all know the Republican model for governance. Let's hope that it is not adopted at the federal level. It's not as pretty as promised.
Wisconsin has an all-star governor, at least right now in the conservative polls. Governor Scott Walker has survived a recall election, won campaign after campaign, and stood foot to foot with aggressive labor unions. He is agnostic on the faith and patriotism of the president. Mr. Walker, on a recent trip abroad, "punted" on a question related to evolution.
On economic issues, he has some problems. Wisconsin went from a $517 million surplus in June of 2014 to a projected $2.2 billion deficit. Like you will see throughout this post, Mr. Walker implemented supply-side (a.k.a. "trickle down") tax cuts. Considered orthodoxy in conservative politics, it is believed that tax cuts can result in higher revenues because of increased economic activity. Right-leaning economists have debunked this crank theory.
In conjunction with less revenues, Wisconsin has not expanded Medicaid via ObamaCare. The costs for Medicaid are squeezing the state budget, yet Mr. Walker remains obstinate on his position. It is estimated that if Medicaid were expanded, the state could save $200 million a year. With choices having to be made, Mr. Walker has decided to cut education. The university system in Wisconsin will have to deal with a 13% cut to its operations. Naturally, students and teachers are not happy.
Hundreds of miles east, Governor Chris Christie -- known for his pugnacity and straight talk, and bridge politics-- manages the state of New Jersey. Mr. Christie faces problems of his own. Recently the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that his unilateral cuts to the state pension fund were unconstitutional. Like Mr. Walker, Mr. Christie has to answer for a structural deficit of $7.3 billion. Since Mr. Christie refuses to raise taxes, he has proposed withholding property tax rebates, and refusing to fund state pensions. Toxicity surrounds Mr. Christie so now wealthy Republican donors are backing Jeb Bush rather than the New Jersey everyman.
Louisiana's governor is not quiet about his conservative credentials. Even after no-go Muslim zones were mocked and fact-checked, Governor Bobby Jindal stuck with it. Mr. Jindal embraces creationism, mocks climate change scientists, and courts birther voters. He isn't shy when explaining why the state's coffers are so depleted. It is all planned -- he wants to reduce the size of government.
Next year, Louisiana anticipates a $1.6 billion shortfall. Mr. Jindal has already spent money allocated for senior citizens, infrastructure, and reserve saving. His frantic strategies to pay for his own tax cuts have resulted in buildings sold and tax amnesties declared. Over $1 billion was added up from "gimmicks, games, and accounting tricks." Next year, Mr. Jindal may not be so fortunate -- the one-time sources may be dried up.
Like Messrs. Walker, Christie, and Jindal, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback ran passionately on his promise to cut taxes. He stated proudly that his conservative model would be a model eventually replicated across the country. Unfortunately for him, and for Kansas residents, the state is in trouble. Mr. Brownback has to find a way to fill a $280 million shortfall.
Similar to Mr. Christie, the Kansas Supreme Court declared Mr. Brownback's education cuts illegal. The schools are underfunded and the governor has to address it appropriately. One of the biggest tax cuts in history has led to fiscal ruin for the Midwest state.
One can see how a Republican would govern the nation. On the campaign trail, promises would be made about tax cuts, increased economic opportunity, and fiscal responsibility. When eventually it came to governance, however, reality would kick in. A president cannot fudge the numbers; they would have to find a way to pay for their proposed tax cuts.
The data is out there. We all know the Republican model for governance. Let's hope that it is not adopted at the federal level. It's not as pretty as promised.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Will (or Can) the Republicans Govern?
Tuesday, November 4 is the date of the midterm elections. Unless you have tuned out and are unaware (like the majority of Americans), this vote is primarily about which political party will control the upper chamber of Congress. There are battleground states with close races. Come Tuesday we will know whether Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid is the senate majority leader.
Pundits, operatives, and politicians themselves have voiced their opinions about the importance of this election. Americans are not buying it, or at least they are not enthused. With record numbers of dissatisfaction, voters seem apathetic. Most cite gridlock and polarization for the cause of the discontent. They ask: does it really matter who wins control of the Senate?
The election will go on, however, and polls point to a Republican victory. "It is a good environment for the Republicans." The President is too unpopular to help the Democrats, it has been said. The wizards of statistics have generally agreed with these sentiments. Both FiveThirtyEight and the Princeton Election Consortium have given the advantage to Republican candidates in the battleground states, which are overwhelming located in the South and Midwest.
So more likely than not, we will have a Congress controlled by the Republicans, both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
What will they do with a majority? I am curious as to whether Republicans will be able to change their message and tone so quickly. Let us not forget that for years now they have been the opposition party. Instead of having to push forward legislation (which could make it to the floor for a vote), the dissenters have been able to criticize, and object. It's been the case that Republicans have been more focused on pointing out President Obama's "failures" than offering policy changes.
Indeed, even this election reflects the "attitudes" of the political atmosphere, rather than any substantive legislative proposals. "President Obama has been weak on Ebola." Even though there have been only a handful of confirmed cases of Ebola. "President Obama has failed on the economy." Despite the fact that their has been 56 months of job creation, and corporate earnings have been astronomical. "President Obama is weak on national security." Though there has been no outright terrorist attacks on our homeland."ObamaCare needs to be replaced!" By what, who knows.
Optics are important, yet it should not be the main concern of voters. Can Republicans govern, and put aside the rhetoric? With their likely new found majority, will they pass bills for the President to sign?
The statisticians should do some numbers on that question. Republicans favor less regulation (specifics?), low taxation on top rates (didn't work so well in Kansas), and less government spending (deficit to GDP ratio is historically low). It's unlikely that these goals will be signed off by the President. Not only on political grounds, but on the fact that these policies do not have a great track record.
Socially, Republicans are also going to face public opposition. On marriage equality, a woman's right to choose, and other "moral" issues, they advocate a position in conflict with a majority of Americans.
The Republicans will likely win on Tuesday, but they may not be ready for the win. Accustomed to their method of disapproval, legislators will have to change course: offer ideas, pass laws, and govern. It will be interesting to see what they will do once in the driver's seat. For the rest of us, let's remember to put on our seat belts. It could be a bumpy ride.
Pundits, operatives, and politicians themselves have voiced their opinions about the importance of this election. Americans are not buying it, or at least they are not enthused. With record numbers of dissatisfaction, voters seem apathetic. Most cite gridlock and polarization for the cause of the discontent. They ask: does it really matter who wins control of the Senate?
The election will go on, however, and polls point to a Republican victory. "It is a good environment for the Republicans." The President is too unpopular to help the Democrats, it has been said. The wizards of statistics have generally agreed with these sentiments. Both FiveThirtyEight and the Princeton Election Consortium have given the advantage to Republican candidates in the battleground states, which are overwhelming located in the South and Midwest.
So more likely than not, we will have a Congress controlled by the Republicans, both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
What will they do with a majority? I am curious as to whether Republicans will be able to change their message and tone so quickly. Let us not forget that for years now they have been the opposition party. Instead of having to push forward legislation (which could make it to the floor for a vote), the dissenters have been able to criticize, and object. It's been the case that Republicans have been more focused on pointing out President Obama's "failures" than offering policy changes.
Indeed, even this election reflects the "attitudes" of the political atmosphere, rather than any substantive legislative proposals. "President Obama has been weak on Ebola." Even though there have been only a handful of confirmed cases of Ebola. "President Obama has failed on the economy." Despite the fact that their has been 56 months of job creation, and corporate earnings have been astronomical. "President Obama is weak on national security." Though there has been no outright terrorist attacks on our homeland."ObamaCare needs to be replaced!" By what, who knows.
Optics are important, yet it should not be the main concern of voters. Can Republicans govern, and put aside the rhetoric? With their likely new found majority, will they pass bills for the President to sign?
The statisticians should do some numbers on that question. Republicans favor less regulation (specifics?), low taxation on top rates (didn't work so well in Kansas), and less government spending (deficit to GDP ratio is historically low). It's unlikely that these goals will be signed off by the President. Not only on political grounds, but on the fact that these policies do not have a great track record.
Socially, Republicans are also going to face public opposition. On marriage equality, a woman's right to choose, and other "moral" issues, they advocate a position in conflict with a majority of Americans.
The Republicans will likely win on Tuesday, but they may not be ready for the win. Accustomed to their method of disapproval, legislators will have to change course: offer ideas, pass laws, and govern. It will be interesting to see what they will do once in the driver's seat. For the rest of us, let's remember to put on our seat belts. It could be a bumpy ride.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Numbers Don't Lie, Ignore the Scoreboard
Oh, math. Perhaps one of the most disdained subjects in school, but anyone in existence knows of its importance. Math is incorporated in our everyday lives. As the wise Jay-z once stated, "numbers don't lie." It's common knowledge, however, the same cannot be said of politics.
Policy should be shaped by the data -- the indisputable numbers. But, I can't remember the last time when that has been the case. Ideologues, on both sides of the spectrum -- let's be honest though, more so the Republicans -- have found a way to mislead and confuse. Conclusions are always up to debate. The truth is always relative, no matter what the experts say. And even if partisans are confronted with the truth, it doesn't seem to matter.
That is why I was not surprised when I read a study conducted by University of Michigan political scientists. They found that evidence contrary to a held position does nothing to change the opinion of the belief-holder. In fact, the belief-holders grew more adamant in their false beliefs! Brendan Nyhan summarized it as follows: "the general idea is that it's absolutely threatening to admit you're wrong...the phenomenon -- known as 'backfire' -- is a 'natural defense to avoid ... cognitive dissonance.'"
Okay, so we already knew that no one "likes" to be wrong. What's the problem though with admitting that you're wrong, when shown concrete conflicting evidence? I ask, because as you can probably guess, some matters of policy should not be open to much debate.
I preface my comments with the fact that people should not be ridiculed or mocked. Conservatives have rightly condemned the left (some in the cable news business exaggerate) at times for "elitism." Nonetheless, liberals should not concede on the facts.
Republicans still assert a few claims that I find disturbing. "The stimulus did not work." Actually it did, and economists, both conservative and liberal, agree that it prevented another great depression. So can the talking points stop?
Here's another one: "tax cuts on the 'job creators' will boost the economy and the tax cuts will pay for itself." No, not so much in reality. As I pointed out in an earlier blog entry, Kansas attempted to experiment with trickle-down policies and it failed. California raised taxes and the economy grew. When will the voodoo economics stop?
Let's take the controversial, and widely misunderstood, ObamaCare. "No one will sign up," and "premiums will rise exponentially." Both wrong. You may have read -- or probably did not read because of the media coverage -- that over 8 million signed up the first year. The uninsured rate is dropping fast, and even more fast in states that expanded Medicaid. And what about premiums... Yep, you guessed it: California premiums are expected to rise modestly, much lower than the average rate of growth over recent years. Other states are showing the same data.
I won't even opine about climate change. I'll spare you the "activist rhetoric."
If you are one of my conservative friends, odds are that you will likely dismiss these citations and evidence. That's too bad. I'm definitely not saying that my positions are always right. Yet, there needs to be an opposition that can accept these facts. One can still hold conservative beliefs and still accept the evidence.
In this age of polarization, I doubt anything will be agreed upon, It's too damaging politically. Well, maybe one thing can be agreed upon; The scoreboard isn't everything, it's all about how the scoreboard looks.
Policy should be shaped by the data -- the indisputable numbers. But, I can't remember the last time when that has been the case. Ideologues, on both sides of the spectrum -- let's be honest though, more so the Republicans -- have found a way to mislead and confuse. Conclusions are always up to debate. The truth is always relative, no matter what the experts say. And even if partisans are confronted with the truth, it doesn't seem to matter.
That is why I was not surprised when I read a study conducted by University of Michigan political scientists. They found that evidence contrary to a held position does nothing to change the opinion of the belief-holder. In fact, the belief-holders grew more adamant in their false beliefs! Brendan Nyhan summarized it as follows: "the general idea is that it's absolutely threatening to admit you're wrong...the phenomenon -- known as 'backfire' -- is a 'natural defense to avoid ... cognitive dissonance.'"
Okay, so we already knew that no one "likes" to be wrong. What's the problem though with admitting that you're wrong, when shown concrete conflicting evidence? I ask, because as you can probably guess, some matters of policy should not be open to much debate.
I preface my comments with the fact that people should not be ridiculed or mocked. Conservatives have rightly condemned the left (some in the cable news business exaggerate) at times for "elitism." Nonetheless, liberals should not concede on the facts.
Republicans still assert a few claims that I find disturbing. "The stimulus did not work." Actually it did, and economists, both conservative and liberal, agree that it prevented another great depression. So can the talking points stop?
Here's another one: "tax cuts on the 'job creators' will boost the economy and the tax cuts will pay for itself." No, not so much in reality. As I pointed out in an earlier blog entry, Kansas attempted to experiment with trickle-down policies and it failed. California raised taxes and the economy grew. When will the voodoo economics stop?
Let's take the controversial, and widely misunderstood, ObamaCare. "No one will sign up," and "premiums will rise exponentially." Both wrong. You may have read -- or probably did not read because of the media coverage -- that over 8 million signed up the first year. The uninsured rate is dropping fast, and even more fast in states that expanded Medicaid. And what about premiums... Yep, you guessed it: California premiums are expected to rise modestly, much lower than the average rate of growth over recent years. Other states are showing the same data.
I won't even opine about climate change. I'll spare you the "activist rhetoric."
If you are one of my conservative friends, odds are that you will likely dismiss these citations and evidence. That's too bad. I'm definitely not saying that my positions are always right. Yet, there needs to be an opposition that can accept these facts. One can still hold conservative beliefs and still accept the evidence.
In this age of polarization, I doubt anything will be agreed upon, It's too damaging politically. Well, maybe one thing can be agreed upon; The scoreboard isn't everything, it's all about how the scoreboard looks.
The
general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re
wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on
the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural
defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” - See more at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.BlQmmnVn.dpuf
The
general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re
wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on
the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural
defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” - See more at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.BlQmmnVn.dpuf
“The
general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re
wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on
the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural
defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” - See more at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.BlQmmnVn.dpuf
“The
general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re
wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on
the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural
defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.” - See more at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.BlQmmnVn.dpuf
Monday, June 30, 2014
To Sue or Not to Sue, That is the (Politically Driven) Question
Hamlet is one of my favorite Shakespearean plays. It is a tragedy that ends in the demise of almost all the characters, but it addresses a range of deep themes and motifs. One such theme is inaction. Enter Speaker of The House, John Boehner.
Recently, Speaker Boehner announced that he was considering a lawsuit against President Obama. Yes, I'm serious (he has some time on his hands). In a press conference, Boehner bemoaned the executive actions of the President, but when he spoke, he failed to mention any particular violations with specificity. Despite this oversight, he was indignantly confident that Obama was failing to execute the laws of the land. Ergo a lawsuit is required; the king must be stopped in his tracks.
The media loved the drama of course -- being more akin to a reality show than an actual policy question.
But, in reality, it is quite sad that our conservative leaders have decided that this is the best course of action for our country. Instead of introducing any bipartisan (bills devoid of poison pills, i.e. amendments to repeal Obamacare, EPA requirements, and food stamps) legislation or allowing Senate-passed bills to come to the House floor, Boehner has elected for litigation.
There is a hint of bad faith here. The Republicans in Congress have refused to entertain any compromise whatsoever. It is a bad word -- and can hurt them in the primaries. Thus, it is in their interest to block, obfuscate, delay, filibuster, and complain. The added benefit is that it undermines the public's opinion about the federal government.
When you run on a platform that all government is bad, it is in your interest to clog any federal action. Not only does it stop the federal government from accomplishing anything, it harms the people's faith in public institutions. Private corporations and states get to fill the void -- just as they wanted and advocated for.
Moreover, the GOP's reasoning has been unsound on this issue. When Boehner said that he did not want to embrace comprehensive immigration reform, he cited the lack of faith that he had in the President to execute the law. Senate Schumer cleverly and quickly retorted that they could approve immigration reform now, but delay its implementation until after President Obama's second term. Boehner declined. He did not provide a justification.
Just like Hamlet, Boehner is plagued by his inability to act. He cannot control his conference. He is unable to pass anything at all -- although resolutions, symbolic gestures, are now popular. Further, Boehner cannot formulate a winning strategy for Republicans in Congress. In the end, he will end up hurting the party -- like when Hamlet stabbed himself with his own poisoned-laced blade.
You see, Americans are smart enough to figure out that intransigence is not beneficial for the country. To the contrary, if we do not compromise, we will fall behind the rest of the world. People, independents and moderates, will eventually see what the lawsuit is all about: faux outrage to get the die-hard conservatives to the polls.
There is truly something rotten in the United States. And I fear that lest we do something about it, it could end up bad for all of us. Certainly, that would be a tragedy.
Recently, Speaker Boehner announced that he was considering a lawsuit against President Obama. Yes, I'm serious (he has some time on his hands). In a press conference, Boehner bemoaned the executive actions of the President, but when he spoke, he failed to mention any particular violations with specificity. Despite this oversight, he was indignantly confident that Obama was failing to execute the laws of the land. Ergo a lawsuit is required; the king must be stopped in his tracks.
The media loved the drama of course -- being more akin to a reality show than an actual policy question.
But, in reality, it is quite sad that our conservative leaders have decided that this is the best course of action for our country. Instead of introducing any bipartisan (bills devoid of poison pills, i.e. amendments to repeal Obamacare, EPA requirements, and food stamps) legislation or allowing Senate-passed bills to come to the House floor, Boehner has elected for litigation.
There is a hint of bad faith here. The Republicans in Congress have refused to entertain any compromise whatsoever. It is a bad word -- and can hurt them in the primaries. Thus, it is in their interest to block, obfuscate, delay, filibuster, and complain. The added benefit is that it undermines the public's opinion about the federal government.
When you run on a platform that all government is bad, it is in your interest to clog any federal action. Not only does it stop the federal government from accomplishing anything, it harms the people's faith in public institutions. Private corporations and states get to fill the void -- just as they wanted and advocated for.
Moreover, the GOP's reasoning has been unsound on this issue. When Boehner said that he did not want to embrace comprehensive immigration reform, he cited the lack of faith that he had in the President to execute the law. Senate Schumer cleverly and quickly retorted that they could approve immigration reform now, but delay its implementation until after President Obama's second term. Boehner declined. He did not provide a justification.
Just like Hamlet, Boehner is plagued by his inability to act. He cannot control his conference. He is unable to pass anything at all -- although resolutions, symbolic gestures, are now popular. Further, Boehner cannot formulate a winning strategy for Republicans in Congress. In the end, he will end up hurting the party -- like when Hamlet stabbed himself with his own poisoned-laced blade.
You see, Americans are smart enough to figure out that intransigence is not beneficial for the country. To the contrary, if we do not compromise, we will fall behind the rest of the world. People, independents and moderates, will eventually see what the lawsuit is all about: faux outrage to get the die-hard conservatives to the polls.
There is truly something rotten in the United States. And I fear that lest we do something about it, it could end up bad for all of us. Certainly, that would be a tragedy.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
We're Not In Kansas Anymore ... Thankfully
One of the benefits of living in Los Angeles is the occasional celebrity sighting. Just the other day, at the local movie theater, I ran into Jeff Garlin -- actor and executive producer of the hit show: Curb Your Enthusiasm. And by "ran into," I mean that I shouted his name awkwardly before he waved back and scurried along. Britney Spears was even in front of me at the nearby Starbucks about a year ago.
Hollywood is right around the corner and there is a lot of cinema history in the entertainment capital of the world. In fact, one of the best known American movies, The Wizard of Oz, was filmed in Culver City and was originally shown in San Bernardino for a sneak peak.
The Wizard of Oz is renowned for a variety of reasons. One, its Technicolor was groundbreaking; the yellow-brick road awed audiences. Second, the music was inspiring, including the Oscar-winning song -- "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Third, Dorothy's dog and the Munchkins were adorable. Finally, it paved the way for the oft-quoted line, "We're not in Kansas anymore..."
I often wondered whether Kansas residents ever got sick of hearing that line. But recently, I have wondered whether Kansas residents wished they had left the state.
The Republican-controlled state is having some economic problems. The conservative-leaning Kansas has aggressively implemented tea-party economic principles. The Republican Governor, Sam Brownback, cut taxes and promised economic prosperity. He stated in 2012 that, "[Kansas'] new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy... [it will] pave the way to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, bring tens of thousands of people to Kansas, and help make our state the best place in America to start and grow a small business..." He may need another adrenaline shot.
Unsurprisingly, the opposite has occurred. Kansas is now facing a huge budget deficit -- $508 million less in revenues compared to the last fiscal year. By 2019, economists expect a deficit of close to $1 billion unless something is changed.
Employment is not the "best" either. Neighboring states are increasing employment at better or similar rates and two large companies, Boeing and Applebee's, have announced that they will move thousands of jobs to other states. Kansas voters are acknowledging the failures; only 33% of voters support Gov. Brownback. The candidate running against Brownback is taking the opportunity to point out that, "The governor [championed] a red state model, and it’s truly not working."
Besides the fact that Kansas schools are being harmed, it may be difficult for Kansas to follow the state's Supreme Court ruling that more must be done for low-income districts. The Republican's policies simply cannot provide an education to a number of its young citizens.
It is truly unfortunate, but again, what can we expect at this point. Republicans will not face reality when it comes to science, facts, or reality. Predictably, the Governor has blamed President Obama...He will not take credit for the situation that he created. Kansas has not been the only state to champion "conservative" economics and been proven wrong by the data. North Carolina, also Republican-controlled, cut unemployment insurance for millions of unemployed Americans. They said that it would lead to job growth and fortune. The reverse happened: most just left the labor force in despair.
If I were in the the land of Oz, I would try to stay there. What's the point of going back to Kansas? Ironically, I have to admit that I have some personal experience with Oz. In high school, I played the "Lion." I wasn't nominated for any Academy Awards but it was a great experience. One of my favorite moments was when I sang, "If I Were King of the Forest."
In honor of that moment, I now sing, "If I were king of the forest, I would not pursue voodoo economics." Because seriously, just like Oz, it's a fantasy to think that Republican economics will benefit everyone. We're not in Kansas anymore...and that's just fine with me.
Hollywood is right around the corner and there is a lot of cinema history in the entertainment capital of the world. In fact, one of the best known American movies, The Wizard of Oz, was filmed in Culver City and was originally shown in San Bernardino for a sneak peak.
The Wizard of Oz is renowned for a variety of reasons. One, its Technicolor was groundbreaking; the yellow-brick road awed audiences. Second, the music was inspiring, including the Oscar-winning song -- "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Third, Dorothy's dog and the Munchkins were adorable. Finally, it paved the way for the oft-quoted line, "We're not in Kansas anymore..."
I often wondered whether Kansas residents ever got sick of hearing that line. But recently, I have wondered whether Kansas residents wished they had left the state.
The Republican-controlled state is having some economic problems. The conservative-leaning Kansas has aggressively implemented tea-party economic principles. The Republican Governor, Sam Brownback, cut taxes and promised economic prosperity. He stated in 2012 that, "[Kansas'] new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy... [it will] pave the way to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, bring tens of thousands of people to Kansas, and help make our state the best place in America to start and grow a small business..." He may need another adrenaline shot.
Unsurprisingly, the opposite has occurred. Kansas is now facing a huge budget deficit -- $508 million less in revenues compared to the last fiscal year. By 2019, economists expect a deficit of close to $1 billion unless something is changed.
Employment is not the "best" either. Neighboring states are increasing employment at better or similar rates and two large companies, Boeing and Applebee's, have announced that they will move thousands of jobs to other states. Kansas voters are acknowledging the failures; only 33% of voters support Gov. Brownback. The candidate running against Brownback is taking the opportunity to point out that, "The governor [championed] a red state model, and it’s truly not working."
Besides the fact that Kansas schools are being harmed, it may be difficult for Kansas to follow the state's Supreme Court ruling that more must be done for low-income districts. The Republican's policies simply cannot provide an education to a number of its young citizens.
It is truly unfortunate, but again, what can we expect at this point. Republicans will not face reality when it comes to science, facts, or reality. Predictably, the Governor has blamed President Obama...He will not take credit for the situation that he created. Kansas has not been the only state to champion "conservative" economics and been proven wrong by the data. North Carolina, also Republican-controlled, cut unemployment insurance for millions of unemployed Americans. They said that it would lead to job growth and fortune. The reverse happened: most just left the labor force in despair.
If I were in the the land of Oz, I would try to stay there. What's the point of going back to Kansas? Ironically, I have to admit that I have some personal experience with Oz. In high school, I played the "Lion." I wasn't nominated for any Academy Awards but it was a great experience. One of my favorite moments was when I sang, "If I Were King of the Forest."
In honor of that moment, I now sing, "If I were king of the forest, I would not pursue voodoo economics." Because seriously, just like Oz, it's a fantasy to think that Republican economics will benefit everyone. We're not in Kansas anymore...and that's just fine with me.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Static Union
"Big thinking has more often gotten us into trouble then led us to success..." - Republican Congressman Tom Cole.
Last night President Obama gave his State of the Union Address in front of his political adversary -- the "do even less" Congress. During the address, Mr. Obama focused on the personal stories of average Americans. He highlighted the anecdotes to paint a picture and establish a theme: citizens need help, and if Congress is unwilling to act, he will.
The economy has definitely improved since the Great Recession. Unemployment is down, stocks are up, the housing market is rebounding, and consumer spending is picking up. Yet, people are still hurting. There are still many things that can be done to improve the lives of tens of millions. The Federal Reserve can only do so much; fiscal policy can be much more effective in strengthening the economic recovery.
Hence, President Obama has declared that he will use executive action when possible to aid the economy. Congressional Republicans reacted in sync. "Obama has run out of ideas..." "If [Mr. Obama] tries to ignore the [Constitution], he's going to run into a brick wall." What has Speaker Boehner been calling the brick wall up until now? The GOP has made it a political strategy to block whatever it can to ensure that Mr. Obama does not have claim to legislative achievements. The Speaker presided over record setting Filibusters and historical intransigence.
The Constitution is silent on what to do when one branch of the Government has taken an indefinite vacation. So, while Executive Action is necessary, it is not a cure all. It should not become a fix to Congressional obstructionism.
I believe that Republicans want to do whats best for the country in the long run. Like Democrats and liberals, the GOP loves its country. They certainly have different policy ideas on how to accomplish that goal. But, Congress has decided that it must win elections first before it can do its job. It's a brazen strategy not worth hiding. In having good intentions and standing by strong held convictions, the GOP has resigned to the fact that Americans can wait. We shouldn't have to.
Our leaders should look to the American people as examples. Every single day we compromise. We do not agree with all persons we come across or do business with, but we find a way to negotiate and find common ground.
Like individuals who must agree every day despite having different beliefs, Congress should forfeit its strategy of letting 2014 come and go. The time delay may be politically convenient, but it is not a good policy for Americans. It is not a winning formula either -- people will reflect their frustration at the ballot box.
In sum, Executive Action can help only so much. Mr. Boehner and I agree that the Constitution is the foundation of our great nation and must be followed. That is why I call on Speaker Boehner to fulfill his duties under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. You see, you were not elected to win elections, you were elected to legislate. Get to work.
Last night President Obama gave his State of the Union Address in front of his political adversary -- the "do even less" Congress. During the address, Mr. Obama focused on the personal stories of average Americans. He highlighted the anecdotes to paint a picture and establish a theme: citizens need help, and if Congress is unwilling to act, he will.
The economy has definitely improved since the Great Recession. Unemployment is down, stocks are up, the housing market is rebounding, and consumer spending is picking up. Yet, people are still hurting. There are still many things that can be done to improve the lives of tens of millions. The Federal Reserve can only do so much; fiscal policy can be much more effective in strengthening the economic recovery.
Hence, President Obama has declared that he will use executive action when possible to aid the economy. Congressional Republicans reacted in sync. "Obama has run out of ideas..." "If [Mr. Obama] tries to ignore the [Constitution], he's going to run into a brick wall." What has Speaker Boehner been calling the brick wall up until now? The GOP has made it a political strategy to block whatever it can to ensure that Mr. Obama does not have claim to legislative achievements. The Speaker presided over record setting Filibusters and historical intransigence.
The Constitution is silent on what to do when one branch of the Government has taken an indefinite vacation. So, while Executive Action is necessary, it is not a cure all. It should not become a fix to Congressional obstructionism.
I believe that Republicans want to do whats best for the country in the long run. Like Democrats and liberals, the GOP loves its country. They certainly have different policy ideas on how to accomplish that goal. But, Congress has decided that it must win elections first before it can do its job. It's a brazen strategy not worth hiding. In having good intentions and standing by strong held convictions, the GOP has resigned to the fact that Americans can wait. We shouldn't have to.
Our leaders should look to the American people as examples. Every single day we compromise. We do not agree with all persons we come across or do business with, but we find a way to negotiate and find common ground.
Like individuals who must agree every day despite having different beliefs, Congress should forfeit its strategy of letting 2014 come and go. The time delay may be politically convenient, but it is not a good policy for Americans. It is not a winning formula either -- people will reflect their frustration at the ballot box.
In sum, Executive Action can help only so much. Mr. Boehner and I agree that the Constitution is the foundation of our great nation and must be followed. That is why I call on Speaker Boehner to fulfill his duties under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. You see, you were not elected to win elections, you were elected to legislate. Get to work.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
What About Our (Fiscal) Civil War?
"Bang bang bang," I shouted when I jumped into the Tennessee grass and tried to avoid the imaginary fire from my older brother. We were both under ten at the time but that did not stop us from developing an interest in United States history - particularly the Civil War. I wore gray, the color of the Confederates, and my brother wore blue for the North.
With a battle site not ten minutes away, in the city of Franklin, it was easy for two young boys to get enthralled with the fights of the past. There was one problem for me, however: I never got to win. The South suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Franklin.
During this month of September the public had an opportunity to discuss and debate another civil war - the one in Syria. It was interesting to see the different viewpoints and coalitions for and against a military strike. The whole global crisis and argument developed because President Assad used Sarin gas against his own people. The lungs of 400 children were paralyzed because of the banned chemicals.
Not surprisingly, the conservative-controlled House of Representatives were opposed to the strike. Some of the members may have opposed the strike on rational grounds, but it is almost certain that some wanted to simply oppose the President. Congressman Israel thought so and stated that:
"Does anyone truly believe that if Mitt Romney had been elected president and had asked House Republicans for exactly what President Obama is asking, that House Republicans would oppose it to the extent that they’re opposed to what President Obama wants? The level of hypocrisy is what amazes me."
Luckily, we did not have to find out if there were enough votes from the House of Representatives. A diplomatic deal was struck and for the meantime postponed a potential global conflict. Unfortunately for the American people, we can still expect a domestic conflict that will have an impact on our everyday well-being - the budget battle and likely government shut-down.
The truth of the matter is that we are embroiled in another American civil war. This war is not being fought with horses and bayonets. The weapons of choice for this ideological civil war is special interest money, political brinkmanship, and a wide army of pundits. The casualties: our economy and the American people.
If you have not been following, the Federal government is facing a possible shut-down because extremists in the House conditioned the funding of the Government on the defunding of ObamaCare. It is a symbolic move, which has a zero change of passage, but has the ability to cause havoc to our markets and economy.
The GOP obsession with ObamaCare has curtailed any laws from being passed, i.e. comprehensive immigration reform, tax reform, campaign finance reform, and a host of laws that could only help the United States. Now, the GOP's irrational fixation will slow our already slow recovery.
ObamaCare was passed and signed in 2010, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012, and has helped millions of young Americans stay insured through their parents' health care. 78% of the young beneficiaries of ObamaCare are Republicans.
Yet, we are still fighting. Why? Because there is a political opposition that cannot govern and perhaps do not want to govern. A government shut-down is precisely what some of the Tea Party zealots advocate. They do not want a limited government, they do not want a government at all.
Every civil war eventually comes to an end. I am certain that this fiscal one will end too. But only because the American people are fed up. Reasonable conservatives and liberal Americans will come together to express their dissatisfaction with the gamesmanship. We do not have to accept a government that is incapable of compromise and disrespectful of the opposition.
In the end, we are all in this together - brothers and sisters of the Constitution. I can guarantee that despite these budget fiascoes, there will still be young children replaying the great history of our country in their front yards, perhaps the Battle of Franklin too. I even bet that, just like my brother and I, they will eventually get tired, smile, and put down their imaginary arms. Sometimes its more fun to be on the same team.
With a battle site not ten minutes away, in the city of Franklin, it was easy for two young boys to get enthralled with the fights of the past. There was one problem for me, however: I never got to win. The South suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Franklin.
During this month of September the public had an opportunity to discuss and debate another civil war - the one in Syria. It was interesting to see the different viewpoints and coalitions for and against a military strike. The whole global crisis and argument developed because President Assad used Sarin gas against his own people. The lungs of 400 children were paralyzed because of the banned chemicals.
Not surprisingly, the conservative-controlled House of Representatives were opposed to the strike. Some of the members may have opposed the strike on rational grounds, but it is almost certain that some wanted to simply oppose the President. Congressman Israel thought so and stated that:
"Does anyone truly believe that if Mitt Romney had been elected president and had asked House Republicans for exactly what President Obama is asking, that House Republicans would oppose it to the extent that they’re opposed to what President Obama wants? The level of hypocrisy is what amazes me."
Luckily, we did not have to find out if there were enough votes from the House of Representatives. A diplomatic deal was struck and for the meantime postponed a potential global conflict. Unfortunately for the American people, we can still expect a domestic conflict that will have an impact on our everyday well-being - the budget battle and likely government shut-down.
The truth of the matter is that we are embroiled in another American civil war. This war is not being fought with horses and bayonets. The weapons of choice for this ideological civil war is special interest money, political brinkmanship, and a wide army of pundits. The casualties: our economy and the American people.
If you have not been following, the Federal government is facing a possible shut-down because extremists in the House conditioned the funding of the Government on the defunding of ObamaCare. It is a symbolic move, which has a zero change of passage, but has the ability to cause havoc to our markets and economy.
The GOP obsession with ObamaCare has curtailed any laws from being passed, i.e. comprehensive immigration reform, tax reform, campaign finance reform, and a host of laws that could only help the United States. Now, the GOP's irrational fixation will slow our already slow recovery.
ObamaCare was passed and signed in 2010, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012, and has helped millions of young Americans stay insured through their parents' health care. 78% of the young beneficiaries of ObamaCare are Republicans.
Yet, we are still fighting. Why? Because there is a political opposition that cannot govern and perhaps do not want to govern. A government shut-down is precisely what some of the Tea Party zealots advocate. They do not want a limited government, they do not want a government at all.
Every civil war eventually comes to an end. I am certain that this fiscal one will end too. But only because the American people are fed up. Reasonable conservatives and liberal Americans will come together to express their dissatisfaction with the gamesmanship. We do not have to accept a government that is incapable of compromise and disrespectful of the opposition.
In the end, we are all in this together - brothers and sisters of the Constitution. I can guarantee that despite these budget fiascoes, there will still be young children replaying the great history of our country in their front yards, perhaps the Battle of Franklin too. I even bet that, just like my brother and I, they will eventually get tired, smile, and put down their imaginary arms. Sometimes its more fun to be on the same team.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
obamaSCARE
"Repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens..." - Michele Bachmann, Chair of the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives.
For every dollar spent on explaining the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "ObamaCare," there are five dollars going into destroying it with mostly false information intended to misinform and raise the passions of partisans. I wanted to write this post so the naysayers can spend more - let's get them up to 7:1.
The recent delay of the employer mandate has been used as fodder for the House to cause more confusion. It is estimated that the employer mandate, which obligates large employers to provide health insurance, affects only one percent of the American workforce. Further, the delay does not prevent those same workers from benefiting from other aspects of ObamaCare. Perhaps more clear is the irony that has unfolded: Republicans who once requested a repeal are now objecting to its delay.
It is easier to discuss the recent developments by providing context to where we were, where we are, and hopefully, where we will be. Let's begin.
Insurance
The idea of insurance is to spread risk among a number of parties. You purchase a contract with a premium, to cover you in the event of a occurrence. That occurrence could be as simple as a cold or as complex as a surgery to combat cancer. The pooled risk, held by the big insurer, pays for the treatment in either case unless the contract did not provide for it. Thus, the insurance contract transfers risk. You will always pay the premium, but you may not face the illness.
For example, you may have seen movies, like "The Rainmaker," in which the insurer was sued for denying an insurance claim because it said it was not provided for under the insurance contract. Great Benefit, the insurance company in The Rainmaker, denied a child's claim for leukemia treatment because it said that "it was an experimental procedure," excluded from the insurance. Great Benefit lost, because they denied every claim regardless of the coverage, and Rudy Baylor, the child's attorney, became a hero. Also, I do not think the jurors liked John Voight too much.
Health Care Costs Increased Much Faster than Other Goods & Services
American health insurance also involves medical providers, i.e. doctors, hospitals, and clinics. When an occurrence happens, like a routine prostate exam, someone needs to provide the professional services. The insurer has to pay the doctors for helping the patients.
Therefore, the insurer and the providers have to enter into agreements because they have to determine the costs for their medical services. In the United States, the costs for the medical services, prior to Obamacare being passed, was increasing at an alarming rate. Compared to every other industrialized nation, we were by far spending the most. Health care spending increased to 17% of GDP, 50% higher than France, the country that spent the second most.
And despite all of our spending, we ranked 38th in overall health assessments, behind Singapore, Monaco, and Cyprus.
The uncontrollable rise in costs was caused by a number of factors, but one of the main reasons was that the providers were charging an unusually high amount for their services. A hospital visit in the United States averages at $4,267 per day compared to $1,472 in Australia, the second most expensive.
Each and every insurer negotiates their prices with providers. With each insurer and provider seeking the best return for their respective stakeholders, the patients end up paying more. Moreover, most hospitals are rewarded when they increase growth and profit, not when they improve the quality of the health care. These incentives are not conducive to affordable care.
More Uninsured
With the increase of health costs, more people could not afford to pay for insurance, because premiums had to keep up with the price of services. This exacerbated the problem because with less people contributing to the risk pool or buying health insurance, the premiums had to increase.
Despite not having insurance, individuals still get sick and they need to get help. The uninsured resorted to Emergency Rooms for typical medical services that they needed. The state and federal governments also had to pay, which means that every taxpayer bore the negative economic consequences. But even more sad was the fact that many people went bankrupt for the simple reason that they did not have health insurance and had to undergo expensive and necessary treatment.
Enter ObamaCare
President Obama entered into office with the rational belief that the status quo was simply unacceptable. Health care costs were rising incredibly fast and it was a drain on the entire economy. ObamaCare was based on a model that worked in Massachusetts, ironically when Mitt Romney was governor.
The main component of the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate. On January 1, 2014, every citizen must purchase health insurance or face a small penalty. This provides an incentive to enter into the pool of risk shared among other insureds.
ObamaCare also gives help to those in need. I have blogged about income inequality ad nauseum and for good reason, but ObamaCare addresses this problem by giving tax credits to those with low income so that they can purchase health insurance. This is paid for by taxing the very wealthy.
In addition to the credits, ObamaCare has also given individuals more choice. The Health Care Exchanges will be an online marketplace for consumers, which will help them consider their options. These exchanges will act like an Expedia or Travelocity. It is likely that it will significantly help get more young people get insured.
Perhaps more important, and widely unknown, is the fact that insurance companies will now have to give money back to the insureds. Over $1.1 billion was given back in the summer of 2012. Thanks to the new 80/20 rule, insurance companies must spend 80% of premiums on medical care to the insureds. This 20% cap on administrative costs will help put quality of medical care in front of profits.
Placing Politics Before The Common Good
The opponents of ObamaCare will do anything in their power to mislead and attack. The House has attempted to repeal ObamaCare approximately 40 times, without success. Well, I should be more clear... without legislative success. Speaker John Boehner was able to raise over 30 million this year for his GOP. He intends to spend billions of dollars to retain control of his position in 2014.
The bottom line: ObamaCare will help the entire country and millions of Americans because it will help slow the growth of medical costs and increase coverage. In fact, it has already slowed down costs.
The next time you hear criticism about ObamaCare, remember that someone is paying the big bucks to have you hear it.
The main component of the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate. On January 1, 2014, every citizen must purchase health insurance or face a small penalty. This provides an incentive to enter into the pool of risk shared among other insureds.
ObamaCare also gives help to those in need. I have blogged about income inequality ad nauseum and for good reason, but ObamaCare addresses this problem by giving tax credits to those with low income so that they can purchase health insurance. This is paid for by taxing the very wealthy.
In addition to the credits, ObamaCare has also given individuals more choice. The Health Care Exchanges will be an online marketplace for consumers, which will help them consider their options. These exchanges will act like an Expedia or Travelocity. It is likely that it will significantly help get more young people get insured.
Perhaps more important, and widely unknown, is the fact that insurance companies will now have to give money back to the insureds. Over $1.1 billion was given back in the summer of 2012. Thanks to the new 80/20 rule, insurance companies must spend 80% of premiums on medical care to the insureds. This 20% cap on administrative costs will help put quality of medical care in front of profits.
Placing Politics Before The Common Good
The opponents of ObamaCare will do anything in their power to mislead and attack. The House has attempted to repeal ObamaCare approximately 40 times, without success. Well, I should be more clear... without legislative success. Speaker John Boehner was able to raise over 30 million this year for his GOP. He intends to spend billions of dollars to retain control of his position in 2014.
The bottom line: ObamaCare will help the entire country and millions of Americans because it will help slow the growth of medical costs and increase coverage. In fact, it has already slowed down costs.
The next time you hear criticism about ObamaCare, remember that someone is paying the big bucks to have you hear it.
We've
made it pretty clear and I'll make it clear one more time: If the court
does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal
what's left of it. - See more at:
http://www.politicalruminations.com/john-boehner-quotes/#sthash.97XSqWbi.dpuf
We've
made it pretty clear and I'll make it clear one more time: If the court
does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal
what's left of it. - See more at:
http://www.politicalruminations.com/john-boehner-quotes/#sthash.97XSqWbi.dpuf
We've
made it pretty clear and I'll make it clear one more time: If the court
does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal
what's left of it. - See more at:
http://www.politicalruminations.com/john-boehner-quotes/#sthash.97XSqWbi.dpuf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)