"What is the difference between a socialist and a democrat?" The Democratic National Committee Chair, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, hesitated. She was likely caught off guard. "I'll ask again, what is the difference?" Chris Matthews, a liberal pundit on MSNBC, aggressively questioned. The segment topic involved Bernie Sanders. He did not appear to be a fan. Chris wanted answers.
I like Chris Matthews. In middle school, I read his books. He always seemed fair-minded, even with people that he disagreed with. Chris' love for Pennsylvania, the state where he was born, and preference for political compromise puts him more to the center than some progressives / liberals.
When it comes to the 2016 democratic primary, there is no dispute as to whom he supports. He is strongly behind Hillary Clinton. The tacit endorsement brings me back to my initial thoughts: Bernie Sanders irritates him. He is not alone.
Senator McCaskill, former Representative Barnie Frank, and other democrats have openly questioned the "insurgent" campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders. They argue that his campaign only hurts Hillary. The critics also claim that Bernie has no chance of winning; he should let Hillary ease into the general election. I respectfully disagree.
Bernie Sanders is running for the middle class. His policies are extremely popular. Take one issue after the other, and you will see that a large majority of people support his views. Incomes and wages must be increased. Wall Street should be regulated. More must be done to end crony capitalism. Bernie puts the issue of income and wealth inequality front and center like no other candidate.
Make no mistake, the United States is at a pivotal point in its history. There has been no other time in our history when inequalities have been so extreme -- before the Great Depression even, during the Gilded Age.
There must be a candidate who is not afraid to discuss these issues. A candidate cannot be afraid of wealthy, powerful lobbyists-- special interests who will spend billions to keep the status quo. It would not be the first time that a candidate has stood up to the robber barons and won. Indeed, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, to a certain extent, have all proved that populist policies are smart politics.
I certainly would support Hillary if she were to win
the primaries. She is a great candidate. But, given current economic
realities, we need a strong progressive. I think of FDR or Teddy, and I know that America could elect a fighter again. That's why I support
Bernie Sanders. He has the best policy stances and is not afraid to
voice those policies. Against a default Republican candidate, he could
easily win.
So, let me answer Chris Matthews' question. A democrat is a socialist. Even some republicans are socialists. If you like Medicare, Social Security, and other social safety nets, you are a socialist. It is not a bad word. We can support both a democratic society and a capitalist market economy that works for everyone, not just the rich. Sometimes, it takes a self-described democratic socialist to make that happen.
Friday, July 31, 2015
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.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Don't Import Austerity
In the land of Ulysses and gyros, far away from Washington D.C., and outside the minds of Americans, a new prime minster was elected. Greece elected Alexis Tsipras, a socialist from the Syriza party. A small country in the European Union and member of the Eurozone made a statement: enough with austerity!
Since 2008, when Wall Street's excesses caused the Great Recession, the world economy has struggled. At the height of the crisis, some Eurozone members --Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland -- were facing bank runs and liquidity problems. Debt buyers were skeptical; yields started to rise. Greece had it the worst, and with structural deficiencies, like corruption, unfunded government benefits, and crippling labor laws, a default seemed imminent.
To calm the markets and prevent a contagion in the Eurozone, the "Troika" (European Central Bank "ECB", European Commission, and International Monetary Fund) injected loans into Greece. The loans came with conditions -- spending cuts, tax increases, and economic reforms. Other Eurozone members entered into similar arrangements.
By most statistical measures, austerity has failed. The Eurozone continues to drag after seven years. There has been slow growth, and little hope. Unemployment in Greece is 26%. Across Europe, young adults face similar levels of unemployment. Deflation also threatens the economy. As prices fall, businesses will cut wages and capital expenditures, which will lead to slower growth and higher real debt.
Although the ECB has announced quantitative easing, which had great success in the United States, it isn't enough. The problem lies with insufficient demand. Households and firms do not have the financial means to speed up the recovery. Governments must spend more to spur economic activity -- and they have not.
In Europe, there is an ideological impasse between creditor and debtor nations. Germany, the largest economy in the Eurozone, has indicated that it does not want to spend its tax dollars to enable Greek irresponsibility.
The Eurozone faces real challenges because they are a union, unwilling to act as a union -- similar to the disjointed government of the early United States that prompted the constitutional convention. Until Eurozone states find that their fate is intertwined, there will be uncertainty.
Nevertheless, austerity policies have done real harm. Republicans, here in the United States, should take note. On a micro level, it makes sense to tighten the belt. If a household or firm borrows too much, it will go bankrupt. However, on a macro level, if everyone cuts back at the same time, including the state, there will be a depression.
Moreover, the United States is an investment haven. Deficit and debt obsession is misplaced because the United States can borrow at extremely low costs, and servicing its debt would be easy. Capital investments will pay for itself because when the GDP increases, the debt to GDP ratio will fall. But, Americans would be much better off -- instead of facing the depression across the Atlantic.
Our country has leaders akin to Germany's leaders. They accost government spending in difficult times. They praise "responsibility" like deficit reduction. Again, as discussed at length, those policies do not work. Austerity negatively affects real people, with real hardships.
We, as Americans, should send a message to Washington D.C. Like the Greeks, we should abdicate failed austerity policies, and push for investments in infrastructure, education, and clean energy. Our message is simple: spend more, don't import austerity.
Since 2008, when Wall Street's excesses caused the Great Recession, the world economy has struggled. At the height of the crisis, some Eurozone members --Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland -- were facing bank runs and liquidity problems. Debt buyers were skeptical; yields started to rise. Greece had it the worst, and with structural deficiencies, like corruption, unfunded government benefits, and crippling labor laws, a default seemed imminent.
To calm the markets and prevent a contagion in the Eurozone, the "Troika" (European Central Bank "ECB", European Commission, and International Monetary Fund) injected loans into Greece. The loans came with conditions -- spending cuts, tax increases, and economic reforms. Other Eurozone members entered into similar arrangements.
By most statistical measures, austerity has failed. The Eurozone continues to drag after seven years. There has been slow growth, and little hope. Unemployment in Greece is 26%. Across Europe, young adults face similar levels of unemployment. Deflation also threatens the economy. As prices fall, businesses will cut wages and capital expenditures, which will lead to slower growth and higher real debt.
Although the ECB has announced quantitative easing, which had great success in the United States, it isn't enough. The problem lies with insufficient demand. Households and firms do not have the financial means to speed up the recovery. Governments must spend more to spur economic activity -- and they have not.
In Europe, there is an ideological impasse between creditor and debtor nations. Germany, the largest economy in the Eurozone, has indicated that it does not want to spend its tax dollars to enable Greek irresponsibility.
The Eurozone faces real challenges because they are a union, unwilling to act as a union -- similar to the disjointed government of the early United States that prompted the constitutional convention. Until Eurozone states find that their fate is intertwined, there will be uncertainty.
Nevertheless, austerity policies have done real harm. Republicans, here in the United States, should take note. On a micro level, it makes sense to tighten the belt. If a household or firm borrows too much, it will go bankrupt. However, on a macro level, if everyone cuts back at the same time, including the state, there will be a depression.
Moreover, the United States is an investment haven. Deficit and debt obsession is misplaced because the United States can borrow at extremely low costs, and servicing its debt would be easy. Capital investments will pay for itself because when the GDP increases, the debt to GDP ratio will fall. But, Americans would be much better off -- instead of facing the depression across the Atlantic.
Our country has leaders akin to Germany's leaders. They accost government spending in difficult times. They praise "responsibility" like deficit reduction. Again, as discussed at length, those policies do not work. Austerity negatively affects real people, with real hardships.
We, as Americans, should send a message to Washington D.C. Like the Greeks, we should abdicate failed austerity policies, and push for investments in infrastructure, education, and clean energy. Our message is simple: spend more, don't import austerity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)