Alabama has finally done something right. The State Board of Education signed on to what is known as Common Core State Standards. During the meeting, some members of the public argued that passage could mean totalitarian government and mind-control would soon follow these new educational standards. Those arguments and similar ones were tossed aside as Governor Bob Riley, a Republican, gave the state a parting gift by joining with other board members, 7-2, approving Common Core.
“If we do not do this, we will not be doing what I think is in the best interest of our children,” Riley said before the vote.
A little research shows Common Core is not a communist conspiracy – unlike those on the right would have us believe. One of its founders is the Hunt Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy, which is chaired by James B. Hunt Jr., the former governor of North Carolina. Hunt’s rather uncontroversial statement: “Education is our future – it’s everything. We must not settle for anything short of excellence in our schools.”
It turns out the aims of Common Core are to improve education across the country, raising standards in some states and preparing all students for a prosperous future. In short, it’s about putting students in the same grade all on the same level – the same goal President Bush pushed with “no Child Left Behind”.
Bill Gates: “The more states that adopt these college and career-based standards, the closer we will be to sharing innovation across state borders and becoming more competitive as a country.”
All the fighting by conservatives to let Alabama set its own educational course is nonsense. A check of the National Assessment of Educational Progress testing results for all 50 states and the District of Columbia confirms that awful stereotype of Alabama public education – the state is at or near the bottom of all rankings when it comes to tests of students’ knowledge. What do conservative opponents of Common Core want to conserve when it comes to the Alabama way of public schooling? It cannot possibly be the weak test scores. It must be the right to go it alone no matter what the results and no matter who it hurts. Alabama has been going it alone in education for the better part of the almost two centuries it has been a state.
As Sarah Palin would ask: "How's that been workin' out for ya, Alabama?"
The answer is, "not very well."
According to the latest NAEP scores, Alabama 8th graders’ reading aptitude ranked the state 44th – and 50th in math. Yet, Robert Bentley, the governor-elect, publicly opposed the state joining a coalition of states that are establishing uniform standards, things like ensuring 4th graders meet the same basic reading skills or 8th graders understand the same math concepts.
“It is a state function and the standards to educate our children should be based on state and local standards that are set by Alabama local school boards and parents and not by the federal government or a consortium of states,” Governor-elect Bentley said.
Bentley, who as governor will join the school board after he is sworn in next year, agreed with two state board members, Republicans Betty Peters and Stephanie Bell, in opposition to the new educational standards. Bell and Peters are favorites of the Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly, who recently stated that she believes Common Core’s real aim was to introduce “European-style socialism” into the United States.
Do these people actually read or study what they think they are against or do they just shoot from the gut?
New governors will soon preside over states competing against each other for lucrative economic development. Those governors-to-be know their states gain a leg up on those that choose to deny progress in the name of states’ rights. Maybe that is why, while attending the Republican governor’s conference, they encouraged Bentley in his perverse and stubborn idea that Alabama would not benefit from joining with other states to better our children’s standard of education.
Alabama’s motto is “We Dare Defend Our Rights” – even if it is the right to be at the bottom.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
It will be business as usual
Voters stopped far short of completely embracing Republicans or the Tea Party. They did not hand over control of the Senate, and they still blame the Bush administration – and Wall Street – for the dismal state of the economy. One thing is for sure: with many of the candidates having won by a mere 1% or 2%, and with the Democrats holding the Senate, this was not a mandate for Republicans.
“This was a thumping,” George W. Bush said back in 2006 when the Democrats took charge of Congress with many winning by just a 1% or 2% margin. “But this was no Democratic mandate. The voters are telling us to work together.” Same thing goes for the 2010 elections.
Although the Tea Partiers hate government, they love what it provides. Americans want goods and services, but do not want to pay for them. They want spending cuts in Washington; but if a politician ever says “cut Social Security and Medicare” his career ends.
There are three conflicting demands here:
1. Reduce the deficit: Last summer the Republican deficit hawks demanded that Democrats find $34 billion in cuts to pay for extending unemployment benefits. But if you ask Republicans to do likewise for the 10-year $3.7 trillion cost of extending the Bush tax cuts, they CANNOT do it. In fact, when Republicans were in charge of both the White House and Congress, when asked about the Bush tax cuts and the cost of the war, Vice President Cheney said that Reagan proved that deficits do not matter. When the Democrats got power, deficits suddenly mattered to the Republicans.
2. Cut taxes: The GOP, Tea Partiers, and corporations think they pay too much in taxes; but, really, Americans do not pay much in taxes at all. The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world. Among all industrialized nations, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center says only Iceland and Ireland pay less. In fact, according to the IRS, 47 percent of all American households pay no federal income taxes at all (this includes most of the very rich with their many loopholes and write offs).
3. Cut entitlements: The Census Bureau notes that 44% of American households receive federal government entitlements of some kind – including Medicare and Social Security. Half of that amount is Social Security alone. Due to aging Baby Boomers, more people are receiving entitlements than a decade ago while fewer people are paying federal taxes than even just five years ago.
Whenever Tea Party voters are asked by reporters where the federal government should cut spending, they cannot answer, just like the elected officials they support. Occasionally someone mentions a government agency or two, but when you walk them through actual costs, they become uneasy with the reality that one cannot cut much from the budget – at least until we end war in Afghanistan and bring home all troops from Iraq (50,000 still there). Let the Tea Partiers just try to take Social Security and Medicare away from Grandma and see what happens.
What about completely dumping agencies long targeted by fiscal conservatives such as the Department of Education, Department of Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the IRS (assuming you have simplified the tax code)? What do we save if we dump those agencies?
IRS: $12.97 billion
Department of Education: $46.7 billion
Department of Commerce: $14 billion
EPA: $10 billion
This adds up to about $83 billion – less than 10% of the total 2010 deficit of $1.4 trillion. Sure…it would help, but letting the tax cuts expire for just the wealthy top 1% of Americans cuts the deficit by almost half.
And remember, by shuttering those agencies, you put several 100s of thousands of federal employees out of work. That means federal money must be spent on their unemployment and other available assistance, not to mention still paying them for their vacation days, sick days, and pensions.
The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these surpluses into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs: the tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the new Department of Homeland Security). Of these, the tax cuts were by far the largest contributor to the deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Bush tax cuts have contributed nearly half of the yearly deficit.
From the Washington Post:
“The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus – with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit – and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it. To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its [the Bush administration] spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.”
In another article by the Washington Post: “President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years.”
But none of this will matter. I believe that the Tea Party's hope for actually effecting change in Washington will start to crumble within the next year as they run head first into reality. The ordinary Americans in this movement lack the numbers and financial clout to muscle their way into the back rooms of Republican Congressional power – no matter how well their candidates performed. As the Washington Post learned from its months-long effort to contact every Tea Party group in the country, of the 1,400 registered groups nationwide (some estimates are higher), 647 replied. Most had fewer than 50 members. If these groups think they can compete with billionaires who buy and sell politicians like they do shares on Wall Street, they had better think again.
During the 2010 midterm elections, the buying of politicians was unabated. Corporate lobbyists lavished $54 million on Republicans destined for leadership roles in the House. As one lobbyist told the NY Times, "Business should be very good." You can bet it will. Corporations have free reign to do as they please – while Americans will be given the business.
The Tea Party was used by the Republicans and their corporate partners for the 2010 midterm election. Its loud populist message gave the GOP just the cover it needed both to camouflage its corporate patrons and to rebrand itself as a party miraculously antithetical to the despised GOP that gave us the Bush administration’s record deficits only yesterday. Besides, the more the Tea Party looks as if it was calling the shots in the GOP, the easier it was to distract attention from those who are really controlling the GOP.
What the Tea Party wants most – less government spending and no federal deficit – is not only impossible to achieve in the way that they think it can be done, it is not even remotely going to happen on the GOP's watch. The elites have no serious plans to cut anything except taxes and regulation of their favored industries. In the party's principal 2010 campaign document, "Pledge to America," it does not even promise to cut earmarks.
Something the Tea Partiers will quickly learn: If you win, the problem is yours. Come January when a new Congress swears the oath of office, they will be responsible for the problems they have complained about. And the Tea Partiers will not like the results because they will not get what they want.
The Tea-Party-backed winners entering Congress are the latest version of hope and change. Will they be able to change much of anything? Probably not.
It is going to be business as usual.
Resource for budget figures: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
Resource for deficit numbers: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=966
Other resources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/14/AR2010011403909.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obama-wins-more-cuts-in-spending-than-bush/
http://www.nsba.biz/content/printer.2864.shtml
http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/10BIB/BA-OUTLAYS.pdf
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10938291/The-US-Department-of-Education-2010-Budget
http://www.epa.gov/history/org/resources/budget.htm
“This was a thumping,” George W. Bush said back in 2006 when the Democrats took charge of Congress with many winning by just a 1% or 2% margin. “But this was no Democratic mandate. The voters are telling us to work together.” Same thing goes for the 2010 elections.
Although the Tea Partiers hate government, they love what it provides. Americans want goods and services, but do not want to pay for them. They want spending cuts in Washington; but if a politician ever says “cut Social Security and Medicare” his career ends.
There are three conflicting demands here:
1. Reduce the deficit: Last summer the Republican deficit hawks demanded that Democrats find $34 billion in cuts to pay for extending unemployment benefits. But if you ask Republicans to do likewise for the 10-year $3.7 trillion cost of extending the Bush tax cuts, they CANNOT do it. In fact, when Republicans were in charge of both the White House and Congress, when asked about the Bush tax cuts and the cost of the war, Vice President Cheney said that Reagan proved that deficits do not matter. When the Democrats got power, deficits suddenly mattered to the Republicans.
2. Cut taxes: The GOP, Tea Partiers, and corporations think they pay too much in taxes; but, really, Americans do not pay much in taxes at all. The United States has one of the lowest tax rates in the world. Among all industrialized nations, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center says only Iceland and Ireland pay less. In fact, according to the IRS, 47 percent of all American households pay no federal income taxes at all (this includes most of the very rich with their many loopholes and write offs).
3. Cut entitlements: The Census Bureau notes that 44% of American households receive federal government entitlements of some kind – including Medicare and Social Security. Half of that amount is Social Security alone. Due to aging Baby Boomers, more people are receiving entitlements than a decade ago while fewer people are paying federal taxes than even just five years ago.
Whenever Tea Party voters are asked by reporters where the federal government should cut spending, they cannot answer, just like the elected officials they support. Occasionally someone mentions a government agency or two, but when you walk them through actual costs, they become uneasy with the reality that one cannot cut much from the budget – at least until we end war in Afghanistan and bring home all troops from Iraq (50,000 still there). Let the Tea Partiers just try to take Social Security and Medicare away from Grandma and see what happens.
What about completely dumping agencies long targeted by fiscal conservatives such as the Department of Education, Department of Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the IRS (assuming you have simplified the tax code)? What do we save if we dump those agencies?
IRS: $12.97 billion
Department of Education: $46.7 billion
Department of Commerce: $14 billion
EPA: $10 billion
This adds up to about $83 billion – less than 10% of the total 2010 deficit of $1.4 trillion. Sure…it would help, but letting the tax cuts expire for just the wealthy top 1% of Americans cuts the deficit by almost half.
And remember, by shuttering those agencies, you put several 100s of thousands of federal employees out of work. That means federal money must be spent on their unemployment and other available assistance, not to mention still paying them for their vacation days, sick days, and pensions.
The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these surpluses into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs: the tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the new Department of Homeland Security). Of these, the tax cuts were by far the largest contributor to the deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Bush tax cuts have contributed nearly half of the yearly deficit.
From the Washington Post:
“The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus – with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit – and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it. To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its [the Bush administration] spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.”
In another article by the Washington Post: “President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years.”
But none of this will matter. I believe that the Tea Party's hope for actually effecting change in Washington will start to crumble within the next year as they run head first into reality. The ordinary Americans in this movement lack the numbers and financial clout to muscle their way into the back rooms of Republican Congressional power – no matter how well their candidates performed. As the Washington Post learned from its months-long effort to contact every Tea Party group in the country, of the 1,400 registered groups nationwide (some estimates are higher), 647 replied. Most had fewer than 50 members. If these groups think they can compete with billionaires who buy and sell politicians like they do shares on Wall Street, they had better think again.
During the 2010 midterm elections, the buying of politicians was unabated. Corporate lobbyists lavished $54 million on Republicans destined for leadership roles in the House. As one lobbyist told the NY Times, "Business should be very good." You can bet it will. Corporations have free reign to do as they please – while Americans will be given the business.
The Tea Party was used by the Republicans and their corporate partners for the 2010 midterm election. Its loud populist message gave the GOP just the cover it needed both to camouflage its corporate patrons and to rebrand itself as a party miraculously antithetical to the despised GOP that gave us the Bush administration’s record deficits only yesterday. Besides, the more the Tea Party looks as if it was calling the shots in the GOP, the easier it was to distract attention from those who are really controlling the GOP.
What the Tea Party wants most – less government spending and no federal deficit – is not only impossible to achieve in the way that they think it can be done, it is not even remotely going to happen on the GOP's watch. The elites have no serious plans to cut anything except taxes and regulation of their favored industries. In the party's principal 2010 campaign document, "Pledge to America," it does not even promise to cut earmarks.
Something the Tea Partiers will quickly learn: If you win, the problem is yours. Come January when a new Congress swears the oath of office, they will be responsible for the problems they have complained about. And the Tea Partiers will not like the results because they will not get what they want.
The Tea-Party-backed winners entering Congress are the latest version of hope and change. Will they be able to change much of anything? Probably not.
It is going to be business as usual.
Resource for budget figures: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
Resource for deficit numbers: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=966
Other resources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/14/AR2010011403909.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obama-wins-more-cuts-in-spending-than-bush/
http://www.nsba.biz/content/printer.2864.shtml
http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/10BIB/BA-OUTLAYS.pdf
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10938291/The-US-Department-of-Education-2010-Budget
http://www.epa.gov/history/org/resources/budget.htm
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
An American temper tantrum
Like children, American citizens are demanding the impossible: quick, painless solutions to long-term, structural problems. To their detriment, in 2008, Democrats encouraged the electorate’s belief in magic. Once they got into office, they were forced to try to explain that things are not quite so simple -- that restructuring our economy, renewing the nation's increasingly crumbling infrastructure, reforming an unsustainable system of entitlements, redefining America's position in the world and all the other massive challenges that face the country are going to require years of effort.
But Americans did not want to hear any of this. They wanted somebody to kiss it and make it all better – right now. Compounding this problem, Republicans, in their push to get back in power, encouraged the anger.
President Obama can point to any number of occasions when he told Americans that getting our nation back on track will take years. But in 2008, his campaign stump speech ended with the exhortation, "Let's go change the world" – instead of the truer "Let's go change the world slowly and incrementally, waiting years before we see the fruits of our labor." Too many voters, especially the young, thought things could be changed quickly.
Obama should have stressed over and over again that hard work lies ahead; and it will require a degree of sacrifice from every one of us. Some sacrifices that Americans need to make to get our country moving again are:
• We need to pay more for our gas. New foundations have to be laid for a 21st-century economy, starting with weaning the nation off of its dependence on fossil fuels, which means there will have to be an increase in the price of oil. I do not want to pay more to fill my gas tank, but I know that it would be good for the nation if I did.
• The richest Americans need to pay higher taxes because they earn a much bigger share of the nation's income and hold a bigger share of its overall wealth. If the rich do not pay more, there will not be enough revenue to have the kind of infrastructure that fosters economic growth.
Fixing Social Security for future generations, working steadily to improve the schools, charting a reasonable path on immigration -- none of this is what the American people want to hear. Americans want quick and easy solutions to the recession and job loss that will not hurt.
The lack of American patience has caused politicians from both parties to be thrown out. Republicans got the back of the electorate's hand in 2006 and 2008 and in the 2010 primaries; Democrats felt the sting this November. By 2012, if the economy does not improve by leaps and bounds, it could be the GOP's turn to get slapped around again.
During the last two years, the Republican Party's favorability plunged to just 24 percent – lower than the Democrat Party’s 33%. Even so registered citizens voted for Republicans over Democrats giving the GOP about a 56-seat majority in the House. This put Wall Street and Banker friendly John Boehner into the Speaker's office. This is the same man who led the Republicans in the Senate to stand against anything Obama signed onto, even when it was originally a Republican idea or goal. He wants the president to fail. Period.
It really is ‘United We Stand or Divided We Fall’. The Republicans have been goading on the immature ‘I want my country back’ hotheaded-foot-stompers (or I could call them hotfooted-head-stompers) and allowing them to run the show. If Republicans refuse to work with Democrats for the next two years so that we can get back to having serious, adult discussions (instead of schoolyard screaming matches), we are going to go through years of hell with bigoted, rightwing, immature crazies like Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul trying to dismantle our government.
The Tea Partiers want to turn us back to the early 20th century when there was no national money provided for infrastructure, schools, police, healthcare (including Medicare), Social Security, or education. We will become a third world nation where those without much money barely survive on the edge of starvation and no healthcare – and those states that are poor will not be able to provide services – just like it was when my grandfather was young.
With Republicans now in charge of the House and Democrats barely holding onto control of the Senate, Republicans, with their constant filibuster, will likely continue to force the Democrats to have 60 votes (out of 100) lined up to pass anything. And in turn, the Democrats in the Senate will not bring anything to the floor that was passed in the House. Couple that with the hard work, sacrifice of careers, and ground work laid by the Democrats to get our economy back on track, the Republicans will take credit (and be given credit by voters) for what the Democrats did. But none of this matters to the electorate because they can only look at things in a very simple light: If a party wins control when the economy is in a tumble, that party gets the blame. If a party wins control when the economy is on an upswing, that party gets the credit.
The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats. They wanted Obama to “kiss it and make it all better right now.” But he could not turn the economy around quickly – no one could have.
So… even though a majority of the voters understood that the Bush administration put us in this hole, they blamed the Democrats for not fixing the economy fast enough.
According to the polls, Americans were in a mood to hold their breath until they turned blue. This election was not an electoral wave. It was not a Republican mandate.
It was an immature temper tantrum.
But Americans did not want to hear any of this. They wanted somebody to kiss it and make it all better – right now. Compounding this problem, Republicans, in their push to get back in power, encouraged the anger.
President Obama can point to any number of occasions when he told Americans that getting our nation back on track will take years. But in 2008, his campaign stump speech ended with the exhortation, "Let's go change the world" – instead of the truer "Let's go change the world slowly and incrementally, waiting years before we see the fruits of our labor." Too many voters, especially the young, thought things could be changed quickly.
Obama should have stressed over and over again that hard work lies ahead; and it will require a degree of sacrifice from every one of us. Some sacrifices that Americans need to make to get our country moving again are:
• We need to pay more for our gas. New foundations have to be laid for a 21st-century economy, starting with weaning the nation off of its dependence on fossil fuels, which means there will have to be an increase in the price of oil. I do not want to pay more to fill my gas tank, but I know that it would be good for the nation if I did.
• The richest Americans need to pay higher taxes because they earn a much bigger share of the nation's income and hold a bigger share of its overall wealth. If the rich do not pay more, there will not be enough revenue to have the kind of infrastructure that fosters economic growth.
Fixing Social Security for future generations, working steadily to improve the schools, charting a reasonable path on immigration -- none of this is what the American people want to hear. Americans want quick and easy solutions to the recession and job loss that will not hurt.
The lack of American patience has caused politicians from both parties to be thrown out. Republicans got the back of the electorate's hand in 2006 and 2008 and in the 2010 primaries; Democrats felt the sting this November. By 2012, if the economy does not improve by leaps and bounds, it could be the GOP's turn to get slapped around again.
During the last two years, the Republican Party's favorability plunged to just 24 percent – lower than the Democrat Party’s 33%. Even so registered citizens voted for Republicans over Democrats giving the GOP about a 56-seat majority in the House. This put Wall Street and Banker friendly John Boehner into the Speaker's office. This is the same man who led the Republicans in the Senate to stand against anything Obama signed onto, even when it was originally a Republican idea or goal. He wants the president to fail. Period.
It really is ‘United We Stand or Divided We Fall’. The Republicans have been goading on the immature ‘I want my country back’ hotheaded-foot-stompers (or I could call them hotfooted-head-stompers) and allowing them to run the show. If Republicans refuse to work with Democrats for the next two years so that we can get back to having serious, adult discussions (instead of schoolyard screaming matches), we are going to go through years of hell with bigoted, rightwing, immature crazies like Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul trying to dismantle our government.
The Tea Partiers want to turn us back to the early 20th century when there was no national money provided for infrastructure, schools, police, healthcare (including Medicare), Social Security, or education. We will become a third world nation where those without much money barely survive on the edge of starvation and no healthcare – and those states that are poor will not be able to provide services – just like it was when my grandfather was young.
With Republicans now in charge of the House and Democrats barely holding onto control of the Senate, Republicans, with their constant filibuster, will likely continue to force the Democrats to have 60 votes (out of 100) lined up to pass anything. And in turn, the Democrats in the Senate will not bring anything to the floor that was passed in the House. Couple that with the hard work, sacrifice of careers, and ground work laid by the Democrats to get our economy back on track, the Republicans will take credit (and be given credit by voters) for what the Democrats did. But none of this matters to the electorate because they can only look at things in a very simple light: If a party wins control when the economy is in a tumble, that party gets the blame. If a party wins control when the economy is on an upswing, that party gets the credit.
The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats. They wanted Obama to “kiss it and make it all better right now.” But he could not turn the economy around quickly – no one could have.
So… even though a majority of the voters understood that the Bush administration put us in this hole, they blamed the Democrats for not fixing the economy fast enough.
According to the polls, Americans were in a mood to hold their breath until they turned blue. This election was not an electoral wave. It was not a Republican mandate.
It was an immature temper tantrum.
Monday, November 1, 2010
This is not reason
At a time when the Republicans are beset by Tea Party candidates whose serious behavior overwhelms the most conscious satire efforts constructed by writers of Saturday Night Live, a situation that would traditionally redound in favor of Democrats, we have instead a silly season where some of the most unfit candidates ever foisted on the public are enjoying leads in the polls.
Two recent classic cases, both from the West, jump out for inspection. Meg Whitman, a woman who has unleashed her E-Bay executive millions in a bid to buy the governorship of California, used some of her money to purchase time for an ad where she inadvertently salutes her opponent.
Whitman is seen and heard longing for the past, for that wonderful California of 1980 when she and her husband moved to the Golden State in pursuit of the good life. Wouldn't it be wonderful to restore that period, Whitman wishes. Yes, and who was governor in 1980, the glorious period she wishes to recapture as California's governor?
Actually there was a highly familiar face serving as governor then, Meg. It was Jerry Brown. Remember him? He is that same candidate you are fervently running against, the target of all those mega million bucks your hired guns have been attacking non-stop. [Californians are rolling in the aisles with laughter at this ad.]
In the neighboring state of Nevada we have one of the Tea Party's most celebrated favorites, Sharron Angle, who seeks to unseat Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Angle is emerging as a good candidate running for sprint champion of Nevada. Her sprinting is to avoid contact with a reporter seeking to ask her about her foreign policy views. As the local television reporter seeks to keep pace running after the fleet-footed Angle at McCarran Airport, he persists.
With America currently engaged on two war fronts, he asks her views about Iraq and Afghanistan. Alas, after being long ignored Angle finally responds to the reporter. The candidate that, according to recent polls, Nevadans prefer over Senate Majority Leader Reid concedes that the wars are both "there." In short, Angle concedes that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actually exist. Such, apparently, is her succinct analysis of two costly wars in which the U.S. is currently engaged. They truly exist, a kernel of wisdom we have gleaned from the pristine foreign policy mind of Tea Party favorite Angle.
There is one more example of another Tea Party celebrity, this time on the East Coast, whose sparkling wit has also been in evidence. Christine O'Donnell in a recent debate with Delaware senatorial opponent Chris Coons knew nothing about the First Amendment and its free exercise clause regarding religion and the state.
Coons was shown patiently explaining to O'Donnell about the First Amendment as he would to a young daughter early in her civics class study. In place of being appreciative for Coons' assistance, O'Donnell put her later spin on the experience for media consumption. O'Donnell had lectured Coons, she insisted. She believes that she had been the informed party. [She thought that the audience was laughing at Coons when it was her ignorance they were laughing at.]
With such ill-suited candidates exhibiting a string of gaffes, we have the results of the New York Times Poll explaining preference of a large segment of the nation's voters for such candidates as those described and others such as senatorial aspirants Rand Paul in Kentucky and Joe Miller in Alaska as embodiments of arguably the silliest national campaign season on record.
One would expect that voters preferring such Tea Party candidates who lock horns with the traditional system would at least share a consistency regarding President Obama. It would be expected that such voters would hold Obama primarily responsible for America's current economic malaise.
But this was not the case. Instead the rebelling voters, a significant number of those seeking fundamental change who have been resonating to the messages of Tea Party candidates, believe that the nation's economic malaise is the fault of George W. Bush! [The problem with Obama is that he did not fix things fast enough to suit them.]
If this is the case then why prefer Republicans? If they, as Obama put it, drove America's economy into the ditch, then why vote for them now? Especially since these voters expressed the belief that the country's economic woes will diminish and prosperity will begin to return during the final two years of Obama's first term. This is NOT the angry message that emanates from Tea Party meetings, with their shouts about lack of confidence in Obama's leadership.
Then why vote Republican? The answer is [drum roll, please] they think that the Republicans will be more likely to create jobs. [Never mind that Obama is on track during his first two years to create more jobs than in Bush’s entire eight years.]
President Bush had only 2.3% job growth his entire eights years in office. Go here to see a chart showing previous presidents' job record.
Following this rocky 'thinking' becomes more cumbersome at each turn. What did the man who will become senate majority leader in the event of Republican victory on Tuesday say about the goal of the next two years should his party take control of Congress? Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky declared that the goal of a Republican congressional majority is to see that Obama is a one term president, in other words a seek and destroy mission rather than one focused on joint action in the interest of building a better America [there will be no focus on building jobs for Americans]. And Rep. John Boehner, Republican leader in the House, says that they will refuse to compromise with Democrats on anything.
As for programs, we know the two-pronged strategy of Republicans:
• One goal involves restoring the Bush tax cuts, putting more money into the hands of those who do not need it as a means of "stimulating" economic activity.
• The second goal is to repeal Obama's healthcare law. This will put the monopolistic healthcare lobby back in charge in the same way that Bush's prescription drug legislation placed power in the hands of the monopolistic prescription drug industry. [Of course, this is all bluster, because they know that Democratic filibuster and the presidential veto will stop any attempt at repeal.]
This is the kind of "consensus" that these voters, according to the New York Times Poll, believe will function to insure the best result for America.
The answer for them, after acknowledging that Bush is to blame for America's current economic ills, is to put the proponents of Bush-o-nomics back in charge to fix our problems by reenacting policies that put America in this mess in the first place. They want to put the fox back in the hen house!
This cannot be called rational reasoning. It’s irrational. It is not reason.
Sources:
Written by William Hare, Voter Schizophrenia, for Seattle Times (with a few edits, added comments, added charts by me)
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Wall Street Journal
Two recent classic cases, both from the West, jump out for inspection. Meg Whitman, a woman who has unleashed her E-Bay executive millions in a bid to buy the governorship of California, used some of her money to purchase time for an ad where she inadvertently salutes her opponent.
Whitman is seen and heard longing for the past, for that wonderful California of 1980 when she and her husband moved to the Golden State in pursuit of the good life. Wouldn't it be wonderful to restore that period, Whitman wishes. Yes, and who was governor in 1980, the glorious period she wishes to recapture as California's governor?
Actually there was a highly familiar face serving as governor then, Meg. It was Jerry Brown. Remember him? He is that same candidate you are fervently running against, the target of all those mega million bucks your hired guns have been attacking non-stop. [Californians are rolling in the aisles with laughter at this ad.]
In the neighboring state of Nevada we have one of the Tea Party's most celebrated favorites, Sharron Angle, who seeks to unseat Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Angle is emerging as a good candidate running for sprint champion of Nevada. Her sprinting is to avoid contact with a reporter seeking to ask her about her foreign policy views. As the local television reporter seeks to keep pace running after the fleet-footed Angle at McCarran Airport, he persists.
With America currently engaged on two war fronts, he asks her views about Iraq and Afghanistan. Alas, after being long ignored Angle finally responds to the reporter. The candidate that, according to recent polls, Nevadans prefer over Senate Majority Leader Reid concedes that the wars are both "there." In short, Angle concedes that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actually exist. Such, apparently, is her succinct analysis of two costly wars in which the U.S. is currently engaged. They truly exist, a kernel of wisdom we have gleaned from the pristine foreign policy mind of Tea Party favorite Angle.
There is one more example of another Tea Party celebrity, this time on the East Coast, whose sparkling wit has also been in evidence. Christine O'Donnell in a recent debate with Delaware senatorial opponent Chris Coons knew nothing about the First Amendment and its free exercise clause regarding religion and the state.
Coons was shown patiently explaining to O'Donnell about the First Amendment as he would to a young daughter early in her civics class study. In place of being appreciative for Coons' assistance, O'Donnell put her later spin on the experience for media consumption. O'Donnell had lectured Coons, she insisted. She believes that she had been the informed party. [She thought that the audience was laughing at Coons when it was her ignorance they were laughing at.]
With such ill-suited candidates exhibiting a string of gaffes, we have the results of the New York Times Poll explaining preference of a large segment of the nation's voters for such candidates as those described and others such as senatorial aspirants Rand Paul in Kentucky and Joe Miller in Alaska as embodiments of arguably the silliest national campaign season on record.
One would expect that voters preferring such Tea Party candidates who lock horns with the traditional system would at least share a consistency regarding President Obama. It would be expected that such voters would hold Obama primarily responsible for America's current economic malaise.
But this was not the case. Instead the rebelling voters, a significant number of those seeking fundamental change who have been resonating to the messages of Tea Party candidates, believe that the nation's economic malaise is the fault of George W. Bush! [The problem with Obama is that he did not fix things fast enough to suit them.]
If this is the case then why prefer Republicans? If they, as Obama put it, drove America's economy into the ditch, then why vote for them now? Especially since these voters expressed the belief that the country's economic woes will diminish and prosperity will begin to return during the final two years of Obama's first term. This is NOT the angry message that emanates from Tea Party meetings, with their shouts about lack of confidence in Obama's leadership.
Then why vote Republican? The answer is [drum roll, please] they think that the Republicans will be more likely to create jobs. [Never mind that Obama is on track during his first two years to create more jobs than in Bush’s entire eight years.]
President Bush had only 2.3% job growth his entire eights years in office. Go here to see a chart showing previous presidents' job record.
Following this rocky 'thinking' becomes more cumbersome at each turn. What did the man who will become senate majority leader in the event of Republican victory on Tuesday say about the goal of the next two years should his party take control of Congress? Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky declared that the goal of a Republican congressional majority is to see that Obama is a one term president, in other words a seek and destroy mission rather than one focused on joint action in the interest of building a better America [there will be no focus on building jobs for Americans]. And Rep. John Boehner, Republican leader in the House, says that they will refuse to compromise with Democrats on anything.
As for programs, we know the two-pronged strategy of Republicans:
• One goal involves restoring the Bush tax cuts, putting more money into the hands of those who do not need it as a means of "stimulating" economic activity.
• The second goal is to repeal Obama's healthcare law. This will put the monopolistic healthcare lobby back in charge in the same way that Bush's prescription drug legislation placed power in the hands of the monopolistic prescription drug industry. [Of course, this is all bluster, because they know that Democratic filibuster and the presidential veto will stop any attempt at repeal.]
This is the kind of "consensus" that these voters, according to the New York Times Poll, believe will function to insure the best result for America.
The answer for them, after acknowledging that Bush is to blame for America's current economic ills, is to put the proponents of Bush-o-nomics back in charge to fix our problems by reenacting policies that put America in this mess in the first place. They want to put the fox back in the hen house!
This cannot be called rational reasoning. It’s irrational. It is not reason.
Sources:
Written by William Hare, Voter Schizophrenia, for Seattle Times (with a few edits, added comments, added charts by me)
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Wall Street Journal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)