Since 2003, I have been walking a Christian path without the church. At first, it was not by choice – it was due to complications from surgery coupled with chronic illness resulting in being unable to leave my home for very long at one time. But I had already been struggling with deep questions about my faith – yet staying in the church despite being given trite answers. My illness forced my hand. I could no longer attend church – or any group event. I had to search for answers on my own.
Churches are designed to help people mature in service and discipleship; but most churches are not equipped to help with the internal struggles of identity and meaning. Although the church is supposedly not the institution, not the building, and not the Sunday worship service, there are Christians who stop attending church precisely because too much emphasis is placed on the institution, the building, and on Sunday services. They would much rather spend time with other believers in smaller communities throughout the week than with large numbers of people once a week. Hence, there is a phenomenal growth of small House Churches.
Many Christians are leaving church in order to rescue their faith. They see the institutional church itself as the problem. Another part of the problem is that the members of a church cannot grow past the level of their leaders, unless they pursue growth through other sources – which is all too often discouraged by many church leaders who believe that the Bible is the only source for the Christian faith. Too many Christian leaders view education from sources outside the church as a threat.
In a study called Barriers to Belief, Reverend John Campbell writes, "many have indicated that one of the greatest barriers to belief in God is the Church itself." It is not simply a matter of working from within the church to fix the problems. The solution is not in making slight changes and adaptations to some new forms of the organization, but in a much more radical rediscovery of the very nature of the church.
New Zealand Baptist Pastor and Sociologist Dr. Alan Jamieson wrote about the spiritual quests of these "post-congregational" Christians – those who leave the church. What Jamieson has found in his studies surprised him. In researching his book, A Churchless Faith, he interviewed 108 leavers. Most were not marginal churchgoers who finally quit, but, instead, organizational linchpins. Ninety-four percent had been church leaders – deacons, home-group leaders, elders, Sunday school teachers – and 32 percent had been in ministry.
Jamieson thought he knew what happened to the faith of Christians who left the church – he thought it died. But when he went to his first interview, he met a couple who turned his ideas upside down. Two-and-a-half hours later, he left their home shaken, trying to make sense of what he had heard and felt. The couple had been key and effective leaders. They had not walked away from a relationship with God but continued to pray, worship, and study the Bible. They even prayed for Jamieson and his ministry before he left. These people were not backsliders.
Ironically, Jamieson says that the people perhaps best equipped to help this type of seekers to understand God were the very ones being lost to the church.Throughout his research, Jamieson found longtime Christian leaders with significant resumes who, while adrift from the traditional church, were definitely on a journey to know God – a God not intimidated by the hard questions that were unwelcome in their former churches.
Counting the leavers
What Jamieson found in his research among New Zealand Christians is echoed in America and elsewhere, as researchers have begun to ask hard questions about Christians who seek a churchless faith.
• While the number of Americans claiming no religious preference doubled – from 7 percent to 14 percent – between 1990 and 2000, surprisingly that did not translate into a corresponding decrease in the actual belief in God or Christ. Michael Hout and Claude Fischer published these findings, based on data from a wide range of public-opinion surveys on religion, in American Sociological Review. According to the researchers, most of the new "no preference" respondents continue to hold their conventional religious beliefs. Hout explained: "Most people who have no church still are likely to say things like: 'God is real. Heaven and hell are real. I and my kids will go there [heaven] when we're dead.'”
•Evangelical researcher George Barna noted two years ago that a large number of American adults regularly participate in faith activities – prayer, Bible reading, use of religious media – even though they have not attended a church service in many months or years. They are ignoring the institutional church, but not faith, he said. In Re-Churching the Unchurched, Barna said: "Relatively few unchurched people are atheists. Most of them call themselves Christian and have had a serious dose of church life in the past."
Barna also found that about one-third of young adults are leaving the church and not returning. This is in greater numbers than ever. Some reasons given are:
1) There is little intellectual discussion. Hard, searching questions are not allowed. Often trite answers such as “You just have to have faith” are given.
2) Many are increasingly disillusioned with the focus on attendance, buildings and cash.
3) The church is too involved in politics. It seems that many very good people in the church are not really interested in knowing the biblical Jesus, but only the republican Jesus.
4) Too many churches are into "entertainment evangelism."
5) And this is most telling: For too many people, the church is a substitute for Christ. Church is their focus, their identity, what they live for, what they work for, what they love and fight for.
• The World Christian Encyclopedia estimates there are 112,575,000 worldwide "churchless Christians." Yes, that reads over 100 million. That's 5 percent worldwide. And that number will double to 225,712,000 by 2025, Barrett says.
Some would consider it old news that mainline Christian denominations have shed members in droves. But Alan Jamieson and others warn that evangelical and charismatic churches are faring no better. While many boast massive numbers of converts, the church is like a collection bag full of holes – while new converts are being taken in through the front, the church is leaking just as many out the back. It appears that these churches are good at collecting new members, but not good at keeping their longtime members.
Searching beyond the basics
In The Critical Journey by Janet Hagberg and Robert Guelich, the authors give great insights into why people leave the church – reasons many pastors have likely never considered.
Hagberg and Guelich propose that most spiritual journeys tend to move in six distinct stages. The first three are easy to see and hard to argue with: (1) Recognition of God, (2) The Life of Discipleship, and (3) The Productive Life. Certainly after most people become followers of Christ (stage 1) they begin to absorb as much content (stage 2) as possible. Then sometime later they begin to serve (stage 3). And since the authors propose that the stages are cumulative, people of faith continue to be good at these stages over the long haul. The first three stages of faith are where our churches excel and where most church leadership energy is expended.
But Hagberg and Guelich say there are still three more stages in spiritual growth – and it is the fourth I want to focus on because that is where I have spent the last decade. The fourth stage is called "The Journey Inward." The authors suggest that at some point our faith shifts focus from the externals of discipleship and service and begins to become internal. We begin to develop “a deep and very personal inward journey” that “almost always comes as an unsettling experience yet results in healing for those who continue through it.” We begin to redefine our faith and, to a great extent, our theology as we mature.
An attempt to grow beyond the first three stages within the Christian church is frustrating. This fourth stage is where my experience (and the authors') reveals the church's weakness. How does the church walk alongside those who are on the Journey Inward? What does the church do when someone hits the spiritual wall? Most churches do very little.
Obviously the church’s main focus is evangelizing and teaching the basics of discipleship. After all, most of the members are in stages 1, 2, or 3 and remain there for a lifetime. Churches do not specialize in people who have been following Christ for years and who are deeply questioning and reexamining their beliefs. These searchers often become so disillusioned with their church that they either physically leave or occupy their minds with daydreams, drawings, planning, etc, as they continue to occupy a seat in Sunday services.
When people search beyond the basic teachings, they find they must look for spiritually educational content and areas of service but away from their church. Some discover a new teacher across town who "really" teaches the Bible. Some discover service through missions, charities, or in foreign countries. While their true need may be for something deeper, they settle for something different.
Many Christians, like me, struggle to find a way to worship in honesty and find equilibrium in their spiritual life. During the “journey inward,” the questioning believer often hits a spiritual wall. For those few who are able to get beyond The Wall, stage 5 “the journey outward” and stage 6 “the life of love” comes from a faith that is your own unique walk with God. You have left organized, institutional religion’s herd mentality far behind.
Tending to the wounded
While Jamieson's A Churchless Faith functions as a travelogue of spiritual quests undertaken by those who have left the institutional church, American pastor and student worker Mary Tuomi Hammond, in The Church and the Dechurched, turns her attention to the spiritually injured – those battling emotional, spiritual, or mental scars they associate with their church experience.
Although highlighting different reasons for the exodus, and unaware of each other's work, the two Baptist ministers came to the same conclusion: The church needs to notice and nurture dechurched believers, for the spiritual benefit of all concerned.
Hammond has a consuming passion for people "who have lost a faith that they once valued or have left a body of believers with whom they were once deeply engaged." These are the souls who have lost their connection to God – included among that population are: rabid atheists, silent agnostics, moral humanists, new practitioners of distinctly non-Christian spiritualities, and bleeding believers who still cling weakly to faith. The wounded souls of the last group often come to believe that God is distant, having disappeared when other Christians attacked them. All these are among the church's strongest critics because they are now outsiders who were once insiders.
Like Jamieson, Hammond has been chastised for "attacking the faith" by recounting stories of spiritual abuse – but neither will wear that label. Hammond replies: "My love for the church compels me to challenge the church to hear and attend to the cries of its own wounded. I love the church and I wrestle with it. I love the Lord and I wrestle with my faith as well. In that visceral relationship between loving and wrestling, I find strength, hope and life that cannot be extinguished."
Providing spirited exchanges
Jamieson asks why people with a deep longing for God decide they must abandon their congregational homes to continue growing spiritually. He learned that many churches are unaware, even unconcerned, about those who have left. The overwhelming majority of leavers interviewed in his study said no one from their church ever talked with them about why they left. Jamieson's tone is sadly incredulous as he recounts one successful pastor's declaration that Jesus' parable of the lost sheep does not apply to those "who know where the paddock is and intentionally wander away" and that godly ministers should not waste time chasing them.
Rather than abandon these searchers, Jamieson says, the church should accompany them.
Within his own church, Jamieson has started a group called Spirited Exchanges. Twice a month, 30 or more people gather at Jamieson's church but definitely not for church. Seated at cafe-like tables and sipping tea in the subdued light of the basement, they talk freely. No topic is off limits – the nature of God, homosexuality, spiritual abuse, the role of women. But the focus, Jamieson says, is "on where we are going instead of what we have left."
"Spirited Exchanges is not designed to be church," Jamieson explains. "It is a place where people can talk about anything they want to talk about, without any sense of being 'out of line' or being told their thoughts are inappropriate." Jamieson says he is aware of about 50 other groups like Spirited Exchanges.
Not surprisingly, the three-year-old program has brought Jamieson criticism from all directions. "Some people insist I am encouraging people to leave the church. And others are just as indignant that I am scheming to lure black sheep back into the church." But Jamieson is unshaken in his commitment to teach churches to become leaver-sensitive.
"We need to realize that God is in the question as well as the answer, and that living with the questions is part of the journey," he points out. "For many people it would help if this journey was talked about, preached about, and discussed in the life of the church. This can reinforce the hope that God, who can seem so absent at times, reappears later with more clarity and connection than people may have experienced."
Where to go now?
Some say that they are called to be outside the church – to walk a path beyond the church, yet continue to walk with the Lord.
Being without a church will not keep someone from God's Grace. But it is important to be part of a community, even if it is online, because the Christian path is not just a private experience. The Christian path is also a community experience – one of sharing. If you are on a path beyond the church, may the Lord walk with you.
They have cradled you in custom,
They have primed you with their preaching,
They have soaked you in convention through and through;
They have put you in a showcase
You’re a credit to their teaching--
But can’t you hear the wild? It’s calling you.
Poem: The Call of the Wild by Robert William Service
Sources:
• The Critical Journey by Janet Hagberg and Robert Guelich
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Journey-Stages-Faith-Second/dp/1879215497
• The Church and the Dechurched by Mary Tuomi Hammond
http://www.amazon.com/Church-Dechurched-Mending-Damaged-Faith/dp/0827204868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291070663&sr=1-1
• A Churchless Faith by Alan Jamieson
http://www.amazon.com/Churchless-Faith-Alan-Jamieson/dp/0281054657/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291070716&sr=1-2
• A good summary of the Haberg and Guelich book: http://restoringtheheart.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/stages-of-faith-hagberg-guelich-model-of-faith-development/
• Does God Want You to Leave Your Church? By Whitney Hopler
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer
http://www.crosswalk.com/spirituallife/11561422/
• The Call of the Wild by Robert William Service (entire poem)
http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/robert-william-service/the-call-of-the-wild/
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
This is shameful
As Congress begins wrangling over budget cuts and other austerity measures, I hope they do not lose sight of the plight of the most vulnerable among us — the ones who have little say and few choices: the nation’s poorest children.
The gap between those children and the rest of our children is already unacceptably wide, and it cannot afford to get wider. In fact, a report entitled “The Children Left Behind,” released by UNICEF last Friday, examined inequality in well-being on a wide range of measures among children in 24 of the world’s richest countries.
Notice that America’s rankings are among the worst.
Parents play a large role in this inequality, but so do local, state, and federal policies. As the report wisely asks, “Is there a point beyond which falling behind is not inevitable but policy susceptible, not unavoidable but unacceptable, not inequality but inequity?”
Absolutely – yes!
This is shameful. I would hope that our politicians would move to improve this situation. But at the very least, I hope they do not make it worse by cutting education and social programs that help the poor.
Matthew 25:40 says, “And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.” This goes both ways. If you do good things for people, then you have done it to the Lord. But if you do things that hurt people, especially the downtrodden, you have also done that to the Lord.
Read the report: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc9_eng.pdf
The gap between those children and the rest of our children is already unacceptably wide, and it cannot afford to get wider. In fact, a report entitled “The Children Left Behind,” released by UNICEF last Friday, examined inequality in well-being on a wide range of measures among children in 24 of the world’s richest countries.
Notice that America’s rankings are among the worst.
Parents play a large role in this inequality, but so do local, state, and federal policies. As the report wisely asks, “Is there a point beyond which falling behind is not inevitable but policy susceptible, not unavoidable but unacceptable, not inequality but inequity?”
Absolutely – yes!
This is shameful. I would hope that our politicians would move to improve this situation. But at the very least, I hope they do not make it worse by cutting education and social programs that help the poor.
Matthew 25:40 says, “And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.” This goes both ways. If you do good things for people, then you have done it to the Lord. But if you do things that hurt people, especially the downtrodden, you have also done that to the Lord.
Read the report: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc9_eng.pdf
Monday, December 6, 2010
Compromising too much, too soon
President Obama is making a huge mistake in giving things up before ever sitting down at the conference table. Obama is always "reaching out" in an attempt to compromise with Lucillian Republicans (as in Lucy in the Peanuts cartoon), gets the ball taken away from him, and still continues to reach out to Republicans. Sadly, for this President it is becoming a glaring weakness. In his attempt to look bi-partisan, he concedes to the GOP practically everything important to his left-leaning base just to get something passed.
Oh no, not again!
Part of the contrast Obama sought to draw with Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign was that you would never catch him triangulating against his base for political gain. It was a point of pride for Obama that he would have no so-called Sister Souljah moments, even when he vehemently disagreed with liberals. But Obama has put all of his compromises on the table from the outset. He compromised too early on health care, financial regulation, and climate change.
For two years Obama has championed extending the Bush tax cuts only for individuals who earn (net) less than $200,000 a year and couples that make less than $250,000. In his weekly radio address last week, he said: “For the past decade, they [the middle class] saw their costs rise, their incomes fall, and too many jobs go overseas. They’re the ones bearing the brunt of the recession. They’re the ones having trouble making ends meet. They are the ones who need relief right now.”
Republicans, meanwhile, have been pushing for a permanent extension of the tax cuts for everyone regardless of income. So, lately, since Republicans won the House in the mid-terms, Obama has signaled that he is willing to compromise. Insisting that tax cuts for wealthier Americans should not become permanent because of a $700 billion impact on the deficit over the next decade, he left the door open to a temporary extension for higher income levels – as long as it falls short of costing that $700 billion. This has a lot of Democrats steaming.
Emboldened by their election victories and vowing to continue to block Obama's agenda, all Congressional Republicans signed a letter that said they would block the Democratic agenda for the lame-duck session of Congress, except for the tax cuts and a bill to fund the federal government. They want the federal government funded through next September before they have to deal with the Tea Partiers who want to shut down government over this very spending bill. They have taken a harder line on making permanent the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans.
Worried about their futures as their power wanes, the Democratic congressional caucuses want to see President Obama fight harder for their causes. They are concerned that he may emulate former President Bill Clinton and cut deals with Republicans too much for their liking. And I think Obama will move to the right – and possibly give away the store to the GOP.
How much of his political capital will President Obama stake to defend the principles he ran on in 2008? If Obama compromises on his once-firm stand on the tax cuts, it will amplify questions that Democrats have been asking for nearly two years – essentially, what does he really stand for when his back is to the wall?
Now that the deficit commission has offered its proposals, the essential decision facing Obama is whether he will side either with centrist reformers from both parties, who would overhaul both cherished entitlements and the tax system, or side with traditional liberals, who prefer to remove the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and raise the wage limit for FICA taxes so that the rich pay a little more.
In other words, the suddenly pressing issue of the debt will force Obama to choose, at last, between the dueling, ill-defined promises of his presidential campaign – between a “post-partisan” vision of government on one hand and a liberal renaissance on the other. The problem with this is that it puts Obama in something of a dilemma. He is not willing to publicly make a break with liberals, so independent and conservative voters tend to see him as a tool of the left. And since he generally will not do exactly what the left wants him to do, he ends up with very little gratitude from his own party.
Obama is in a box – one of his own making – and it is about to become uninhabitable. Obama is going to have to choose what side he is on. My bet is that he will lean toward the Republican agenda (like Clinton), give away the farm by putting his compromises on the table at the outset, and seal his fate as a one term president.
Oh no, not again!
Part of the contrast Obama sought to draw with Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign was that you would never catch him triangulating against his base for political gain. It was a point of pride for Obama that he would have no so-called Sister Souljah moments, even when he vehemently disagreed with liberals. But Obama has put all of his compromises on the table from the outset. He compromised too early on health care, financial regulation, and climate change.
For two years Obama has championed extending the Bush tax cuts only for individuals who earn (net) less than $200,000 a year and couples that make less than $250,000. In his weekly radio address last week, he said: “For the past decade, they [the middle class] saw their costs rise, their incomes fall, and too many jobs go overseas. They’re the ones bearing the brunt of the recession. They’re the ones having trouble making ends meet. They are the ones who need relief right now.”
Republicans, meanwhile, have been pushing for a permanent extension of the tax cuts for everyone regardless of income. So, lately, since Republicans won the House in the mid-terms, Obama has signaled that he is willing to compromise. Insisting that tax cuts for wealthier Americans should not become permanent because of a $700 billion impact on the deficit over the next decade, he left the door open to a temporary extension for higher income levels – as long as it falls short of costing that $700 billion. This has a lot of Democrats steaming.
Emboldened by their election victories and vowing to continue to block Obama's agenda, all Congressional Republicans signed a letter that said they would block the Democratic agenda for the lame-duck session of Congress, except for the tax cuts and a bill to fund the federal government. They want the federal government funded through next September before they have to deal with the Tea Partiers who want to shut down government over this very spending bill. They have taken a harder line on making permanent the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans.
Worried about their futures as their power wanes, the Democratic congressional caucuses want to see President Obama fight harder for their causes. They are concerned that he may emulate former President Bill Clinton and cut deals with Republicans too much for their liking. And I think Obama will move to the right – and possibly give away the store to the GOP.
How much of his political capital will President Obama stake to defend the principles he ran on in 2008? If Obama compromises on his once-firm stand on the tax cuts, it will amplify questions that Democrats have been asking for nearly two years – essentially, what does he really stand for when his back is to the wall?
Now that the deficit commission has offered its proposals, the essential decision facing Obama is whether he will side either with centrist reformers from both parties, who would overhaul both cherished entitlements and the tax system, or side with traditional liberals, who prefer to remove the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and raise the wage limit for FICA taxes so that the rich pay a little more.
In other words, the suddenly pressing issue of the debt will force Obama to choose, at last, between the dueling, ill-defined promises of his presidential campaign – between a “post-partisan” vision of government on one hand and a liberal renaissance on the other. The problem with this is that it puts Obama in something of a dilemma. He is not willing to publicly make a break with liberals, so independent and conservative voters tend to see him as a tool of the left. And since he generally will not do exactly what the left wants him to do, he ends up with very little gratitude from his own party.
Obama is in a box – one of his own making – and it is about to become uninhabitable. Obama is going to have to choose what side he is on. My bet is that he will lean toward the Republican agenda (like Clinton), give away the farm by putting his compromises on the table at the outset, and seal his fate as a one term president.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
We dare defend our rights
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.
“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.
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
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The new silent majority
We have been told that the nation is swept up in anti-incumbent fervor, and that we are mad, mad, mad. Except that, by and large, we are really not all that mad. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that only 21 percent of Americans are angry at the federal government. And the term "anti-incumbent fervor" loses a bit when you learn that, according to political scientist Michael Robinson, 98 percent of all congressional incumbents who ran in this year's primaries prevailed.
An event that took place on the National Mall on Saturday, October 20, presented a more serious reflection of our collective state of mind. Comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert held a rally in Washington, D.C. to Restore Sanity. The crowd appeared to exceed organizers' expectations, spilling past the boundaries set for the rally. Organizers estimated attendance at about 250,000; while many in the media estimated it to be around 220k.
There were satellite rallies going on in 47 states and six foreign countries. Add these numbers to the huge attendance of the Washington D.C. rally and you get 100s and 100s of thousands. Once the numbers are tallied, Jon Stewart may get the "million moderate march" he wanted with a few people brandishing signs that read, "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler."
It seems the majority of people want sanity.
While the audiences of the two comedians undoubtedly lean somewhat to the left, Stewart presented the rally as a chance for the low-key middle to come together – those who do not care to shout or call names and who do not think we have Nazis or Socialists in charge of our government.
As described on The Rally to Restore Sanity Web site: "We're looking for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn't be the only ones that get heard; and who believe that the only time it's appropriate to draw a Hitler mustache on someone is when that person is actually Hitler – or Charlie Chaplin in certain roles."
Alan Gitelson, a professor of political science at Loyola University Chicago, compared the sizable group of people who are neither angry nor partisan as the new "silent majority". Gitelson said. "The tea party is clearly to the right.... And then you have progressives on the other side, and then there is this large center. The rally that Colbert and Stewart are doing is kind of part of a balancing act."
Some on the right have portrayed the rallies as a last-ditch effort by liberals to rile up Democratic voters before an election in which conservative candidates clearly have the enthusiasm edge and are poised to win a sizable number of congressional seats. That fits nicely in much of their conspiracy-laden, "us vs. them" talk that comes from a swath of Tea Party leaders, but I believe what Stewart and Colbert are doing what their shows do so well: hold a mirror up to our society, point out hypocrisies and silliness and have a good laugh.
Jeffrey Juris, an assistant professor at Northeastern University, said the rallies go beyond political comedy, and should be taken seriously.
"The point of the rallies, and The Daily Show and The Colbert Report more generally, is to use humor to shine a light on the contradictions, foibles and absurdities of our political culture in order to provoke critical reflection, particularly among young people who might not otherwise take an interest in politics," Juris wrote in an analysis piece posted on the university's website. "In this case, the rallies go one step further and entail participatory action."
That is why these rallies have the chance to empower those who have sat back and watched the Tea Partiers and other crazies go insane over having a black Democratic president. Gitelson said Stewart and Colbert could be the right people to fire this group up, not in a way that would swing an election but enough to force politicians, once the election is over, to consider moderating their messages – maybe.
Colbert and Stewart’s shows delight in taking on both sides of the political aisle, relentlessly ferreting out inconsistencies and absurdities. An hour of Fox News and an hour of MSNBC can cancel each other out, but "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" routinely use razor-sharp satire to slice away artifice and give a clear, albeit comedic, picture of the news of the day. The real "we the people," the silent majority, tend to recognize this and enjoy laughing at Stewart’s comedy because it is funny yet true. The rallies today will likely be a reflection of that, a coming together of the more-or-less like-minded middle.
At the rally's conclusion, Stewart gave an impassioned speech about the caustic level of discourse in Washington, and its nasty echoes on cable television's 24-hour news cycle. Stewart said that noisy debate obscured a reality that he perceived: that everyone throughout the country had found a way to work together.
"...The only place we don't is here [pointing at the Capitol building] or on cable TV," said Stewart, putting much of the blame on Washington. "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing...."
"...We live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies," Stewart said. "But unfortunately, one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country's 24-hour political pundit perpetual panic ‘conflictinator’ did not cause our problems. But its existence makes solving them that much harder."
Despite its comedic origins, the rally is being taken seriously, garnering plugs from Oprah and even President Obama himself. And while these events will be unlikely to change the course of the country, they might serve to remind anyone with a far-left or far-right ideology that there are masses in the middle to contend with – the people who are reasonable – the new silent majority.
If only they would actually vote and cause the Tea Party to lose, then maybe the crazies would go home.
An event that took place on the National Mall on Saturday, October 20, presented a more serious reflection of our collective state of mind. Comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert held a rally in Washington, D.C. to Restore Sanity. The crowd appeared to exceed organizers' expectations, spilling past the boundaries set for the rally. Organizers estimated attendance at about 250,000; while many in the media estimated it to be around 220k.
There were satellite rallies going on in 47 states and six foreign countries. Add these numbers to the huge attendance of the Washington D.C. rally and you get 100s and 100s of thousands. Once the numbers are tallied, Jon Stewart may get the "million moderate march" he wanted with a few people brandishing signs that read, "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler."
It seems the majority of people want sanity.
While the audiences of the two comedians undoubtedly lean somewhat to the left, Stewart presented the rally as a chance for the low-key middle to come together – those who do not care to shout or call names and who do not think we have Nazis or Socialists in charge of our government.
As described on The Rally to Restore Sanity Web site: "We're looking for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn't be the only ones that get heard; and who believe that the only time it's appropriate to draw a Hitler mustache on someone is when that person is actually Hitler – or Charlie Chaplin in certain roles."
Alan Gitelson, a professor of political science at Loyola University Chicago, compared the sizable group of people who are neither angry nor partisan as the new "silent majority". Gitelson said. "The tea party is clearly to the right.... And then you have progressives on the other side, and then there is this large center. The rally that Colbert and Stewart are doing is kind of part of a balancing act."
Some on the right have portrayed the rallies as a last-ditch effort by liberals to rile up Democratic voters before an election in which conservative candidates clearly have the enthusiasm edge and are poised to win a sizable number of congressional seats. That fits nicely in much of their conspiracy-laden, "us vs. them" talk that comes from a swath of Tea Party leaders, but I believe what Stewart and Colbert are doing what their shows do so well: hold a mirror up to our society, point out hypocrisies and silliness and have a good laugh.
Jeffrey Juris, an assistant professor at Northeastern University, said the rallies go beyond political comedy, and should be taken seriously.
"The point of the rallies, and The Daily Show and The Colbert Report more generally, is to use humor to shine a light on the contradictions, foibles and absurdities of our political culture in order to provoke critical reflection, particularly among young people who might not otherwise take an interest in politics," Juris wrote in an analysis piece posted on the university's website. "In this case, the rallies go one step further and entail participatory action."
That is why these rallies have the chance to empower those who have sat back and watched the Tea Partiers and other crazies go insane over having a black Democratic president. Gitelson said Stewart and Colbert could be the right people to fire this group up, not in a way that would swing an election but enough to force politicians, once the election is over, to consider moderating their messages – maybe.
Colbert and Stewart’s shows delight in taking on both sides of the political aisle, relentlessly ferreting out inconsistencies and absurdities. An hour of Fox News and an hour of MSNBC can cancel each other out, but "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" routinely use razor-sharp satire to slice away artifice and give a clear, albeit comedic, picture of the news of the day. The real "we the people," the silent majority, tend to recognize this and enjoy laughing at Stewart’s comedy because it is funny yet true. The rallies today will likely be a reflection of that, a coming together of the more-or-less like-minded middle.
At the rally's conclusion, Stewart gave an impassioned speech about the caustic level of discourse in Washington, and its nasty echoes on cable television's 24-hour news cycle. Stewart said that noisy debate obscured a reality that he perceived: that everyone throughout the country had found a way to work together.
"...The only place we don't is here [pointing at the Capitol building] or on cable TV," said Stewart, putting much of the blame on Washington. "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing...."
"...We live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies," Stewart said. "But unfortunately, one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country's 24-hour political pundit perpetual panic ‘conflictinator’ did not cause our problems. But its existence makes solving them that much harder."
Despite its comedic origins, the rally is being taken seriously, garnering plugs from Oprah and even President Obama himself. And while these events will be unlikely to change the course of the country, they might serve to remind anyone with a far-left or far-right ideology that there are masses in the middle to contend with – the people who are reasonable – the new silent majority.
If only they would actually vote and cause the Tea Party to lose, then maybe the crazies would go home.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The tax cut that no one noticed
In his interview on The Daily Show, President Obama stated that tax cuts were given to 95% of Americans in the Recovery Act. Yes, there was a tax cut. In fact, I got twice the amount of money back that I got under the Bush tax cuts. But no one else seems to know they got a tax cut except for me and a few others who really stay informed.
The National Review, an ultra right leaning magazine, actually ran a piece that said the President’s claim "strained credulity." The same magazine ran another piece insisting, "If the taxes of 95 percent of Americans actully [spelling mistake is theirs] had been cut, surely somebody other than Obama would have noticed."
It is incredible that the Righties think this is a matter of opinion. Obama cut taxes for millions of Americans, but since most people did not really notice their net pay increase, then, according to the Righties, maybe it did not happen. This argument is along the same line as “if a tree falls in the forest, but no on hears or sees it, did the tree really fall?”
The truth is that Democrats passed one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in the history of the country, and Republicans voted against it and fought to kill it. Congressional Republicans, whose inclination is to love tax cuts, refuse to give the president or Democrats in Congress any credit for this. And the general populace seems to have missed the news entirely.
How could a president cut Americans' income taxes by $116 billion and nobody notice? This is not a rhetorical question. At a rally organized recently by a Republican women's club, a half-dozen guests were asked by a reporter what had happened to their taxes since President Obama took office.
"Federal and state have both gone up," said one silver-haired attendee, echoing the comments of others. After further prodding with a reminder that a provision of the stimulus bill had cut taxes for 95 percent of working families by changing withholding rates, the rally attendee’s memory was jogged.
"You're right, you're right," he said. "I'll be honest with you: it was so subtle that personally, I didn't notice it."
This person was so very sure that his federal taxes had gone up because FOX news and Republican leaders (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell) had told him so. But in reality, his taxes had gone down. Anyone can go back and look at paycheck stubs and see that their taxes have been reduced. This happened when Obama signed the Recovery Act into law the first couple of months after being sworn into office. But even when talking to a reporter, the rally attendee’s first instinct was to say the exact opposite of what really happened. He is obviously not the only one who is misinformed.
Less than 10% of the country realizes they got tax cuts. About a third of the population believes their federal taxes actually went up.
The tax cut was designed to be subtle, on purpose, because rebate checks tend to be saved, not spent. So, President Obama and the Democrats set it up so that everyone's paycheck would simply be a little higher every pay period – an average of about $50 a month for the typical working person – about $1200 per year for a middle class two-income family – hoping that more people would be more likely to spend that extra bit.
For the most part, it was effective because the economy is improving – albeit slowly.
How bad is the disconnect between perception and reality? Almost immediately after Obama signed one of the largest tax cuts in American history, right-wingnuts started organizing rallies to announce that they are Taxed Enough Already. The Republican leaders were lying; and the Republican sheep were not paying close enough attention to know the president had just given them a tax break.
Sadly, what makes for good economic policy often has no bearing on politics or public opinion. Obama could have gone with rebate checks that would have been better noticed, but the economic result would have been worse. The president chose to go with an approach that worked better for the economy, but paid little political dividend. Good for the economy. Bad for him. For the good of the nation, Obama is knowingly sacrificing public opinion about himself.
Rush, Sean, Glenn, Bill, and every other Republican mouthpiece has been telling Bubba that Obama raised his taxes – even though they know that their statements are not true – and Bubba believes them because he never noticed that his paycheck has a bit more money in it every week. When arriving home from work, Bubba is checking his brain at his front door, turning on FOX News, and allowing the lies and misinformation to pour into his skull.
I cannot lay all the blame at the feet of FOX and friends, though, because Obama and the Democrats are very bad at letting the public know about the help they are getting. Their publicity machine is a failure.
Under Obama, middle class Americans got the biggest tax cut in history, but no one noticed.
The National Review, an ultra right leaning magazine, actually ran a piece that said the President’s claim "strained credulity." The same magazine ran another piece insisting, "If the taxes of 95 percent of Americans actully [spelling mistake is theirs] had been cut, surely somebody other than Obama would have noticed."
It is incredible that the Righties think this is a matter of opinion. Obama cut taxes for millions of Americans, but since most people did not really notice their net pay increase, then, according to the Righties, maybe it did not happen. This argument is along the same line as “if a tree falls in the forest, but no on hears or sees it, did the tree really fall?”
The truth is that Democrats passed one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in the history of the country, and Republicans voted against it and fought to kill it. Congressional Republicans, whose inclination is to love tax cuts, refuse to give the president or Democrats in Congress any credit for this. And the general populace seems to have missed the news entirely.
How could a president cut Americans' income taxes by $116 billion and nobody notice? This is not a rhetorical question. At a rally organized recently by a Republican women's club, a half-dozen guests were asked by a reporter what had happened to their taxes since President Obama took office.
"Federal and state have both gone up," said one silver-haired attendee, echoing the comments of others. After further prodding with a reminder that a provision of the stimulus bill had cut taxes for 95 percent of working families by changing withholding rates, the rally attendee’s memory was jogged.
"You're right, you're right," he said. "I'll be honest with you: it was so subtle that personally, I didn't notice it."
This person was so very sure that his federal taxes had gone up because FOX news and Republican leaders (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell) had told him so. But in reality, his taxes had gone down. Anyone can go back and look at paycheck stubs and see that their taxes have been reduced. This happened when Obama signed the Recovery Act into law the first couple of months after being sworn into office. But even when talking to a reporter, the rally attendee’s first instinct was to say the exact opposite of what really happened. He is obviously not the only one who is misinformed.
Less than 10% of the country realizes they got tax cuts. About a third of the population believes their federal taxes actually went up.
The tax cut was designed to be subtle, on purpose, because rebate checks tend to be saved, not spent. So, President Obama and the Democrats set it up so that everyone's paycheck would simply be a little higher every pay period – an average of about $50 a month for the typical working person – about $1200 per year for a middle class two-income family – hoping that more people would be more likely to spend that extra bit.
For the most part, it was effective because the economy is improving – albeit slowly.
How bad is the disconnect between perception and reality? Almost immediately after Obama signed one of the largest tax cuts in American history, right-wingnuts started organizing rallies to announce that they are Taxed Enough Already. The Republican leaders were lying; and the Republican sheep were not paying close enough attention to know the president had just given them a tax break.
Sadly, what makes for good economic policy often has no bearing on politics or public opinion. Obama could have gone with rebate checks that would have been better noticed, but the economic result would have been worse. The president chose to go with an approach that worked better for the economy, but paid little political dividend. Good for the economy. Bad for him. For the good of the nation, Obama is knowingly sacrificing public opinion about himself.
Rush, Sean, Glenn, Bill, and every other Republican mouthpiece has been telling Bubba that Obama raised his taxes – even though they know that their statements are not true – and Bubba believes them because he never noticed that his paycheck has a bit more money in it every week. When arriving home from work, Bubba is checking his brain at his front door, turning on FOX News, and allowing the lies and misinformation to pour into his skull.
I cannot lay all the blame at the feet of FOX and friends, though, because Obama and the Democrats are very bad at letting the public know about the help they are getting. Their publicity machine is a failure.
Under Obama, middle class Americans got the biggest tax cut in history, but no one noticed.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Privatizing social security a bad idea
Privatizing Social Security was a bad idea in 2005 when it was proposed by President Bush and rejected by the American people. It is still a bad idea, despite recent Republican attempts to revive it.
Three new analyses out this week make it very clear that GOP proposals would cut benefits for middle-income Americans, jeopardize the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund and weaken the program's ability to keep millions of Americans out of poverty.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the Chief Actuary of Social Security, and the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee (JEC) have each weighed in on the Social Security proposal introduced by Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. While Republicans have sought to recast their proposals as modest changes to the current system, they are anything but that.
[First]… the new CBPP report finds that Rep. Ryan's proposal would reduce benefits for the top 70 percent of earners by linking Social Security benefits to change in prices, rather than changes in wages, as is now the case. Additionally, increasing Social Security's full retirement age, as called for in Ryan's plan, would reduce benefits for everyone regardless of when they retire.
[Second]… according to the Chief Actuary of Social Security, the "progressive price indexing" proposal would reduce benefits by 17 percent compared to current law for a new retiree in 2050 with medium earnings ($43,000 today). The cuts get deeper over time and are steeper for higher income workers. By 2080, benefits converge at a much lower level, with little difference in benefits for high earners and medium earners. At that point, Social Security would bear little resemblance to today's program, where benefits are based on a worker's lifetime earnings.
[Third]… the JEC report, prepared by the committee's Majority Staff, looks at privatization, where future retirees are able to divert a portion of their payroll taxes to private investment accounts. Privatization would allow all retirement savings accumulated by retirees to be subject to fluctuations in the performance of asset markets, including the stock market, where significant swings in returns and account accumulations are possible from year to year and even month to month.
A worker with a private account could purchase an annuity with a fixed monthly payment at the end of his or her working life. However, the size of that monthly payment depends on the timing of retirement relative to the performance of the different asset markets that the retiree had invested in. For example, a retiree who invested their social security payroll tax solely in the stock market over a 40-year work history and was expecting an annuity of $867 per month in 2006 would have received only $399 per month if he had retired in 2008.
Republicans claim that the Social Security Trust Fund would ensure that individuals who invest in private accounts will get back as much as they put in, plus indexing for inflation, even if the stock market craters. But such a guarantee - where private account holders win when the stock market is up, and don't lose when the stock market falls - must have another source of funds during bear markets. Without additional funds to pay for this one-sided bet, the solvency of the General Fund will be at risk.
While Social Security benefits are modest, they have a major impact. Without Social Security, nearly half (46 percent) of senior citizens would live in poverty, but with Social Security the poverty rate for elderly Americans falls to 10 percent. Indeed, Social Security accounts for more than 76 percent of income for middle-class seniors.
The Republicans ignore these facts and plan to radically change a program that provides economic security and peace of mind to millions of Americans. Their proposals are either a misguided belief in the stock market's ability to miraculously "save" Social Security or a cynical attempt to gut a successful program that has kept generations of Americans economically secure.
From: Privatizing Social Security: Haven't We Seen This Movie Before?
By Rep. Carolyn Mahoney
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-carolyn-maloney/privatizing-social-securi_b_772334.html
Three new analyses out this week make it very clear that GOP proposals would cut benefits for middle-income Americans, jeopardize the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund and weaken the program's ability to keep millions of Americans out of poverty.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the Chief Actuary of Social Security, and the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee (JEC) have each weighed in on the Social Security proposal introduced by Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. While Republicans have sought to recast their proposals as modest changes to the current system, they are anything but that.
[First]… the new CBPP report finds that Rep. Ryan's proposal would reduce benefits for the top 70 percent of earners by linking Social Security benefits to change in prices, rather than changes in wages, as is now the case. Additionally, increasing Social Security's full retirement age, as called for in Ryan's plan, would reduce benefits for everyone regardless of when they retire.
[Second]… according to the Chief Actuary of Social Security, the "progressive price indexing" proposal would reduce benefits by 17 percent compared to current law for a new retiree in 2050 with medium earnings ($43,000 today). The cuts get deeper over time and are steeper for higher income workers. By 2080, benefits converge at a much lower level, with little difference in benefits for high earners and medium earners. At that point, Social Security would bear little resemblance to today's program, where benefits are based on a worker's lifetime earnings.
[Third]… the JEC report, prepared by the committee's Majority Staff, looks at privatization, where future retirees are able to divert a portion of their payroll taxes to private investment accounts. Privatization would allow all retirement savings accumulated by retirees to be subject to fluctuations in the performance of asset markets, including the stock market, where significant swings in returns and account accumulations are possible from year to year and even month to month.
A worker with a private account could purchase an annuity with a fixed monthly payment at the end of his or her working life. However, the size of that monthly payment depends on the timing of retirement relative to the performance of the different asset markets that the retiree had invested in. For example, a retiree who invested their social security payroll tax solely in the stock market over a 40-year work history and was expecting an annuity of $867 per month in 2006 would have received only $399 per month if he had retired in 2008.
Republicans claim that the Social Security Trust Fund would ensure that individuals who invest in private accounts will get back as much as they put in, plus indexing for inflation, even if the stock market craters. But such a guarantee - where private account holders win when the stock market is up, and don't lose when the stock market falls - must have another source of funds during bear markets. Without additional funds to pay for this one-sided bet, the solvency of the General Fund will be at risk.
While Social Security benefits are modest, they have a major impact. Without Social Security, nearly half (46 percent) of senior citizens would live in poverty, but with Social Security the poverty rate for elderly Americans falls to 10 percent. Indeed, Social Security accounts for more than 76 percent of income for middle-class seniors.
The Republicans ignore these facts and plan to radically change a program that provides economic security and peace of mind to millions of Americans. Their proposals are either a misguided belief in the stock market's ability to miraculously "save" Social Security or a cynical attempt to gut a successful program that has kept generations of Americans economically secure.
From: Privatizing Social Security: Haven't We Seen This Movie Before?
By Rep. Carolyn Mahoney
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-carolyn-maloney/privatizing-social-securi_b_772334.html
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Republicans are for off-shoring American jobs
Michelle Bachmann rose to national attention with her call for the news media to conduct an investigation of Congress for un-American policies. But the hypocrite does not have to look any further than her own cloakroom and her own voting record.
What could be more un-American than promoting the off-shoring of American jobs?
Yet, that is what Republicans favor. They voted to allow companies to deduct from their taxable income the expenses of off-shoring jobs and of shipping equipment overseas.
It would be one thing if only the nutcase Michelle Bachmann voted for it – but that is not what happened. The entire Republican Party voted for it, including the purported Speaker to be, John Boehner. The Republican Party favors sending your jobs offshore. They favor a global labor market, driving down the cost and power of American labor. They cheerfully toast the screwing of the middle class. It drives up their profits, their wealth, their power.
It is anti-American.
Democrats do have something to say about this, but their voices are too polite, too weak. It is not clear and concise. It gets all muddled with other words that are good for policy wonks, but do not touch peoples' guts. They are so weak in their answer that no one hears them.
So, I will shout this:
A vote for any Republican is a vote to send your job to a foreign country!
That is why business, both domestic and foreign, is buying the election for Republicans.
The political ads I would put out there:
One ad shows George Bush speaking to the black-tied, bejeweled dinner calling them "his base"; then shows Joe Barton apologizing to BP; then fade to American workers walking out of a plant while the foreign workers walk in.
Another ad shows the white-haired gent who runs the Chamber of Commerce showing a list of their foreign contributors, then showing a scene of American factory workers walking out of their plants and foreign workers walking into American manufacturing plants.
Then, with these ads (pictures worth more than 1000 words), maybe the electorate will understand that Republicans are for off-shoring American jobs.
What could be more un-American than promoting the off-shoring of American jobs?
Yet, that is what Republicans favor. They voted to allow companies to deduct from their taxable income the expenses of off-shoring jobs and of shipping equipment overseas.
It would be one thing if only the nutcase Michelle Bachmann voted for it – but that is not what happened. The entire Republican Party voted for it, including the purported Speaker to be, John Boehner. The Republican Party favors sending your jobs offshore. They favor a global labor market, driving down the cost and power of American labor. They cheerfully toast the screwing of the middle class. It drives up their profits, their wealth, their power.
It is anti-American.
Democrats do have something to say about this, but their voices are too polite, too weak. It is not clear and concise. It gets all muddled with other words that are good for policy wonks, but do not touch peoples' guts. They are so weak in their answer that no one hears them.
So, I will shout this:
A vote for any Republican is a vote to send your job to a foreign country!
That is why business, both domestic and foreign, is buying the election for Republicans.
The political ads I would put out there:
One ad shows George Bush speaking to the black-tied, bejeweled dinner calling them "his base"; then shows Joe Barton apologizing to BP; then fade to American workers walking out of a plant while the foreign workers walk in.
Another ad shows the white-haired gent who runs the Chamber of Commerce showing a list of their foreign contributors, then showing a scene of American factory workers walking out of their plants and foreign workers walking into American manufacturing plants.
Then, with these ads (pictures worth more than 1000 words), maybe the electorate will understand that Republicans are for off-shoring American jobs.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Displaced anger
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and, to a lesser extent, the stimulus have become symbolic conduits of political anger. The reason is simple. Both were passed amid much fanfare and controversy, and yet the unemployment rate is still almost 10%. Therefore, critics say, the programs are flops.
The bailouts were rational, clear-headed responses to the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression. The recession is still hurting many, but the hard facts are that both measures have made the economy better, or to be more precise, not nearly as bad as it otherwise would have been.
What would have happened if the bailouts had not been instigated? The early 1930s provide a case study in what happens when a financial crisis is met with inaction and sanctimony about a return to basic values. Suffice it to say, things did not end well back then – and the Great Depression went on for years. This time around, both the Bush and Obama administrations, Congress, and the Federal Reserve were determined not to let history repeat itself.
TARP, enacted two years ago with bipartisan support, injected capital into financial institutions when credit was frozen. And contrary to what is believed, the government did not simply hand cash to the banks with no strings attached; it purchased shares of preferred stock. Now that the banking system has stabilized, the stock is being sold, at a profit to taxpayers. Similarly, TARP money was used to prop up GM and Chrysler when the collapse of those domestic automakers would have added hundreds of thousands more workers to the unemployment rolls.
Of the $388 billion in TARP money that was spent, more than half has already been recovered, according to the latest Treasury Department report. What's more, with GM looking healthier and insurance giant AIG showing signs of life, it is possible that TARP could turn a profit in the end. That would make it one of the best uses of federal tax dollars in memory.
Similarly, the stimulus has had a positive effect, though measurable only against a less desirable situation that might have been. It strengthened the social safety net for those cast into desperate straits and bolstered struggling states and localities. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 1.4 million to 3.3 million more people would be unemployed today without it. The challenge now is to ensure that spending meant to be temporary and targeted does not become permanent.
Given the unpopularity of TARP and the stimulus, it is not surprising that candidates this fall are trying to disassociate themselves with these programs. In fact, voters in GOP primaries ousted several Republicans – known as the TARP martyrs – who supported the bailout. As the Great Depression proved, the true act of irresponsibility in the midst of economic crisis is to freeze up and do nothing, then take cheap shots at those who saved the day. It’s too bad that some Republicans lost their jobs due to TARP.
Voters have every reason to be angry about the economic mess, but their rage is displaced. It should be directed at the Wall Street financiers who threw caution to the wind and the politicians of both parties who enabled them, not at lawmakers who acted responsibly to save the system at a moment of maximum peril.
The bailouts were rational, clear-headed responses to the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression. The recession is still hurting many, but the hard facts are that both measures have made the economy better, or to be more precise, not nearly as bad as it otherwise would have been.
What would have happened if the bailouts had not been instigated? The early 1930s provide a case study in what happens when a financial crisis is met with inaction and sanctimony about a return to basic values. Suffice it to say, things did not end well back then – and the Great Depression went on for years. This time around, both the Bush and Obama administrations, Congress, and the Federal Reserve were determined not to let history repeat itself.
TARP, enacted two years ago with bipartisan support, injected capital into financial institutions when credit was frozen. And contrary to what is believed, the government did not simply hand cash to the banks with no strings attached; it purchased shares of preferred stock. Now that the banking system has stabilized, the stock is being sold, at a profit to taxpayers. Similarly, TARP money was used to prop up GM and Chrysler when the collapse of those domestic automakers would have added hundreds of thousands more workers to the unemployment rolls.
Of the $388 billion in TARP money that was spent, more than half has already been recovered, according to the latest Treasury Department report. What's more, with GM looking healthier and insurance giant AIG showing signs of life, it is possible that TARP could turn a profit in the end. That would make it one of the best uses of federal tax dollars in memory.
Similarly, the stimulus has had a positive effect, though measurable only against a less desirable situation that might have been. It strengthened the social safety net for those cast into desperate straits and bolstered struggling states and localities. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 1.4 million to 3.3 million more people would be unemployed today without it. The challenge now is to ensure that spending meant to be temporary and targeted does not become permanent.
Given the unpopularity of TARP and the stimulus, it is not surprising that candidates this fall are trying to disassociate themselves with these programs. In fact, voters in GOP primaries ousted several Republicans – known as the TARP martyrs – who supported the bailout. As the Great Depression proved, the true act of irresponsibility in the midst of economic crisis is to freeze up and do nothing, then take cheap shots at those who saved the day. It’s too bad that some Republicans lost their jobs due to TARP.
Voters have every reason to be angry about the economic mess, but their rage is displaced. It should be directed at the Wall Street financiers who threw caution to the wind and the politicians of both parties who enabled them, not at lawmakers who acted responsibly to save the system at a moment of maximum peril.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
American oligarchs
The United States is fast becoming a third world nation run by corporate oligarchs, their political lackeys, and supported by gullible citizens who, come November, will vote against their own best interests to further their masters' agendas.
How gullible are you? When Republicans promise to cut taxes and reduce deficits, do you ask them how it is possible to do both at the same time? What specific spending cuts do they propose? GOP sweetheart Paul Ryan, who is touted as the spending and deficit guru of his party, has proposed privatizing Social Security and then further delaying retirement age to 70 from what is now 67. He has previously advocated completely dismantling Social Security – until Mitch McConnell (GOP Congressional leader) advised him that such words would cause him to lose the election. Ryan also wants to end Medicare, and has specifically said so. He wants old people to have to pay for their own insurance on the open market – never mind that it would be extremely expensive, even if they could qualify. Therefore, many of our elderly would have to go without healthcare.
The recent Republican Pledge to America is full of bloviated ideas but short on details. For example, they do not mention how to cut taxes and reduce deficits at the same time. Cutting taxes to next to nothing has long been a Republican goal, and when they tried to do that during the Bush years they turned a huge surplus left by Clinton into a huge deficit.
They proposed privatizing Social Security. What if they had been successful? Where would your Social Security money be today after the market crash of 2008? Those funds would be in the same sinking boat as the 401ks. Given what we have seen happen to financial markets, how would you have done if your Social Security account were turned over to private sector brokerages, like, say, Lehman Brothers?
The GOP promises to repeal the American Care Act (healthcare reform). Of course they have no actual proposal except going back to what we had: yearly double digit increases, children being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, more and more Americans losing their coverage and their coverage being dropped when they get sick, small businesses cutting benefits or eliminating coverage for employees, and on and on.
President Obama's healthcare reform is presently prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Now, this very day, parents may continue covering their kids on their policies until the kids turn 26. Those who are very sick are now able to enter a high risk health insurance program run by private insurers (if their state will allow it). Small businesses that provide coverage for their employees will receive a tax subsidy to offset the cost (which was not true before now). Now, which of these benefits would you like to see cut? What about the old system did you find so attractive?
The United States spends 17% of GDP on healthcare. Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, is basically the sum total of our economy. Germany, France and the United Kingdom spend 10% of their GDP. Switzerland, second to the U.S. spends 11% of GDP. Are we healthier because we spend so much more? No. Independent studies show that our healthcare system ranks 37th in the world in terms of favorable outcomes, just below Slovakia.
Do you want to go back to that?
As the Bush Tax cuts approach expiration, the President has proposed continuing the tax cuts for 98% of all Americans. Those deficit hawks on the right insist that the top 2% should continue to get their tax breaks too, and the Republicans are holding your and my taxes hostage to assure that. Apparently, they don't mind the $700 billion those tax cuts will add to the deficit over the next few years – and well over 1.4 trillion in 10 years.
What the Republicans are really doing is protecting those extremely wealthy oligarchs. These billionaires and millionaires paid a marginal rate of 39% under President Clinton, and 91% under President Eisenhower, supposedly deserve our sympathy because their rate will go from the current 36% to the previous 39%.
Gee, those poor rich people. Boo-hoo.
Don't be a gullible tool of the Koch Brothers (big oil and huge money machine for Republicans) and the other corporate oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch. Vote in your own best interest – against the Republican corporate machine on November 2.
*Oligarchs are rulers in an oligarchy: a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, or military control. In the United States, the oligarchs are ‘distinguished’ by wealth.
How gullible are you? When Republicans promise to cut taxes and reduce deficits, do you ask them how it is possible to do both at the same time? What specific spending cuts do they propose? GOP sweetheart Paul Ryan, who is touted as the spending and deficit guru of his party, has proposed privatizing Social Security and then further delaying retirement age to 70 from what is now 67. He has previously advocated completely dismantling Social Security – until Mitch McConnell (GOP Congressional leader) advised him that such words would cause him to lose the election. Ryan also wants to end Medicare, and has specifically said so. He wants old people to have to pay for their own insurance on the open market – never mind that it would be extremely expensive, even if they could qualify. Therefore, many of our elderly would have to go without healthcare.
The recent Republican Pledge to America is full of bloviated ideas but short on details. For example, they do not mention how to cut taxes and reduce deficits at the same time. Cutting taxes to next to nothing has long been a Republican goal, and when they tried to do that during the Bush years they turned a huge surplus left by Clinton into a huge deficit.
They proposed privatizing Social Security. What if they had been successful? Where would your Social Security money be today after the market crash of 2008? Those funds would be in the same sinking boat as the 401ks. Given what we have seen happen to financial markets, how would you have done if your Social Security account were turned over to private sector brokerages, like, say, Lehman Brothers?
The GOP promises to repeal the American Care Act (healthcare reform). Of course they have no actual proposal except going back to what we had: yearly double digit increases, children being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, more and more Americans losing their coverage and their coverage being dropped when they get sick, small businesses cutting benefits or eliminating coverage for employees, and on and on.
President Obama's healthcare reform is presently prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Now, this very day, parents may continue covering their kids on their policies until the kids turn 26. Those who are very sick are now able to enter a high risk health insurance program run by private insurers (if their state will allow it). Small businesses that provide coverage for their employees will receive a tax subsidy to offset the cost (which was not true before now). Now, which of these benefits would you like to see cut? What about the old system did you find so attractive?
The United States spends 17% of GDP on healthcare. Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, is basically the sum total of our economy. Germany, France and the United Kingdom spend 10% of their GDP. Switzerland, second to the U.S. spends 11% of GDP. Are we healthier because we spend so much more? No. Independent studies show that our healthcare system ranks 37th in the world in terms of favorable outcomes, just below Slovakia.
Do you want to go back to that?
As the Bush Tax cuts approach expiration, the President has proposed continuing the tax cuts for 98% of all Americans. Those deficit hawks on the right insist that the top 2% should continue to get their tax breaks too, and the Republicans are holding your and my taxes hostage to assure that. Apparently, they don't mind the $700 billion those tax cuts will add to the deficit over the next few years – and well over 1.4 trillion in 10 years.
What the Republicans are really doing is protecting those extremely wealthy oligarchs. These billionaires and millionaires paid a marginal rate of 39% under President Clinton, and 91% under President Eisenhower, supposedly deserve our sympathy because their rate will go from the current 36% to the previous 39%.
Gee, those poor rich people. Boo-hoo.
Don't be a gullible tool of the Koch Brothers (big oil and huge money machine for Republicans) and the other corporate oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch. Vote in your own best interest – against the Republican corporate machine on November 2.
*Oligarchs are rulers in an oligarchy: a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, or military control. In the United States, the oligarchs are ‘distinguished’ by wealth.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Just Dreaming
Sitting here daydreaming and wishing that maybe Republicans have vastly overplayed their hands this year – just as they did 12 years ago when they banked on impeachment of Clinton winning them more seats. Let’s say they succeed in picking up a dozen or fewer seats in the House, and perhaps just a seat or two in the Senate leaving the Democratic majorities shrunk only marginally. Republicans would have thrown everything they had at this election – and still come up short.
That would be lovely.
The repercussions of this scenario for the party would begin immediately with the futures of John Boehner, and his deputy, Eric Cantor, ability to hold leadership positions coming very much in doubt. That thought alone makes me smile. More than that, though, a full struggle would begin within the Republican Party over the degree it has aligned itself with the Tea Party movement. (This especially will be true if, as expected, Democrat Chris Coons trounces tea party favorite Christine O’Donnell for a Delaware Senate seat when mainstream Republican Mike Castle would have won that race handily.)
As recriminations mount inside the Republican Party, frustrated GOP incumbents who had been holding on just to see a return to majority status could begin heading for the exits. Beginning in a trickle, Republican retirements would soon pick up speed as lawmakers look to move on to greener pastures. (These retirements alone would seriously hurt Republican chances to retake majorities in 2012 and subsequent elections.)
But, as important as all of these consequences would be, a Republican failure to take back Congress this year would have even an even far-reaching significance: it likely would call into question the GOP’s entire longstanding strategy of obstructionism.
Almost since the day President Obama took office, Republicans have stood shoulder-to-shoulder, nearly unanimously trying to stand in the way of even the most modest of the president’s initiatives. They think that if they thwart progress – and deny the Democratic president credit for success on anything – they will frustrate voters. That frustration, the Republican thinking goes, would then compel voters back into the GOP camp.
But what if that thinking failed to produce the majorities Republicans so desperately crave (as in “I want my country back”). And, given how obstructionism has played a central role for their political game, I think it could not be underestimated how damaging it would be to the GOP if this tactic failed. I do not think Republicans have any other cards to play. A failure of obstructionism to win back a majority would cause a massive crisis of confidence inside the GOP. A crisis of confidence for Republicans only would be amplified should Obama see any uptick in his approval ratings, for even an incremental improvement in the economy.
Quite simply, Republicans’ spirits would be broken – and that thought makes me giggle out loud.
If they do not take back Congress this November, they would perhaps have an incentive to cooperate a little more with Obama and the Democrats, which in turn, could improve the prospects for such stalled initiatives as climate legislation and immigration reform.
All of this is enough to put a smile on nearly any liberal, moderate, or independent voter’s face. Maybe it is enough to get them out and voting in November.
But I am probably just dreaming.
That would be lovely.
The repercussions of this scenario for the party would begin immediately with the futures of John Boehner, and his deputy, Eric Cantor, ability to hold leadership positions coming very much in doubt. That thought alone makes me smile. More than that, though, a full struggle would begin within the Republican Party over the degree it has aligned itself with the Tea Party movement. (This especially will be true if, as expected, Democrat Chris Coons trounces tea party favorite Christine O’Donnell for a Delaware Senate seat when mainstream Republican Mike Castle would have won that race handily.)
As recriminations mount inside the Republican Party, frustrated GOP incumbents who had been holding on just to see a return to majority status could begin heading for the exits. Beginning in a trickle, Republican retirements would soon pick up speed as lawmakers look to move on to greener pastures. (These retirements alone would seriously hurt Republican chances to retake majorities in 2012 and subsequent elections.)
But, as important as all of these consequences would be, a Republican failure to take back Congress this year would have even an even far-reaching significance: it likely would call into question the GOP’s entire longstanding strategy of obstructionism.
Almost since the day President Obama took office, Republicans have stood shoulder-to-shoulder, nearly unanimously trying to stand in the way of even the most modest of the president’s initiatives. They think that if they thwart progress – and deny the Democratic president credit for success on anything – they will frustrate voters. That frustration, the Republican thinking goes, would then compel voters back into the GOP camp.
But what if that thinking failed to produce the majorities Republicans so desperately crave (as in “I want my country back”). And, given how obstructionism has played a central role for their political game, I think it could not be underestimated how damaging it would be to the GOP if this tactic failed. I do not think Republicans have any other cards to play. A failure of obstructionism to win back a majority would cause a massive crisis of confidence inside the GOP. A crisis of confidence for Republicans only would be amplified should Obama see any uptick in his approval ratings, for even an incremental improvement in the economy.
Quite simply, Republicans’ spirits would be broken – and that thought makes me giggle out loud.
If they do not take back Congress this November, they would perhaps have an incentive to cooperate a little more with Obama and the Democrats, which in turn, could improve the prospects for such stalled initiatives as climate legislation and immigration reform.
All of this is enough to put a smile on nearly any liberal, moderate, or independent voter’s face. Maybe it is enough to get them out and voting in November.
But I am probably just dreaming.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
A good look at privatization
There are currently two competing visions of governance in the United States. The conservative vision believes in the on-your-own society, no ‘village’ and no group cooperatives. This policy agenda primarily serves the well off and privileged sectors of the country. This conservative vision of utopia (touted by many of the GOP candidates in this election) is a society in which most government agencies are privatized, and unregulated free enterprise reigns supreme.
The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family had failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county’s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground!
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn’t do anything to stop his house from burning. Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay. The mayor said if homeowners don’t pay, they’re out of luck.
I am surprised that the fire department was not prepared to accept payment for services. If the issue really is limited resources, then surely they would be interested in recouping the costs of having responded to the scene. The Cranicks offered to pay whatever it took to put the fire out. Why didn’t the fire department do so, and then charge as doctors or hospitals might for uninsured patients? The mayor of South Fulton said the chief could not have made an exception. “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t,” Mayor David Crocker said. If homeowners do not pay, they’re out of luck.
The fire reportedly continued for hours because garden hoses would not work to put it out. When the fire spread to a neighbor’s property they responded because that neighbor had paid the fee. I am sure the firefighters on the scene who refused to put out the fire really wanted to help – some said they went home and cried later that night – but the county commission (all Republicans) and the fire department just could not escape the powerful lure of semi-privatization and market forces. They even allowed a barn full of horses burn to the ground a while back because the owner had not paid the $75. The city of South Fulton actually benefited to let a few houses burn down as an example to homeowners who will not pony up the protection money.
A local newspaper pressed Mayor Crocker about the city’s policy, which has been in place since 1990. Crocker, a Republican who was elected in 2008 and serves with a county commission in which every seat is also filled by a Republican, likened the policy to buying auto insurance. The paper said he told them that, after all, “if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked.”
Ironically, in the county commission’s latest report on its fire services which outlines which parts of the municipal area will receive fire services only through subscriptions, the commissioners and fire service officials brag that the county is “very progressive.”
So this is what it is coming to: a far Right, to hell with the collective good and never mind about social services because we do not want to pay taxes to support them. We hear that mindset far too often these days: the only good government is no government; corporatize everything; privatize everything – Rand Paul’s biggest fantasy come true. The fiscal conservatives of Obion County, Tennessee threw out the money they spent sending the trucks out and turned their backs on a profit-making opportunity in exchange for the chance to stick it to the Cranicks for not paying the ‘voluntary’ fee.
If you think letting someone’s house burn to the ground because they forgot to pay a $75 fee is heartless, just wait until the GOP gets back their governmental power and start dismantling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public Education, and any other domestic program they can. It will be government for the rich people, by the rich people. It will be all about paying your own way. If you are old, sick, and lose your home to medical bills – tough luck. If you neglect to pay the fire department fee and your house catches on fire – too bad, because they do not care about you. You could live in a tent and the Republicans will not care as long as they cannot see the tent from their house. This could very well be the inevitable conclusion to the Tea Party's empowerment.
Their counterargument is, in this instance, that the system only works if there are consequences for opting out. For the firefighters to have put out the blaze would supposedly have generated a bunch of future free-loaders.
The other vision of governance, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background. Government is not good at taking care of every problem, but there are some basic services like police, fire, sanitation, and transportation that government should do because it furthers our social contract – that is, the basic understanding that we all are in this world together. It is an idea that today’s conservatives do not seem to understand. They are only willing to take care of numero uno – themselves.
What happened to compassionate conservatism? It never existed.
The conservative vision was on full display last week in Obion County, Tennessee. In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family had failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county’s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground!
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn’t do anything to stop his house from burning. Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay. The mayor said if homeowners don’t pay, they’re out of luck.
I am surprised that the fire department was not prepared to accept payment for services. If the issue really is limited resources, then surely they would be interested in recouping the costs of having responded to the scene. The Cranicks offered to pay whatever it took to put the fire out. Why didn’t the fire department do so, and then charge as doctors or hospitals might for uninsured patients? The mayor of South Fulton said the chief could not have made an exception. “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t,” Mayor David Crocker said. If homeowners do not pay, they’re out of luck.
The fire reportedly continued for hours because garden hoses would not work to put it out. When the fire spread to a neighbor’s property they responded because that neighbor had paid the fee. I am sure the firefighters on the scene who refused to put out the fire really wanted to help – some said they went home and cried later that night – but the county commission (all Republicans) and the fire department just could not escape the powerful lure of semi-privatization and market forces. They even allowed a barn full of horses burn to the ground a while back because the owner had not paid the $75. The city of South Fulton actually benefited to let a few houses burn down as an example to homeowners who will not pony up the protection money.
A local newspaper pressed Mayor Crocker about the city’s policy, which has been in place since 1990. Crocker, a Republican who was elected in 2008 and serves with a county commission in which every seat is also filled by a Republican, likened the policy to buying auto insurance. The paper said he told them that, after all, “if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked.”
Ironically, in the county commission’s latest report on its fire services which outlines which parts of the municipal area will receive fire services only through subscriptions, the commissioners and fire service officials brag that the county is “very progressive.”
So this is what it is coming to: a far Right, to hell with the collective good and never mind about social services because we do not want to pay taxes to support them. We hear that mindset far too often these days: the only good government is no government; corporatize everything; privatize everything – Rand Paul’s biggest fantasy come true. The fiscal conservatives of Obion County, Tennessee threw out the money they spent sending the trucks out and turned their backs on a profit-making opportunity in exchange for the chance to stick it to the Cranicks for not paying the ‘voluntary’ fee.
If you think letting someone’s house burn to the ground because they forgot to pay a $75 fee is heartless, just wait until the GOP gets back their governmental power and start dismantling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public Education, and any other domestic program they can. It will be government for the rich people, by the rich people. It will be all about paying your own way. If you are old, sick, and lose your home to medical bills – tough luck. If you neglect to pay the fire department fee and your house catches on fire – too bad, because they do not care about you. You could live in a tent and the Republicans will not care as long as they cannot see the tent from their house. This could very well be the inevitable conclusion to the Tea Party's empowerment.
Their counterargument is, in this instance, that the system only works if there are consequences for opting out. For the firefighters to have put out the blaze would supposedly have generated a bunch of future free-loaders.
The other vision of governance, the progressive one, believes in an American Dream that works for all people, regardless of their racial, religious, or economic background. Government is not good at taking care of every problem, but there are some basic services like police, fire, sanitation, and transportation that government should do because it furthers our social contract – that is, the basic understanding that we all are in this world together. It is an idea that today’s conservatives do not seem to understand. They are only willing to take care of numero uno – themselves.
What happened to compassionate conservatism? It never existed.
Monday, October 4, 2010
The dingbat revolution is nigh
Sarah Palin – who earlier had held a closed-door fundraiser for Rand Paul, the Tea Party champion running for the U.S. Senate – railed against a GOP establishment that has just seen Tea Partiers oust entrenched Republicans in Delaware and New York. The red-hot mama of American exceptionalism, as Matt Taibbi calls her, spoke at the National Quartet Convention in Louisville, a gospel-music hoedown in a giant convention center filled with thousands of elderly white Southerners.
Matt Taibbi, a reporter for Rolling Stone, attended the event and writes: "Palin chortles, 'We're shaking up the good ol' boys,' to the best applause her aging crowd can muster. She then issues an oft-repeated warning (her speeches are usually a tired succession of half-coherent one-liners dumped on ravenous audiences like chum to sharks) to Republican insiders who underestimated the power of the Tea Party Death Star.
"There isn't a single black person in the crowd. And there is a truly awesome quantity of medical hardware: Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression: 'Government's not the solution! Government's the problem!'
"…the person sitting next to me leans over to explain that the scooters are because of Medicare. They have these commercials about how you won't even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay! Practically everyone in Kentucky has one."
Apparently, although they want government spending cut for everyone else, they do want government to spend on them. They feel entitled. They think they earned it when actually they use up what they paid into Social Security and Medicare within the first few years. For the remainder of their years, they are on the dole of taxpayers.
Taibbi continues, “A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it.”
After Palin wraps up, Taibbi searches for departing Medicare-motor-scooter conservatives. He come upon an elderly couple, Janice and David Wheelock, who are fairly itching to share their views:
I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."
"OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"
"Me?" he says proudly. Oh, I'm a property appraiser - have been my whole life."
I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"
Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!
"Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"
"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."
"But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"
"Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much."
More from Taibbi:
"They're full of s**t. All of them.
“At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending – with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse (for themselves) is key to understanding what this movement is all about – and nowhere do we see that dynamic as clearly as in Kentucky, where Rand Paul is barreling toward the Senate with the aid of conservative icons like Palin.
"Early in his campaign, Dr. Paul, the son of the uncompromising libertarian hero Ron Paul, denounced Medicare as "socialized medicine." But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself – half of his patients are on Medicare – he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason."
Rand Paul said that physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living and therefore, Medicare should not be allowed to reduce payments to physicians. (But he is against the government bail out to the states that saved the jobs of teachers, fire fighters, and policemen.)
Taibbi continues: "Those of us who might have expected Paul's purist followers to abandon him in droves have been disappointed; Paul is now the clear favorite to win in November. (Ha, ha, you thought the Tea Party actually gave a s**t about spending, joke's on you.) That's because the Tea Party doesn't really care about issues – it's about something deep down and psychological, something that can't be answered by political compromise or fundamental changes in policy. At root, the Tea Party is nothing more than a ‘them-versus-us’ thing. They know who they are, and they know who we are ('radical leftists' is the term they prefer), and they're coming for us on Election Day, no matter what we do — and, it would seem, no matter what their own leaders like Rand Paul do."
(Remember, facts do not matter to this crowd. Reasoning with them is futile.)
"In the Tea Party narrative, victory at the polls means a new American revolution, one that will "take our country back" from everyone they disapprove of. But what they don't realize is, there's a catch: This is America, and we have an entrenched oligarchical system in place that insulates us all from any meaningful political change.
"The Tea Party today is being pitched in the media as a great threat to the GOP; in reality, the Tea Party is the GOP. What few elements of the movement are not yet under the control of the Republican Party soon will be, and even if a few genuine Tea Party candidates sneak through, it's only a matter of time before the uprising as a whole gets castrated, just like every grass-roots movement does in this country. Its leaders will be bought off and sucked into the two-party bureaucracy, where its platform will be whittled down until the only things left are those that the GOP's campaign contributors want anyway: top-bracket tax breaks, free trade and financial deregulation.
"The rest of it – the sweeping cuts to federal spending, the clampdown on bailouts, the rollback of Roe v. Wade – will die on the vine as one Tea Party leader after another gets seduced by the Republican Party and retrained for the revolutionary cause of voting down taxes for Goldman Sachs executives."
"The over 65 dingbat revolution, it seems, is nigh."
To read the remainder of the Taibbi’s article, go here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=0
Matt Taibbi, a reporter for Rolling Stone, attended the event and writes: "Palin chortles, 'We're shaking up the good ol' boys,' to the best applause her aging crowd can muster. She then issues an oft-repeated warning (her speeches are usually a tired succession of half-coherent one-liners dumped on ravenous audiences like chum to sharks) to Republican insiders who underestimated the power of the Tea Party Death Star.
"There isn't a single black person in the crowd. And there is a truly awesome quantity of medical hardware: Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression: 'Government's not the solution! Government's the problem!'
"…the person sitting next to me leans over to explain that the scooters are because of Medicare. They have these commercials about how you won't even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay! Practically everyone in Kentucky has one."
Apparently, although they want government spending cut for everyone else, they do want government to spend on them. They feel entitled. They think they earned it when actually they use up what they paid into Social Security and Medicare within the first few years. For the remainder of their years, they are on the dole of taxpayers.
Taibbi continues, “A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it.”
After Palin wraps up, Taibbi searches for departing Medicare-motor-scooter conservatives. He come upon an elderly couple, Janice and David Wheelock, who are fairly itching to share their views:
I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."
"OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"
"Me?" he says proudly. Oh, I'm a property appraiser - have been my whole life."
I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"
Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!
"Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"
"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."
"But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"
"Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much."
More from Taibbi:
"They're full of s**t. All of them.
“At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending – with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse (for themselves) is key to understanding what this movement is all about – and nowhere do we see that dynamic as clearly as in Kentucky, where Rand Paul is barreling toward the Senate with the aid of conservative icons like Palin.
"Early in his campaign, Dr. Paul, the son of the uncompromising libertarian hero Ron Paul, denounced Medicare as "socialized medicine." But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself – half of his patients are on Medicare – he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason."
Rand Paul said that physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living and therefore, Medicare should not be allowed to reduce payments to physicians. (But he is against the government bail out to the states that saved the jobs of teachers, fire fighters, and policemen.)
Taibbi continues: "Those of us who might have expected Paul's purist followers to abandon him in droves have been disappointed; Paul is now the clear favorite to win in November. (Ha, ha, you thought the Tea Party actually gave a s**t about spending, joke's on you.) That's because the Tea Party doesn't really care about issues – it's about something deep down and psychological, something that can't be answered by political compromise or fundamental changes in policy. At root, the Tea Party is nothing more than a ‘them-versus-us’ thing. They know who they are, and they know who we are ('radical leftists' is the term they prefer), and they're coming for us on Election Day, no matter what we do — and, it would seem, no matter what their own leaders like Rand Paul do."
(Remember, facts do not matter to this crowd. Reasoning with them is futile.)
"In the Tea Party narrative, victory at the polls means a new American revolution, one that will "take our country back" from everyone they disapprove of. But what they don't realize is, there's a catch: This is America, and we have an entrenched oligarchical system in place that insulates us all from any meaningful political change.
"The Tea Party today is being pitched in the media as a great threat to the GOP; in reality, the Tea Party is the GOP. What few elements of the movement are not yet under the control of the Republican Party soon will be, and even if a few genuine Tea Party candidates sneak through, it's only a matter of time before the uprising as a whole gets castrated, just like every grass-roots movement does in this country. Its leaders will be bought off and sucked into the two-party bureaucracy, where its platform will be whittled down until the only things left are those that the GOP's campaign contributors want anyway: top-bracket tax breaks, free trade and financial deregulation.
"The rest of it – the sweeping cuts to federal spending, the clampdown on bailouts, the rollback of Roe v. Wade – will die on the vine as one Tea Party leader after another gets seduced by the Republican Party and retrained for the revolutionary cause of voting down taxes for Goldman Sachs executives."
"The over 65 dingbat revolution, it seems, is nigh."
To read the remainder of the Taibbi’s article, go here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904?RS_show_page=0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)