In October, 1973 the fourth Arab-Israeli War broke out as Egypt and Syria launched surprise attacks on the Jewish High Holy Day of Yom Kippur. The Arab forces were initially triumphant, overwhelming the Israeli frontier positions and breaking through their lines. They were aided for the first time by a stunningly effective diplomatic achievement that added economic muscle to their cause: the imposition of an embargo on oil exports to countries supportive of Israel. OPEC had found its voice and marshaled its latent power. The industrialized world was put on notice that the days of cheap petroleum were over. The OPEC cartel soon quadrupled the price of oil and threw the Western World into recession. American politicians agreed on the urgent need for a national energy policy.
Thirty-five years later American politicians still agree the country ought to have a national energy policy. And, in one of the great derelictions of responsibility in modern times, it still does not. The United States is more dependent on imported oil than ever before and grows more so all the time. Oil sold for $26 a barrel in 2001 and stands at over $110 today. Gas prices hit $1 for the first time in 1979, $2 in 2004 and are nearing $4 in 2008. The rapid rise sends inflationary shock waves through the economy. Everything that has to be shipped costs more. Fertilizers, which are also made from petrochemicals, cost more, meaning that food does too. Rice is being rationed and food riots have broken out in over a dozen countries as staples have doubled in price in a year.
The need for domestically produced green renewable energy is desperate. Continued delay will present a devastating threat to the American standard of living. In this atmosphere it is disappointing indeed to see John McCain and Hillary Clinton pandering on the issue. McCain proposed and Clinton has embraced a plan to give the American public a "tax holiday" by suspending the collection of the federal 18.4 cent a gallon gasoline tax for the summer months. It is estimated that this would amount to an average $25 tax reduction for the average driver, about 1/2 of a tank of gas. It would also mean a $10 billion reduction for the National Highway Trust Fund that is financed by the gas tax.
The financial benefit to the public would be minuscule and the damage to the road maintenance program would be huge. But this idea is not about logic. It is about political appearances. McCain and Clinton wish to be seen as "doing something" about gas prices. The fact that the "something" is insignificant is not what is important to them. The fact that the idea fails to address the long-term cause of the high prices, namely the lack of a strategy to achieve energy self-sufficiency, is not important to them either. What is important to them is political pandering, pure and simple.
These are the kinds of band-aid bromides the American people have been handed for thirty-five years, thirty-five years of high-publicity, low-result grandstanding that leaves the nation a little more at the mercy of some of the world's most odious regimes every year and a few more hundred billion dollars in debt to another group of questionable regimes every year to pay the tab. We need a different kind of leadership, one that will face this problem squarely, one with the courage to level with the American people about the short-term sacrifices that will be necessary to achieve long-term relief from our need for foreign oil.
If oil doubles again in the next four years how will we be able to afford it? Where will our economy be then? The same old ruses pushed by the same old faces are no longer sufficient. We need truth and we need leadership, and we need them now.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Obama Dumps Wright
Reverend Jeremiah Wright did Barack Obama a favor yesterday. Speaking at the National Press Club, Obama's former pastor went off the deep end even for him, blaming the United States for AIDS and the 9/11 attacks and questioning the sincerity of Obama's political and philosophical positions. This provided Obama the urgent necessity and clear opportunity to finally and irrevocably break with the screwball minister, a move he should have made six weeks ago.
Obama made himself clear. He characterized Wright's diatribes as "appalling," "ridiculous," "offensive to all Americans," "insulting" and "disrespectful" to Obama personally. He declared that he "denounced unequivocally" the "rants" of a man whose words are "giving comfort to those who prey on hate." Obama did not just throw Wright under the bus, he put the bus in reverse and backed over him. It was about time.
By finally blasting and disowning Wright, Obama shows some backbone. With the preacher's insults beginning to turn on Obama himself, Obama appears the aggrieved party rather than a politician playing electioneering games. And though he let this drag on far too long, there can finally be an end to the farce. For from now on, if Wright stays quiet the issue begins to recede. If he continues to run his mouth he confirms Obama's description of him as "a caricature of himself," whom Obama was well justified in disavowing and denouncing.
Barack Obama has been on defense far too long over this, suffering significant damage with the electorate's opinion of him in the interim. Polls have shown his "negatives" increasing. This will continue to play out over the coming months in Republican attack ads, even if the McCain campaign itself does not run them. And McCain can still benefit from taking the high road by criticizing such ads while down-ticket campaigns help him by continuing to raise the issue.
Nevertheless, by finally speaking out, Obama has acted to reduce the bleeding. It will be interesting to see if it is enough to save his chances in Indiana a week from today.
Obama made himself clear. He characterized Wright's diatribes as "appalling," "ridiculous," "offensive to all Americans," "insulting" and "disrespectful" to Obama personally. He declared that he "denounced unequivocally" the "rants" of a man whose words are "giving comfort to those who prey on hate." Obama did not just throw Wright under the bus, he put the bus in reverse and backed over him. It was about time.
By finally blasting and disowning Wright, Obama shows some backbone. With the preacher's insults beginning to turn on Obama himself, Obama appears the aggrieved party rather than a politician playing electioneering games. And though he let this drag on far too long, there can finally be an end to the farce. For from now on, if Wright stays quiet the issue begins to recede. If he continues to run his mouth he confirms Obama's description of him as "a caricature of himself," whom Obama was well justified in disavowing and denouncing.
Barack Obama has been on defense far too long over this, suffering significant damage with the electorate's opinion of him in the interim. Polls have shown his "negatives" increasing. This will continue to play out over the coming months in Republican attack ads, even if the McCain campaign itself does not run them. And McCain can still benefit from taking the high road by criticizing such ads while down-ticket campaigns help him by continuing to raise the issue.
Nevertheless, by finally speaking out, Obama has acted to reduce the bleeding. It will be interesting to see if it is enough to save his chances in Indiana a week from today.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
What Obama Needs to Do
Barack Obama has succeeded brilliantly in galvanizing young people and upscale white voters behind his banner. His messages of change and post or bi partisanship resonate strongly with these groups. He has also had uncommon success among independent voters in states where they are allowed to participate in Democratic primaries. The size and rapturous enthusiasm of his audiences are testament to these appeals.
But his electoral performances in large cosmopoplitan states also evince serious shortcomings that point up major deficiencies in his coalition. The results should sound an alarm bell to his campaign and lead to some fundamental modifications to his approach, for if they are not addressed properly they will make it very difficult for him to win a general election in November.
Put simply, "Needs Voters" do not seem to be so enamored with Obama. He does quite poorly with Latinos, senior citizens and working class whites. These are all groups who are feeling the pinch of a hostile economy, sinking health care system and rising prices. Obama's overarching paeans to transcendent principles do not reach them. They want to know whose policies will offer them direct benefit and relief. Hillary Clinton, whose speeches bulge with 10-point policy plans on a host of specific bread and butter issues, and whose slogan "Solutions" stands as counterpoint to his "Change," blows him away by at least two to one with all these groups.
To people in need of help right now, Obama is young, relatively inexperienced and black. None of those appellations work to his benefit with a majority of the American people. And if he does not change the dynamic, he could wind up limping into the convention with a shrinking pledged delegate lead on the heels of a set of rather demoralizing losses. If there is any way he can still lose the nomination, that would be it.
Obama therefore needs to begin making some inroads into the Needs Voter blocs. This requires a concerted effort to focus more on the meat in his policy proposals. There is a great deal of it in the issues section of his website, and most of his proposals are not significantly different from Clinton's. He can do this in his own personal appearances and his campaign should orchestrate it among his surrogates.
He need not drop his big picture and charismatic appeals to do so. He just needs to give the Democratic core some substantive reassurance. "What are you going to do for me? What is your plan? Why should I think you understand people like me? What shows me you care?" The answers to these questions are what they want to hear from Obama, and unless they hear them, 2/3 of these voters will continue to vote for Clinton in the primaries and a painful proportion will defect to John McCain in the general.
Obama has said he will work now on "fine tuning" his message. He needs to get right on it. He has no time to lose.
But his electoral performances in large cosmopoplitan states also evince serious shortcomings that point up major deficiencies in his coalition. The results should sound an alarm bell to his campaign and lead to some fundamental modifications to his approach, for if they are not addressed properly they will make it very difficult for him to win a general election in November.
Put simply, "Needs Voters" do not seem to be so enamored with Obama. He does quite poorly with Latinos, senior citizens and working class whites. These are all groups who are feeling the pinch of a hostile economy, sinking health care system and rising prices. Obama's overarching paeans to transcendent principles do not reach them. They want to know whose policies will offer them direct benefit and relief. Hillary Clinton, whose speeches bulge with 10-point policy plans on a host of specific bread and butter issues, and whose slogan "Solutions" stands as counterpoint to his "Change," blows him away by at least two to one with all these groups.
To people in need of help right now, Obama is young, relatively inexperienced and black. None of those appellations work to his benefit with a majority of the American people. And if he does not change the dynamic, he could wind up limping into the convention with a shrinking pledged delegate lead on the heels of a set of rather demoralizing losses. If there is any way he can still lose the nomination, that would be it.
Obama therefore needs to begin making some inroads into the Needs Voter blocs. This requires a concerted effort to focus more on the meat in his policy proposals. There is a great deal of it in the issues section of his website, and most of his proposals are not significantly different from Clinton's. He can do this in his own personal appearances and his campaign should orchestrate it among his surrogates.
He need not drop his big picture and charismatic appeals to do so. He just needs to give the Democratic core some substantive reassurance. "What are you going to do for me? What is your plan? Why should I think you understand people like me? What shows me you care?" The answers to these questions are what they want to hear from Obama, and unless they hear them, 2/3 of these voters will continue to vote for Clinton in the primaries and a painful proportion will defect to John McCain in the general.
Obama has said he will work now on "fine tuning" his message. He needs to get right on it. He has no time to lose.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Iraqi Morass Widens
It has been said that the idea of the quick and decisive war is one of the most persistent and tragic illusions of humankind. The morass in Iraq, now in its sixth year, is a case in point.
There exists a nearly inexorable tendency in such cases, as frustrations mount and difficulties deepen, for them also to widen. As the strategic front expands it often seems imperative to protect military "gains" against newly discovered threats from farther afield, thus requiring action against a widening circle of potential malice. The principle is called entropy, the tendency of an expansionist state to conquer A, which puts it on the borders of B and C, and then feel the need to attack B and C to secure its initial prize. This then puts it on the borders of D, E and F, which are then seen as the new threats.
The process leads successively to overextension and the eventual exhaustion of the expanding power. So it was historically with Rome, the Mongols, Spain and Britain, and so it is now with the United States in Iraq.
Admiral Michael Mullen's warnings against Iran fit the pattern. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Iran about meddling in Iraq and threatened military repercussions, saying the U.S. military had evidence Iran has been sending weapons to the Shiite factions there. Mullen spoke of diplomatic and economic pressure, but continued, "When I say I don't take any military options off the table, that certainly more than implies that we have military options. That kind of planning activity has been going on for a long time."
Any thorough planning for the invasion and occupation of Iraq should have considered probable reaction from neighboring Iran. Iran must be vitally concerned with events in Iraq. Iraq invaded Iran in the 1980s and started a war that took an estimated 1 million Iranian lives. It ought to have been considered that an Iraqi government under the control of an avowed enemy of Iran (the United States), could only be viewed with the gravest alarm in Tehran, and that Iran would feel it crucial to appeal to co-religionist Shiites there for its own security.
The recent visit of the Iranian president to Iraq was an initiative toward one of the two main Shiite groupings, just as its protection of refugee cleric Muktada al Sadr and possible assistance to his Mahdi Army is an effort to hedge its bets by cozying up to the other. If these developments were unforeseen by U.S. planners it is testament only to their cavalier overconfidence and profound ignorance of the region. If they were foreseen it follows that an attack on Iran was contemplated from the beginning.
Either way, the ongoing American involvement in Iraq continues to destabilize and inflame the region, push up the price of oil, fan anti-American sentiment, weaken moderate Arab governments and encourage a steady flow of recruits for extremist groups. These are all opposite to the avowed aims and stated expectations of the invasion. A "quick war" has once again turned into quicksand.
There exists a nearly inexorable tendency in such cases, as frustrations mount and difficulties deepen, for them also to widen. As the strategic front expands it often seems imperative to protect military "gains" against newly discovered threats from farther afield, thus requiring action against a widening circle of potential malice. The principle is called entropy, the tendency of an expansionist state to conquer A, which puts it on the borders of B and C, and then feel the need to attack B and C to secure its initial prize. This then puts it on the borders of D, E and F, which are then seen as the new threats.
The process leads successively to overextension and the eventual exhaustion of the expanding power. So it was historically with Rome, the Mongols, Spain and Britain, and so it is now with the United States in Iraq.
Admiral Michael Mullen's warnings against Iran fit the pattern. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Iran about meddling in Iraq and threatened military repercussions, saying the U.S. military had evidence Iran has been sending weapons to the Shiite factions there. Mullen spoke of diplomatic and economic pressure, but continued, "When I say I don't take any military options off the table, that certainly more than implies that we have military options. That kind of planning activity has been going on for a long time."
Any thorough planning for the invasion and occupation of Iraq should have considered probable reaction from neighboring Iran. Iran must be vitally concerned with events in Iraq. Iraq invaded Iran in the 1980s and started a war that took an estimated 1 million Iranian lives. It ought to have been considered that an Iraqi government under the control of an avowed enemy of Iran (the United States), could only be viewed with the gravest alarm in Tehran, and that Iran would feel it crucial to appeal to co-religionist Shiites there for its own security.
The recent visit of the Iranian president to Iraq was an initiative toward one of the two main Shiite groupings, just as its protection of refugee cleric Muktada al Sadr and possible assistance to his Mahdi Army is an effort to hedge its bets by cozying up to the other. If these developments were unforeseen by U.S. planners it is testament only to their cavalier overconfidence and profound ignorance of the region. If they were foreseen it follows that an attack on Iran was contemplated from the beginning.
Either way, the ongoing American involvement in Iraq continues to destabilize and inflame the region, push up the price of oil, fan anti-American sentiment, weaken moderate Arab governments and encourage a steady flow of recruits for extremist groups. These are all opposite to the avowed aims and stated expectations of the invasion. A "quick war" has once again turned into quicksand.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Leprechauns and Ethanol: Both Corny
Catch a leprechaun at the end of a rainbow and his pot of gold is yours, says the Irish myth. The United States has been chasing the ethanol rainbow for some years now, with most of the gold going to a handful of very unleprechaunlike corporate giants. Not only has this corny idea failed to make a dent in weaning the country from foreign oil, but it may not even result in a net savings of petroleum and, worst of all, is taking millions of acres out of food production at a time of growing world hunger.
In America, ethanol is produced by turning corn into alcohol of the same type used in beverages. About $7 billion in subsidies go to growers, 2/3 of that into the coffers of two companies, Archer Daniels Midland and Renewable Products Marketing Group. 90% goes to the top eight producers. Oil companies also cash in with a 51 cent tax credit for each gallon of ethanol blended into motor fuel. The "farm" and oil lobbies do a good job of keeping the subsidies flowing. It also doesn't hurt that presidential candidates are always asked to declare fealty to ethanol subsidies at the beginning of the presidential campaign every four years. That's because the nomination calendar begins with caucuses in Iowa, the nation's #1 corn state.
Ethanol only produces about 76% of the heat per volume as petroleum, so it is a considerably less efficient fuel. That is why usually only 5 to 10% of an ethanol fuel is really made up of the substance. The rest is standard gas. It has been calculated that if 50% of the U.S. corn crop were devoted to ethanol production it would only result in a 6% reduction in the use of gasoline.
Compounding these considerations is the disquieting finding that it takes nearly as much fossil fuel to produce the ethanol as the petroleum it replaces. Once fuel for tractors, harvesters, trucking, processing, pesticides and fertilizers is counted, even oil-industry studies show the best-case return is about 30%. That is, it takes 10 barrels of petroleum to produce 13 barrels of ethanol. And remember the ethanol is 24% less efficient as a fuel. Non-industry research has the margins even closer, including some that say it actually takes more fuel to make the stuff than is produced.
This might all stand merely as an interesting academic argument except for the unpleasant fact that millions of acres are no longer producing food at a time when the food is desperately needed. As Mark Lynas in the (U.K.) New Statesman puts it, "Next year, the US use of corn for ethanol is forecast to rise to 114 million tonnes-nearly a third of the whole projected US crop. American cars now burn enough corn to cover all the import needs of the 82 nations classed by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization as 'low-income food-deficit countries.' There could scarcely be a better way to starve the poor."
The shortages have contributed to rising prices. Rice has gone up 75% and wheat 120% over the past year, pricing the world's poorest out of range of securing their staple food needs. In February the Labor Department tied rising wheat and soybean prices to the loss of acreage to corn for ethanol. Global reserves are at their lowest levels for 25 years, and food riots have recently broken out in Egypt, Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Mozambique, Senegal, Yemen, Haiti, Mauritania, Bolivia, Mexico, India, Burkina Faso and Uzbekistan.
It is time we realize this policy is not accomplishing its ostensible purpose and in fact is contributing mightily to misery on a vast scale. It will not be easy to overcome the ethanol lobby in Washington but it is necessary.
In America, ethanol is produced by turning corn into alcohol of the same type used in beverages. About $7 billion in subsidies go to growers, 2/3 of that into the coffers of two companies, Archer Daniels Midland and Renewable Products Marketing Group. 90% goes to the top eight producers. Oil companies also cash in with a 51 cent tax credit for each gallon of ethanol blended into motor fuel. The "farm" and oil lobbies do a good job of keeping the subsidies flowing. It also doesn't hurt that presidential candidates are always asked to declare fealty to ethanol subsidies at the beginning of the presidential campaign every four years. That's because the nomination calendar begins with caucuses in Iowa, the nation's #1 corn state.
Ethanol only produces about 76% of the heat per volume as petroleum, so it is a considerably less efficient fuel. That is why usually only 5 to 10% of an ethanol fuel is really made up of the substance. The rest is standard gas. It has been calculated that if 50% of the U.S. corn crop were devoted to ethanol production it would only result in a 6% reduction in the use of gasoline.
Compounding these considerations is the disquieting finding that it takes nearly as much fossil fuel to produce the ethanol as the petroleum it replaces. Once fuel for tractors, harvesters, trucking, processing, pesticides and fertilizers is counted, even oil-industry studies show the best-case return is about 30%. That is, it takes 10 barrels of petroleum to produce 13 barrels of ethanol. And remember the ethanol is 24% less efficient as a fuel. Non-industry research has the margins even closer, including some that say it actually takes more fuel to make the stuff than is produced.
This might all stand merely as an interesting academic argument except for the unpleasant fact that millions of acres are no longer producing food at a time when the food is desperately needed. As Mark Lynas in the (U.K.) New Statesman puts it, "Next year, the US use of corn for ethanol is forecast to rise to 114 million tonnes-nearly a third of the whole projected US crop. American cars now burn enough corn to cover all the import needs of the 82 nations classed by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization as 'low-income food-deficit countries.' There could scarcely be a better way to starve the poor."
The shortages have contributed to rising prices. Rice has gone up 75% and wheat 120% over the past year, pricing the world's poorest out of range of securing their staple food needs. In February the Labor Department tied rising wheat and soybean prices to the loss of acreage to corn for ethanol. Global reserves are at their lowest levels for 25 years, and food riots have recently broken out in Egypt, Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Mozambique, Senegal, Yemen, Haiti, Mauritania, Bolivia, Mexico, India, Burkina Faso and Uzbekistan.
It is time we realize this policy is not accomplishing its ostensible purpose and in fact is contributing mightily to misery on a vast scale. It will not be easy to overcome the ethanol lobby in Washington but it is necessary.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Clinton Wins Pennsylvania
Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary today, capitalizing on her appeal to women and working class white voters. The tendencies of the various Democratic Party voting blocs held to the consistent pattern they have followed throughout the primary season. The nearly 10-point win means Clinton will gain about 20 convention delegates on Barack Obama, leaving her still some 120 delegates behind. The bottom line for the nomination picture is that the perception of viability continues to rise for Clinton but the delegate math still does not add up for her.
According to exit polls Clinton won among women 57-43% while Obama won the men by only 52-48%. Clinton carried the white vote about 62-38% and the Catholic vote 70-30%. Catholics were about 31% of the voters. She also won big among senior citizens 66-34%. Obama overwhelmingly got the black vote, won the 18-29 age group handily and the 30-44 age group narrowly. As usual, he did well among the college-educated and those with higher incomes. Hispanics made up less than 1% of the electorate. In short, with a few percentage differences, the standard demographics that prevailed in neighboring Ohio and New Jersey that also produced 10% Clinton victories reasserted themselves in Pennsylvania.
Sounding confident and in command, Clinton vowed in her Philadelphia victory speech to carry the fight onward. With 408 pledged delegates at stake in the seven states and two U.S. territories still to vote, there is no realistic chance of her overtaking Obama in that count. She would need to garner about 65% of them, and the Democratic proportionality rules eliminate that as a real consideration, especially considering Obama will be favored to win outright in North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Clinton should do very well in West Virginia and Kentucky, while Indiana currently appears too close to predict. Still, barring an unlikely total collapse of the Obama effort, he will go to Denver with the lead in pledged delegates.
Clinton's only path to the nomination is therefore her hope of taking Indiana, rolling up big wins in the other Ohio Valley states and convincing 2/3 of the 300 remaining uncommitted superdelegates to break her way. She aims to do this by arguing that Obama is a flawed candidate who cannot win the populous swing states and will lose to John McCain in November. Her surrogates such as Terry McCauliffe were busily making this case as the results came in tonight. Her fire is directed mainly at Obama; she has to get past him first and worry about McCain later.
Obama's post-election speech illustrated the contrast. His critiques concentrated on the general election, zeroing in on the failures of the Bush Administration and tying McCain to them by highlighting the Arizona senator's support for many of the Bush policies. Obama does not want to alienate the Clinton voters, knowing he will need them later to beat McCain. The two approaches seem to be having effect. Exit polling indicated that 30% of Hillary's supporters said they would vote for McCain over Obama while only 16% of Barack's voters said they would vote for McCain over Clinton. This scenario is creating nightmares for party strategists, raising the possibility that if unity cannot be restored after the convention Obama may be too wounded to defeat McCain. There is a real danger that if Clinton does not win the nomination herself her main effect may be to take Obama down with her.
According to exit polls Clinton won among women 57-43% while Obama won the men by only 52-48%. Clinton carried the white vote about 62-38% and the Catholic vote 70-30%. Catholics were about 31% of the voters. She also won big among senior citizens 66-34%. Obama overwhelmingly got the black vote, won the 18-29 age group handily and the 30-44 age group narrowly. As usual, he did well among the college-educated and those with higher incomes. Hispanics made up less than 1% of the electorate. In short, with a few percentage differences, the standard demographics that prevailed in neighboring Ohio and New Jersey that also produced 10% Clinton victories reasserted themselves in Pennsylvania.
Sounding confident and in command, Clinton vowed in her Philadelphia victory speech to carry the fight onward. With 408 pledged delegates at stake in the seven states and two U.S. territories still to vote, there is no realistic chance of her overtaking Obama in that count. She would need to garner about 65% of them, and the Democratic proportionality rules eliminate that as a real consideration, especially considering Obama will be favored to win outright in North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Clinton should do very well in West Virginia and Kentucky, while Indiana currently appears too close to predict. Still, barring an unlikely total collapse of the Obama effort, he will go to Denver with the lead in pledged delegates.
Clinton's only path to the nomination is therefore her hope of taking Indiana, rolling up big wins in the other Ohio Valley states and convincing 2/3 of the 300 remaining uncommitted superdelegates to break her way. She aims to do this by arguing that Obama is a flawed candidate who cannot win the populous swing states and will lose to John McCain in November. Her surrogates such as Terry McCauliffe were busily making this case as the results came in tonight. Her fire is directed mainly at Obama; she has to get past him first and worry about McCain later.
Obama's post-election speech illustrated the contrast. His critiques concentrated on the general election, zeroing in on the failures of the Bush Administration and tying McCain to them by highlighting the Arizona senator's support for many of the Bush policies. Obama does not want to alienate the Clinton voters, knowing he will need them later to beat McCain. The two approaches seem to be having effect. Exit polling indicated that 30% of Hillary's supporters said they would vote for McCain over Obama while only 16% of Barack's voters said they would vote for McCain over Clinton. This scenario is creating nightmares for party strategists, raising the possibility that if unity cannot be restored after the convention Obama may be too wounded to defeat McCain. There is a real danger that if Clinton does not win the nomination herself her main effect may be to take Obama down with her.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Pennsylvania Preview
The Pennsylvania primary is finally here. It has been six weeks since Barack Obama captured Mississippi and Wyoming and seven since Hillary Clinton kept her campaign afloat by winning Ohio and the popular vote in Texas. The April 22 vote in Pennsylvania offers Obama yet another chance to permanently derail the Clinton train, but it also gives Clinton the chance to make her case that she is still viable and the better choice for the general election in November.
What it Means: Obama, already leading by around 140 delegates according to most counts, can effectively end Clinton's campaign with a win in Pennsylvania. Claiming the majority of the Keystone State's 158 delegates would make it mathematically impossible for her to catch up in pledged delegates, would swamp her momentum and would illustrate flagging support for her continuing in the race. Clinton had a 20-point lead here in February, and to lose after holding such an initial lead in a state whose demographics are favorable to her (a large white working-class vote) would be devastating. If Obama wins by even one vote Clinton's candidacy will be finished.
If Clinton wins, the meaning will depend on the margin of her victory. A very narrow 1 to 4 percent win will work to Obama's favor, showing that she has not been able to cut into his delegate lead. His nomination will become even more probable. A moderate win of 5 to 9 percent will keep things status quo. It would not be enough to significantly help her in the delegate contest and would keep Obama's odds of capturing the nomination at 90%. A Clinton win of 10 to 13 percent would make things pretty interesting and might cause some uncommitted superdelegates to think hard about voting for Clinton at the convention. If Hillary wins in a blowout of 14 percent or more all bets are off. Although she would need a 20-point win to make the pledged delegate progress she needs to, this margin would give her a chance to catch Obama in the overall popular vote and would send shivers up the spines of the superdelegates weighing who can win the state in November against John McCain. She would have, once again, a real shot at the nomination.
What the Polls Say: The average of the recent polls have Clinton with a 5 to 6 percent lead. This squares with what knowledgeable Pennsylvania political reporters see on the ground. Unaffiliated poltical observers say the same thing. If the real results deviate much from this it will be a surprise.
What to Look For: If you watch the coverage of the returns come in, pay attention to which areas are reporting first. Politically, Pennsylvania has been described as a large capital "T." The southeast is dominated by Philadelphia and the southwest by Pittsburgh. It is in these areas that Obama will be strong. Philadelphia is 50% black, for instance. The south central, central and northern tier of the state, the "T" itself, is more rural and small town and Clinton will predominate there. Obama must pile up big numbers in the two great cities. He needs to win by 250,000 in Philly and maybe another 100,000 in Pittsburgh. Clinton needs to carry the T by 2-1 to offset Obama's urban power.
Another thing to look for is turnout. The state's Democratic registration has grown by over 300,000 this year, and an estimated 62% of the new voters are Obama partisans. Clinton's backers, being older, traditionally vote more often than the younger people who tend to be enthusiastic for Obama. If turnout is huge Obama will win. If it's moderate or less Clinton will win.
Age and gender are the final things to look for. 45 is the crux of the age gap. Clinton wins those older and Obama those younger. If the 29 and under vote is 25% or more of the total, things are looking good for Obama. It will mean the young people are getting to the polls, as in Iowa and Wisconsin. If women and senior citizens are out in big numbers, as in New Hampshire and Tennessee, it looks good for Clinton. White men are the big wild card. Polls show them evenly split between the two candidates. The election could well turn on which way they break at the last minute.
What Will Happen: I like to say there's nothing harder to predict than the future. But if I had to bet the farm I'd put my money on the idea that the polls and pols are right this time, and that Hillary will win by 5-6%. A big Obama get-out-the-vote effort could conceivably change that, but this time the Clinton team has had plenty of time to arrange its voter turnout strategy too. Clinton will take a moderately narrow victory and her campaign will slog on, hoping for a political miracle to strike.
What it Means: Obama, already leading by around 140 delegates according to most counts, can effectively end Clinton's campaign with a win in Pennsylvania. Claiming the majority of the Keystone State's 158 delegates would make it mathematically impossible for her to catch up in pledged delegates, would swamp her momentum and would illustrate flagging support for her continuing in the race. Clinton had a 20-point lead here in February, and to lose after holding such an initial lead in a state whose demographics are favorable to her (a large white working-class vote) would be devastating. If Obama wins by even one vote Clinton's candidacy will be finished.
If Clinton wins, the meaning will depend on the margin of her victory. A very narrow 1 to 4 percent win will work to Obama's favor, showing that she has not been able to cut into his delegate lead. His nomination will become even more probable. A moderate win of 5 to 9 percent will keep things status quo. It would not be enough to significantly help her in the delegate contest and would keep Obama's odds of capturing the nomination at 90%. A Clinton win of 10 to 13 percent would make things pretty interesting and might cause some uncommitted superdelegates to think hard about voting for Clinton at the convention. If Hillary wins in a blowout of 14 percent or more all bets are off. Although she would need a 20-point win to make the pledged delegate progress she needs to, this margin would give her a chance to catch Obama in the overall popular vote and would send shivers up the spines of the superdelegates weighing who can win the state in November against John McCain. She would have, once again, a real shot at the nomination.
What the Polls Say: The average of the recent polls have Clinton with a 5 to 6 percent lead. This squares with what knowledgeable Pennsylvania political reporters see on the ground. Unaffiliated poltical observers say the same thing. If the real results deviate much from this it will be a surprise.
What to Look For: If you watch the coverage of the returns come in, pay attention to which areas are reporting first. Politically, Pennsylvania has been described as a large capital "T." The southeast is dominated by Philadelphia and the southwest by Pittsburgh. It is in these areas that Obama will be strong. Philadelphia is 50% black, for instance. The south central, central and northern tier of the state, the "T" itself, is more rural and small town and Clinton will predominate there. Obama must pile up big numbers in the two great cities. He needs to win by 250,000 in Philly and maybe another 100,000 in Pittsburgh. Clinton needs to carry the T by 2-1 to offset Obama's urban power.
Another thing to look for is turnout. The state's Democratic registration has grown by over 300,000 this year, and an estimated 62% of the new voters are Obama partisans. Clinton's backers, being older, traditionally vote more often than the younger people who tend to be enthusiastic for Obama. If turnout is huge Obama will win. If it's moderate or less Clinton will win.
Age and gender are the final things to look for. 45 is the crux of the age gap. Clinton wins those older and Obama those younger. If the 29 and under vote is 25% or more of the total, things are looking good for Obama. It will mean the young people are getting to the polls, as in Iowa and Wisconsin. If women and senior citizens are out in big numbers, as in New Hampshire and Tennessee, it looks good for Clinton. White men are the big wild card. Polls show them evenly split between the two candidates. The election could well turn on which way they break at the last minute.
What Will Happen: I like to say there's nothing harder to predict than the future. But if I had to bet the farm I'd put my money on the idea that the polls and pols are right this time, and that Hillary will win by 5-6%. A big Obama get-out-the-vote effort could conceivably change that, but this time the Clinton team has had plenty of time to arrange its voter turnout strategy too. Clinton will take a moderately narrow victory and her campaign will slog on, hoping for a political miracle to strike.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Fiscal Truth in Short Supply
We are still waiting for some real honesty from politicians from both parties about budgets. The fact is there are hard choices ahead, and despite a little better candor this election year the headliners are still not fully levelling with the American people about the difficulties these choices present.
Here in California there is a projected $16 billion deficit for a $110 billion budget. Governor Schwarzenegger and the Republican minorities in the Senate and Assembly tell the Republican base what it wants to hear. There is no way they will allow taxes to be raised. The Democratic majorities in both houses tell their base what it wants to hear, too. All programs will be fully funded. Neither of these promises can be kept, and they all know it.
There is not enough discretionary spending to cut $16 billion out of the budget. To do that means people would have to be OK with emergency response times of four hours, having 50 kids in a classroom, closing most of the state park system and not resurfacing the roads for twenty years at a time. People will not be OK with that and the Republicans know it.
Similarly, there is no way to fully fund all projects, increase public employee pay and benefits and provide the customary level of services without tax increases most Californians would consider ruinous.
The situation calls for compromise. There have to be some tax increases. There have to be some program cuts. Yet up to now the politicians have been more afraid of antagonizing their most vehement partisans than they have been resolute in doing what the state needs done. Former Governor Gray Davis was recalled when the deficit reached $7 billion. Schwarzenegger and the legislature have done even worse since. Where is the courage?
Things are little better on the national stage. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama justifiably assail President Bush and the Republican majority congress (2001-2007) for its fiscal lunacy. Yet they promise universal health care, to fully fund Social Security and Medicare, massive new programs for energy development, education, medical research and infrastructure restoration and promise to do all this without raising taxes on anyone but those making over $200,000 or $250,000 a year. It doesn't add up. They and their advisors know this. Where is the courage?
John McCain is no better. He promises to erase a $450 billion federal deficit with cuts alone. There will be no tax increases in a McCain Administration; in fact he proffers even more tax reductions. He says he will go after earmarks with a vengeance. They are, however, just $18 billion a year, and some of them are actually necessary. There are some bridges, highways and post offices that really do need to be built, for example. To his credit, he has mentioned ethanol and sugar subsidies too, but even then his numbers also do not come close to adding up either. That is particularly true given his inflexible position on the $150 billion dollar a year gorilla in the budgetary living room, the Iraq War. He and his advisors know they cannot pare enough to balance a budget while cutting taxes and paying for a war, yet they stick to that story. Where is the courage?
It is well past high time for the leaders of both parties to come clean with the American people and, in a joint press conference, deliver some real "straight talk" to the people they are elected to serve. Their magic pony platforms promise what they cannot deliver and the national financial structure cannot bear the stress much longer. The signs grow more apparent all the time, including the subprime meltdown, the fall of the dollar and the surge in personal bankruptcies. Some things are more important than getting elected. At least we have to hope there are those in politics who still believe that.
Here in California there is a projected $16 billion deficit for a $110 billion budget. Governor Schwarzenegger and the Republican minorities in the Senate and Assembly tell the Republican base what it wants to hear. There is no way they will allow taxes to be raised. The Democratic majorities in both houses tell their base what it wants to hear, too. All programs will be fully funded. Neither of these promises can be kept, and they all know it.
There is not enough discretionary spending to cut $16 billion out of the budget. To do that means people would have to be OK with emergency response times of four hours, having 50 kids in a classroom, closing most of the state park system and not resurfacing the roads for twenty years at a time. People will not be OK with that and the Republicans know it.
Similarly, there is no way to fully fund all projects, increase public employee pay and benefits and provide the customary level of services without tax increases most Californians would consider ruinous.
The situation calls for compromise. There have to be some tax increases. There have to be some program cuts. Yet up to now the politicians have been more afraid of antagonizing their most vehement partisans than they have been resolute in doing what the state needs done. Former Governor Gray Davis was recalled when the deficit reached $7 billion. Schwarzenegger and the legislature have done even worse since. Where is the courage?
Things are little better on the national stage. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama justifiably assail President Bush and the Republican majority congress (2001-2007) for its fiscal lunacy. Yet they promise universal health care, to fully fund Social Security and Medicare, massive new programs for energy development, education, medical research and infrastructure restoration and promise to do all this without raising taxes on anyone but those making over $200,000 or $250,000 a year. It doesn't add up. They and their advisors know this. Where is the courage?
John McCain is no better. He promises to erase a $450 billion federal deficit with cuts alone. There will be no tax increases in a McCain Administration; in fact he proffers even more tax reductions. He says he will go after earmarks with a vengeance. They are, however, just $18 billion a year, and some of them are actually necessary. There are some bridges, highways and post offices that really do need to be built, for example. To his credit, he has mentioned ethanol and sugar subsidies too, but even then his numbers also do not come close to adding up either. That is particularly true given his inflexible position on the $150 billion dollar a year gorilla in the budgetary living room, the Iraq War. He and his advisors know they cannot pare enough to balance a budget while cutting taxes and paying for a war, yet they stick to that story. Where is the courage?
It is well past high time for the leaders of both parties to come clean with the American people and, in a joint press conference, deliver some real "straight talk" to the people they are elected to serve. Their magic pony platforms promise what they cannot deliver and the national financial structure cannot bear the stress much longer. The signs grow more apparent all the time, including the subprime meltdown, the fall of the dollar and the surge in personal bankruptcies. Some things are more important than getting elected. At least we have to hope there are those in politics who still believe that.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
ABC Debate an Insult
The Presidential Debate moderated on ABC last Wednesday by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos was a disgrace. Rather than concentrating on issues of substance the two "newsmen" spent the first 50 minutes on tabloid-calibre gaffe, gotcha and guilt by association bunkum. Their evident assumption that this is the kind of examination the American people want of their next potential leader is an insult not only to the intelligence of the American voter but to the democratic process itself.
There's no need to worry about Iraq. It's more important to know why Barack Obama doesn't wear a toy American flag on the lapel of his suit jacket.
Kids die because they don't have medical coverage. So what? What we really need to hear is a discussion about quotes from retired preachers from seven years ago.
Should we attack Iran next? Why would anyone care? It is more relevant to talk about how much danger Hillary Clinton faced in Bosnia thirteen years ago.
We are in a recession, gas is $3.69 a gallon, two million people face foreclosure, and with these conditions afoot the taxpayers are getting tagged for $30 billion to bail out hedge fund managers. Our journalistic whiz kids want to know how, under such circumstances, a candidate could be so "out of touch" as to dare suggest people might be bitter about the economy.
What planet are these political "experts" from? Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask what swamp they just crawled out of. It is hard to see how much lower this race to the bottom of infotainment can go.
Such is the level of public discourse fostered by our learned cognoscenti. This kind of stupidity will be discussed in the history classes of the future as merely one more indicator of the pathetic decline of a once-promising country.
There's no need to worry about Iraq. It's more important to know why Barack Obama doesn't wear a toy American flag on the lapel of his suit jacket.
Kids die because they don't have medical coverage. So what? What we really need to hear is a discussion about quotes from retired preachers from seven years ago.
Should we attack Iran next? Why would anyone care? It is more relevant to talk about how much danger Hillary Clinton faced in Bosnia thirteen years ago.
We are in a recession, gas is $3.69 a gallon, two million people face foreclosure, and with these conditions afoot the taxpayers are getting tagged for $30 billion to bail out hedge fund managers. Our journalistic whiz kids want to know how, under such circumstances, a candidate could be so "out of touch" as to dare suggest people might be bitter about the economy.
What planet are these political "experts" from? Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask what swamp they just crawled out of. It is hard to see how much lower this race to the bottom of infotainment can go.
Such is the level of public discourse fostered by our learned cognoscenti. This kind of stupidity will be discussed in the history classes of the future as merely one more indicator of the pathetic decline of a once-promising country.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Education Mess
I'm at an education conference in San Francisco this week, the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges. We heard a keynote speech today from Dr. Patrick Ainsworth, an Assistant Superintendent for the California Department of Education. Dr. Ainsworth is Director of the Department's Secondary, Postsecondary and Adult Leadership Division.
Dr. Ainsworth spoke mainly about problems in California's High School system. High Schools in California and around the nation are generally held to be in pretty bad shape. That's an important concern for the entire country, of course, and particularly for those of us who are Community College educators, since we are responsible for bringing many students up to college standards who come in underprepared and performing below these standards in basic college-level skills. A major effort in California is being devoted to the Community College "Basic Skills Initiative" in order to remediate this problem.
While the BSI could well be the subject of a future blog, I was struck by some rather startling statistics Ainsworth shared with us that bear careful consideration. He reported that in 1950, 60% of the jobs required a high school education or less, 20% needed some post-high school training or education, and 20% required a 4-year degree or more. By 1990 the respective figures were 35% for high school or less, 45% post-high school and 20% a degree. In 2010 the job market is expected to need 10% with only high school or less, 65-70% some post-high school training, and 20-25% with a 4-year degree or more.
Now, what strikes you most about the way the job market has changed? If you're like me, what jumps out at you is NOT that so many more college graduates are needed, because they're not. The percentage of jobs that require a 4-year college degree or more will only have grown from 20% up to "20-25%." Imagine that, no more than a 5% increase in sixty years. What really HAS grown is the share of jobs that need people with some specialized training but not a traditional academic degree. That's up from only 20% to between 65 and 70%, an increase that is absolutely huge.
This clearly suggests what is needed: more vocational programs, what today is referred to as Career Technical Education. The movement that began about 25 years ago that got rid of shop classes in high schools in order to try to track everyone to college has been counterproductive. Not everyone is suited for or interested in college. And the economy needs millions of machinists, nurses, programmers, mechanics, construction and maintenance workers, retail and office managers, communications specialists, public safety personnel, members of the armed services, machine operators and technicians of innumerable types. In fact, it needs roughly three times as many of them as it does college degree graduates.
That is what the high schools, in particular, need to go back to and re-emphasize. CTE programs have been growing dramatically at the community college level, and high schools must follow suit. Trying to fit all students into a mould for which they are not suited and which does not correspond to the real-world jobs that most of them are interested in and will be spending their working lives doing is an exercise in futility foisted on them in a spirit of aristocratic hauteur. When schools fail to provide the type of educational opportunities that most people need it is small wonder so many drop out. Let's return to common sense and in addition to the three R's and college prep, once again start offering the kinds of training most young people know they will need to succeed in the marketplace. It's time for a major effort to bring vocational CTE back to our high schools.
Dr. Ainsworth spoke mainly about problems in California's High School system. High Schools in California and around the nation are generally held to be in pretty bad shape. That's an important concern for the entire country, of course, and particularly for those of us who are Community College educators, since we are responsible for bringing many students up to college standards who come in underprepared and performing below these standards in basic college-level skills. A major effort in California is being devoted to the Community College "Basic Skills Initiative" in order to remediate this problem.
While the BSI could well be the subject of a future blog, I was struck by some rather startling statistics Ainsworth shared with us that bear careful consideration. He reported that in 1950, 60% of the jobs required a high school education or less, 20% needed some post-high school training or education, and 20% required a 4-year degree or more. By 1990 the respective figures were 35% for high school or less, 45% post-high school and 20% a degree. In 2010 the job market is expected to need 10% with only high school or less, 65-70% some post-high school training, and 20-25% with a 4-year degree or more.
Now, what strikes you most about the way the job market has changed? If you're like me, what jumps out at you is NOT that so many more college graduates are needed, because they're not. The percentage of jobs that require a 4-year college degree or more will only have grown from 20% up to "20-25%." Imagine that, no more than a 5% increase in sixty years. What really HAS grown is the share of jobs that need people with some specialized training but not a traditional academic degree. That's up from only 20% to between 65 and 70%, an increase that is absolutely huge.
This clearly suggests what is needed: more vocational programs, what today is referred to as Career Technical Education. The movement that began about 25 years ago that got rid of shop classes in high schools in order to try to track everyone to college has been counterproductive. Not everyone is suited for or interested in college. And the economy needs millions of machinists, nurses, programmers, mechanics, construction and maintenance workers, retail and office managers, communications specialists, public safety personnel, members of the armed services, machine operators and technicians of innumerable types. In fact, it needs roughly three times as many of them as it does college degree graduates.
That is what the high schools, in particular, need to go back to and re-emphasize. CTE programs have been growing dramatically at the community college level, and high schools must follow suit. Trying to fit all students into a mould for which they are not suited and which does not correspond to the real-world jobs that most of them are interested in and will be spending their working lives doing is an exercise in futility foisted on them in a spirit of aristocratic hauteur. When schools fail to provide the type of educational opportunities that most people need it is small wonder so many drop out. Let's return to common sense and in addition to the three R's and college prep, once again start offering the kinds of training most young people know they will need to succeed in the marketplace. It's time for a major effort to bring vocational CTE back to our high schools.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
McCain Economic Package
Seeking to burnish his economic credentials on income tax day, John McCain unveiled a package of tax cuts he said would, "be an immediate economic stimulus." McCain's cuts include suspending the 18.4 cents a gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cents a gallon federal diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day, doubling the tax exemption for dependents to $7,000 and phasing out the alternative minimum tax.
McCain also proposed suspending oil purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which he believes drives up the price of oil, and increasing Medicare prescription drug funding by requiring higher payments from couples making more than $160,000.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, a McCain economic adviser, estimated the cost of the cuts at $195 billion. The Democratic Party came out with an estimate of $468 billion, but their estimate also counted the cost of his supporting the continuation of the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Holtz-Eakin said the cuts would not add to the deficit because they would be accompanied by spending cuts and because of the additional economic growth they would generate. McCain said he would not be able to balance the budget until the end of his second term.
Harvard Public Policy Professor Jeffrey Liebman, speaking for the Democrats, instead remarked, "It's really extraordinary how fiscally irresponsible Sen. McCain's policies are."
Aside from his strong defense and Iraq War posture, McCain's views on many other topics have remained ill-defined in the public's mind up to now in the campaign. Today's announcements demonstrate his desire to assume the role of the traditional post-Reagan Republican, basing his domestic agenda mainly on tax cuts. This is a good political move, since it will shore up support in the conservative Republican base and because people generally like to hear about getting a tax cut.
It remains a bad move for the nation, however, since this supply-side cure for recession has never worked other than to produce additional wealth only for the extreme upper stratum of American earners at the expense of running up the deficit to astronomical levels. See my April 1 article "Supply Side Foolishness" for the previous results of this misguided and three-time failed theory. http://bravegnuwhirled.blogspot.com/2008/04/supply-side-foolishness.html
McCain also proposed suspending oil purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which he believes drives up the price of oil, and increasing Medicare prescription drug funding by requiring higher payments from couples making more than $160,000.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, a McCain economic adviser, estimated the cost of the cuts at $195 billion. The Democratic Party came out with an estimate of $468 billion, but their estimate also counted the cost of his supporting the continuation of the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Holtz-Eakin said the cuts would not add to the deficit because they would be accompanied by spending cuts and because of the additional economic growth they would generate. McCain said he would not be able to balance the budget until the end of his second term.
Harvard Public Policy Professor Jeffrey Liebman, speaking for the Democrats, instead remarked, "It's really extraordinary how fiscally irresponsible Sen. McCain's policies are."
Aside from his strong defense and Iraq War posture, McCain's views on many other topics have remained ill-defined in the public's mind up to now in the campaign. Today's announcements demonstrate his desire to assume the role of the traditional post-Reagan Republican, basing his domestic agenda mainly on tax cuts. This is a good political move, since it will shore up support in the conservative Republican base and because people generally like to hear about getting a tax cut.
It remains a bad move for the nation, however, since this supply-side cure for recession has never worked other than to produce additional wealth only for the extreme upper stratum of American earners at the expense of running up the deficit to astronomical levels. See my April 1 article "Supply Side Foolishness" for the previous results of this misguided and three-time failed theory. http://bravegnuwhirled.blogspot.com/2008/04/supply-side-foolishness.html
Monday, April 14, 2008
I Go Caucusing
On February 5, "Super Tuesday" of the primary season, Californians and voters from 21 other states voted for their favorite candidates. The voting actually was to determine how many delegates each candidate would get. We hear the delegate numbers tossed around, 1600 and some for Obama, 1500 and some for Clinton, and rarely stop to think about who these people might be. Most of us probably presume they are party bigwigs with a lot of high-level connections. On Sunday, April 13 the delegates themselves were chosen in caucuses across the Golden State. I went to one of those caucuses to pick the Obama delegate from the state's 21st Congressional District, an area that includes Tulare County and part of Fresno County.
The caucus was held in the auditorium of the Visalia Senior Center. I went with my wife and five other friends. The site was marked by nothing more than a bunch of balloons floating above a hand-lettered sign reading, "Obama Caucus" outside the door. We came in right behind a woman walking in with five kids ranging in age from about 5 to maybe 13. Folding chairs were set up inside. There were two tables for signing in. One had a sheet of paper taped to the front that said "Tulare County" and the other "Fresno County." We printed our names and addresses and signed our names. The poll sitter handed us a slip of paper, printed this time, or photocopied, it would be more accurate to say, reading "Ballot Claim."
We took our Ballot Claims to another table where a woman took the claim and handed over a ballot. We were told we could mark it right away and go turn it in at the ballot box table or wait to hear the speeches. A few people marked their ballots and left but most stood or sat visiting and waiting for the speeches. The doors had opened at 2:00 and would close at 3:00. Then would come the speeches from the hopefuls. I counted 46 voting-age folks in the hall at 3:00 when it was time for the festivities to begin.
There were five women on the ballot and three of them were there in person. According to Democratic Party rules mandating gender balance, it has been determined that the Obama delegate from the 21st would be a female. Hillary Clinton, who had won the district, would get three delegates at another caucus meeting up the road in the little town of Kingsburg.
So at 3:10 Ricardo, the caucus leader, got up to explain the rules. He answered questions patiently, considering the same questions were asked by different people about three times. He made a point to give his view that no matter how things came out in the nomination, it was important for all Democrats to join together in November and vote for the party's nominee. He got warm applause for that. Then the three delegate candidates spoke in turn, each for about two minutes. None of them were prominent people, but all had put in a lot of work for the Obama campaign.
The first, a 60-year old woman, said the first time she had gotten excited about a candidate was John F. Kennedy in 1960. She had not been involved in a campaign since, but Obama rekindled in her the same sense of hope and vision that had drawn her to JFK. She had been making 100 phone calls a day for Obama. The second was a 25 year-old student who had been going door to door for Obama for weeks on end. The third was a 27 year-old army vet and mom who had served as an Obama precinct captain, scheduling the volunteers and getting out the vote on election day. "Don't worry," she told the audience, "I will be 120 percent for Barack at the convention."
They finished, the votes were cast, and everyone gathered around to see the ballot box opened and hear Ricardo call out each vote. Pam, the first speaker, got 41 votes. The others got 12 and 6. Three votes were split between the two other candidates who hadn't shown up. Democracy was done, Pam was the landslide winner, and everyone came by to congratulate her. She'll be going to Denver at the end of the summer. Then my friends and I went to Marie Callender's for some pie.
What a simple and unpretentious exercise of the democratic principle we had just taken part in. It was really something that 41 votes was all it had taken to choose a representative from an entire Congressional District to go elect a nominee for President of the United States. It was a good day to be an American.
The caucus was held in the auditorium of the Visalia Senior Center. I went with my wife and five other friends. The site was marked by nothing more than a bunch of balloons floating above a hand-lettered sign reading, "Obama Caucus" outside the door. We came in right behind a woman walking in with five kids ranging in age from about 5 to maybe 13. Folding chairs were set up inside. There were two tables for signing in. One had a sheet of paper taped to the front that said "Tulare County" and the other "Fresno County." We printed our names and addresses and signed our names. The poll sitter handed us a slip of paper, printed this time, or photocopied, it would be more accurate to say, reading "Ballot Claim."
We took our Ballot Claims to another table where a woman took the claim and handed over a ballot. We were told we could mark it right away and go turn it in at the ballot box table or wait to hear the speeches. A few people marked their ballots and left but most stood or sat visiting and waiting for the speeches. The doors had opened at 2:00 and would close at 3:00. Then would come the speeches from the hopefuls. I counted 46 voting-age folks in the hall at 3:00 when it was time for the festivities to begin.
There were five women on the ballot and three of them were there in person. According to Democratic Party rules mandating gender balance, it has been determined that the Obama delegate from the 21st would be a female. Hillary Clinton, who had won the district, would get three delegates at another caucus meeting up the road in the little town of Kingsburg.
So at 3:10 Ricardo, the caucus leader, got up to explain the rules. He answered questions patiently, considering the same questions were asked by different people about three times. He made a point to give his view that no matter how things came out in the nomination, it was important for all Democrats to join together in November and vote for the party's nominee. He got warm applause for that. Then the three delegate candidates spoke in turn, each for about two minutes. None of them were prominent people, but all had put in a lot of work for the Obama campaign.
The first, a 60-year old woman, said the first time she had gotten excited about a candidate was John F. Kennedy in 1960. She had not been involved in a campaign since, but Obama rekindled in her the same sense of hope and vision that had drawn her to JFK. She had been making 100 phone calls a day for Obama. The second was a 25 year-old student who had been going door to door for Obama for weeks on end. The third was a 27 year-old army vet and mom who had served as an Obama precinct captain, scheduling the volunteers and getting out the vote on election day. "Don't worry," she told the audience, "I will be 120 percent for Barack at the convention."
They finished, the votes were cast, and everyone gathered around to see the ballot box opened and hear Ricardo call out each vote. Pam, the first speaker, got 41 votes. The others got 12 and 6. Three votes were split between the two other candidates who hadn't shown up. Democracy was done, Pam was the landslide winner, and everyone came by to congratulate her. She'll be going to Denver at the end of the summer. Then my friends and I went to Marie Callender's for some pie.
What a simple and unpretentious exercise of the democratic principle we had just taken part in. It was really something that 41 votes was all it had taken to choose a representative from an entire Congressional District to go elect a nominee for President of the United States. It was a good day to be an American.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Obama Draws Fire
Barack Obama is getting a lesson in what it's like to be the frontrunner these days. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain are pillorying him for remarks he made about working class disillusionment at an April 6 fundraiser in San Francisco. The flap will show a number of things, such as to what extent "gotcha" politics is still effective, whether Obama can take a tough punch, whether he can deliver one back and whether the press and the American people are grownup enough to hear the truth.
Obama said, "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Clinton's take: "Well, that's not my experience." "Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them." McCain's take: "It shows an elitism and a condecension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."
Obama's opponents have decided to spin his meaning as showing contempt for everyday Americans. Judging from the furor this has raised it so far appears to be a deft political move. Obama has countered by asking, "They say I'm out of touch? It takes John McCain three times to realize there's something wrong with the economy and then his solution is to do nothing, and I'm the one who's out of touch?"
The personalities interpretation will concentrate on the tit for tat and whether Obama's counterpunch scores points in the daily battle of words. The horserace interpretation will focus on which way the polls move over the next few days. Lost in the shuffle will be whether Obama's remarks reflect reality. The plain fact is, they do.
When 81% of the people say the country is on the wrong track, when 72% say they are worse off now than they were eight years ago, when 70% say they want their sons and daughters out of Iraq and yet they are kept there, when 68% say the most important thing they want in government is change, when 31% approve of the job the president is doing and 23% approve of the job congress is doing, it's clear there is indeed a great deal of bitterness in the country.
Historically, every time the nation's economy has taken a serious downturn there has been an upsurge in nativist and protectionist sentiments, and every time social conservatives have become more vehement in advancing what they see as threats to their traditionalist concerns as the primary reasons for the difficulties. Not sometimes, not most of the time, but every time. As an educated man and as a knowledgable observer of the American scene who has been crisscrossing every corner of the country for a year and a half, Obama understands that this time is no exception. It may not be the reality candidates want to face, but it is the one that exists.
The Obama candidacy is in many ways a test of the nation's maturity. He frequently says his campaign is based on telling people how things are and what it is really going to take to fix them rather than offering the painless palliatives it is conventionally presumed they want to hear. That's what he is doing on Iraq, what he did in his "More Perfect Union" speech and what he was doing this time in explaining many people's tendencies to vote against their own plain economic interest. His opponents and the press are treating the remarks as a "gotcha" moment, jumping on him for "dissing" the common people of America. The fact that he is right never seems to enter the conversation.
So, we come down to whether the American people are grownups or not. Their cynicism of government's willingness and ability to effect the change they desire is the very thing impeding such change, Obama argues. His basic appeal has been and remains to recognize this cynicism, formed over thirty years of unfulfilled promises, and overcome it with the vision of what could be possible in its absence. Many have formed the habit of retreating into the small circle of familiar things they feel they perhaps can control for the reasons Obama's remarks outline. He asks them instead to believe again. Are Americans able to take this step or will they find it more comfortable to nourish old illusions? At the human level that is what this campaign will primarily reveal.
Obama said, "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Clinton's take: "Well, that's not my experience." "Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them." McCain's take: "It shows an elitism and a condecension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."
Obama's opponents have decided to spin his meaning as showing contempt for everyday Americans. Judging from the furor this has raised it so far appears to be a deft political move. Obama has countered by asking, "They say I'm out of touch? It takes John McCain three times to realize there's something wrong with the economy and then his solution is to do nothing, and I'm the one who's out of touch?"
The personalities interpretation will concentrate on the tit for tat and whether Obama's counterpunch scores points in the daily battle of words. The horserace interpretation will focus on which way the polls move over the next few days. Lost in the shuffle will be whether Obama's remarks reflect reality. The plain fact is, they do.
When 81% of the people say the country is on the wrong track, when 72% say they are worse off now than they were eight years ago, when 70% say they want their sons and daughters out of Iraq and yet they are kept there, when 68% say the most important thing they want in government is change, when 31% approve of the job the president is doing and 23% approve of the job congress is doing, it's clear there is indeed a great deal of bitterness in the country.
Historically, every time the nation's economy has taken a serious downturn there has been an upsurge in nativist and protectionist sentiments, and every time social conservatives have become more vehement in advancing what they see as threats to their traditionalist concerns as the primary reasons for the difficulties. Not sometimes, not most of the time, but every time. As an educated man and as a knowledgable observer of the American scene who has been crisscrossing every corner of the country for a year and a half, Obama understands that this time is no exception. It may not be the reality candidates want to face, but it is the one that exists.
The Obama candidacy is in many ways a test of the nation's maturity. He frequently says his campaign is based on telling people how things are and what it is really going to take to fix them rather than offering the painless palliatives it is conventionally presumed they want to hear. That's what he is doing on Iraq, what he did in his "More Perfect Union" speech and what he was doing this time in explaining many people's tendencies to vote against their own plain economic interest. His opponents and the press are treating the remarks as a "gotcha" moment, jumping on him for "dissing" the common people of America. The fact that he is right never seems to enter the conversation.
So, we come down to whether the American people are grownups or not. Their cynicism of government's willingness and ability to effect the change they desire is the very thing impeding such change, Obama argues. His basic appeal has been and remains to recognize this cynicism, formed over thirty years of unfulfilled promises, and overcome it with the vision of what could be possible in its absence. Many have formed the habit of retreating into the small circle of familiar things they feel they perhaps can control for the reasons Obama's remarks outline. He asks them instead to believe again. Are Americans able to take this step or will they find it more comfortable to nourish old illusions? At the human level that is what this campaign will primarily reveal.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
California Democratic Dinner
I went to the Tulare County Democratic Central Committee's annual dinner tonight and got a preview of the Democrats' likely 2008 campaign strategy. The audience, primarily composed of Democratic activists, candidates and supporters, warmly and enthusiastically applauded the party's positions.
The principal speaker was California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres. Torres began his career as an organizer for Cesar Chavez with the United Farm Workers. He served in the State Assembly from 1974-1982 and as a State Senator from 1982 to 1994. He was the first Latino Democrat to run for statewide office, being defeated for Insurance Commissioner in 1994. He has chaired the state party ever since.
In his opening remarks, Torres stressed above all else Democratic opposition to the War in Iraq. He also mentioned the party's commitment to protect Social Security and defeat attempts to privatize it. Torres maintained that the lengthy primary battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was nothing to be concerned about and is not unusual in Democratic Party history. He went through all the nomination contests from 1960 to the present, explaining that there were several highly contested competitions, including 1960, 1976 and 1992, when the nominee was not decided until late in the season and the Democratic candidate still went on to win. He made a virtue of this pattern, saying that Democrats traditionally enjoy a good fight and are not lockstep conformists. He pointed to the 5-3 primary turnout ratio over the Republicans as evidence that the Democratic race was generating excitement among the public which bodes well for the party's prospects in November. He reported that in California since the start of the year the Democrats have registered 150,000 new voters and the Republicans only 39,000, and that similar ratios are occurring across the country.
Torres then spent the bulk of his speech tying John McCain as tightly as possible to the unpopular policies of President George W. Bush. This no doubt previews a major part of the Democratic strategy this year. He said he expects the Republican campaign to attack hard against Obama or Clinton, and his response leaves little uncertainty that he believes the best answer will be to strike back at McCain even harder. Though McCain has cultivated an image as a maverick, Torres said that the Republican presumptive nominee has sided with Bush 89% of the time in his Senate votes. He ran off a long litany of McCain positions on such issues as the war, the deficit, Constitutional rights, Medicare, children's health, oil drilling, the subprime mortgage crash and cutting off unemployment benefits while bailing out Bear Stearns that make the familiar Democratic case that Republicans support big interests and neglect average Americans. "A McCain presidency would be a Bush third term," Torres said.
He also made clear that if Obama is the Democratic standard bearer and the Republicans come after him for his association with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Democrats are ready to assail McCain for his pursuing and receiving the endorsement of the Rev. Ted Hagee, whom he said has described all Muslims as killers and the Roman Catholic Church as a "whore" and a "cult."
The Democrats, still smarting from the Florida and Supreme Court imbroglio of 2000 and the "swiftboating" of John Kerry in 2004, appear ready and itching for a bloody fight if their opponents go negative this time. Both McCain and probable Democratic nominee Obama have seemingly sought to keep their campaigns on the high road as much as possible in '08, but if things start down the low path this time it could get very ugly very quickly.
The principal speaker was California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres. Torres began his career as an organizer for Cesar Chavez with the United Farm Workers. He served in the State Assembly from 1974-1982 and as a State Senator from 1982 to 1994. He was the first Latino Democrat to run for statewide office, being defeated for Insurance Commissioner in 1994. He has chaired the state party ever since.
In his opening remarks, Torres stressed above all else Democratic opposition to the War in Iraq. He also mentioned the party's commitment to protect Social Security and defeat attempts to privatize it. Torres maintained that the lengthy primary battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was nothing to be concerned about and is not unusual in Democratic Party history. He went through all the nomination contests from 1960 to the present, explaining that there were several highly contested competitions, including 1960, 1976 and 1992, when the nominee was not decided until late in the season and the Democratic candidate still went on to win. He made a virtue of this pattern, saying that Democrats traditionally enjoy a good fight and are not lockstep conformists. He pointed to the 5-3 primary turnout ratio over the Republicans as evidence that the Democratic race was generating excitement among the public which bodes well for the party's prospects in November. He reported that in California since the start of the year the Democrats have registered 150,000 new voters and the Republicans only 39,000, and that similar ratios are occurring across the country.
Torres then spent the bulk of his speech tying John McCain as tightly as possible to the unpopular policies of President George W. Bush. This no doubt previews a major part of the Democratic strategy this year. He said he expects the Republican campaign to attack hard against Obama or Clinton, and his response leaves little uncertainty that he believes the best answer will be to strike back at McCain even harder. Though McCain has cultivated an image as a maverick, Torres said that the Republican presumptive nominee has sided with Bush 89% of the time in his Senate votes. He ran off a long litany of McCain positions on such issues as the war, the deficit, Constitutional rights, Medicare, children's health, oil drilling, the subprime mortgage crash and cutting off unemployment benefits while bailing out Bear Stearns that make the familiar Democratic case that Republicans support big interests and neglect average Americans. "A McCain presidency would be a Bush third term," Torres said.
He also made clear that if Obama is the Democratic standard bearer and the Republicans come after him for his association with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Democrats are ready to assail McCain for his pursuing and receiving the endorsement of the Rev. Ted Hagee, whom he said has described all Muslims as killers and the Roman Catholic Church as a "whore" and a "cult."
The Democrats, still smarting from the Florida and Supreme Court imbroglio of 2000 and the "swiftboating" of John Kerry in 2004, appear ready and itching for a bloody fight if their opponents go negative this time. Both McCain and probable Democratic nominee Obama have seemingly sought to keep their campaigns on the high road as much as possible in '08, but if things start down the low path this time it could get very ugly very quickly.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Where is Harry Truman When We Need Him?
In 1941 freshman Senator Harry Truman of Missouri got the Senate to establish a new subcommittee, the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program. America had yet to enter World War II, but with the conflict already raging in Europe, Asia and North Africa President Franklin Roosevelt convinced Congress it was imperative to bolster America's military preparedness. Given a budget of $15,000, Truman set off across the country to see for himself if there was any truth to the rumors he was hearing about fraud and war profiteering in the defense industry.
Roosevelt initially viewed the effort with skepticism, wary that this might be an exercise in political grandstanding that would harm the war effort. Instead, what came to be known as the Truman Commission functioned throughout the war, calling 1,798 witnesses, holding 432 hearings, issuing 51 reports, and saving the taxpayers $15 billion in 1940s dollars. It also saved thousands of American lives by exposing defectively produced weapons and equipment such as aircraft engines whose malfunctioning would otherwise have killed U.S. aviators. Truman did his work so well that a grateful FDR chose him as his running mate in 1944.
An April 4 editorial in USA Today, "Contractors Gone Wild," shows why we could use a Harry Truman again. While politicians point to earmarks as the prime spending culprit ($17 billion a year), little is said about defense outlays. USA Today reports, "The Governmental Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress, reported this week on significant waste and abuse, if not outright fraud, in the nation's major weapons procurement. It looked at 95 programs and found them collectively $295 billion over budget. That's enough to cover last year's (official) federal deficit." The piece continues, "The GAO report is a blistering indictment. Of the programs it examined, not one met all the standards for best practices. The average one came in 21 months late, up from 5 months as recently as 2000. The Navy's new coastal combat ship, with contracts awarded separately to Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, is more than 100% over budget. A Boeing program to modernize avionics on the C-130 cargo plane is expected to come in more than 320% over budget."
The profiteering and cronyism so pervasive under the present Administration, marked by secret no-bid deals and open-ended cost-plus signoffs, is all the more odious for its hypocrisy. In one example, an additional $2 billion a year for children's health, the S-CHIP program, was ostentatiously vetoed as an economy measure in 2007 while at the same time, according to the Los Angeles Times, 180,000 contractors in Iraq actually outnumbered the 160,000 military personnel there. They earned up to $1,000 a day doing work formerly performed by soldiers for $100 a day. Even Gen. Petraeus, for instance, is protected by a private security team.
Harry Truman opened his committee's work by explaining, "We intend to see that no man or corporate group of men shall profit inordinately on the blood of the boys in the foxhole.” We could use some of that kind of spirit again.
Roosevelt initially viewed the effort with skepticism, wary that this might be an exercise in political grandstanding that would harm the war effort. Instead, what came to be known as the Truman Commission functioned throughout the war, calling 1,798 witnesses, holding 432 hearings, issuing 51 reports, and saving the taxpayers $15 billion in 1940s dollars. It also saved thousands of American lives by exposing defectively produced weapons and equipment such as aircraft engines whose malfunctioning would otherwise have killed U.S. aviators. Truman did his work so well that a grateful FDR chose him as his running mate in 1944.
An April 4 editorial in USA Today, "Contractors Gone Wild," shows why we could use a Harry Truman again. While politicians point to earmarks as the prime spending culprit ($17 billion a year), little is said about defense outlays. USA Today reports, "The Governmental Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress, reported this week on significant waste and abuse, if not outright fraud, in the nation's major weapons procurement. It looked at 95 programs and found them collectively $295 billion over budget. That's enough to cover last year's (official) federal deficit." The piece continues, "The GAO report is a blistering indictment. Of the programs it examined, not one met all the standards for best practices. The average one came in 21 months late, up from 5 months as recently as 2000. The Navy's new coastal combat ship, with contracts awarded separately to Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, is more than 100% over budget. A Boeing program to modernize avionics on the C-130 cargo plane is expected to come in more than 320% over budget."
The profiteering and cronyism so pervasive under the present Administration, marked by secret no-bid deals and open-ended cost-plus signoffs, is all the more odious for its hypocrisy. In one example, an additional $2 billion a year for children's health, the S-CHIP program, was ostentatiously vetoed as an economy measure in 2007 while at the same time, according to the Los Angeles Times, 180,000 contractors in Iraq actually outnumbered the 160,000 military personnel there. They earned up to $1,000 a day doing work formerly performed by soldiers for $100 a day. Even Gen. Petraeus, for instance, is protected by a private security team.
Harry Truman opened his committee's work by explaining, "We intend to see that no man or corporate group of men shall profit inordinately on the blood of the boys in the foxhole.” We could use some of that kind of spirit again.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Really Thinking About Iraq
General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will testify to Congress this week on the situation in Iraq. Reports say they will recommend that current U.S. military force levels be maintained until September, pending another reassessment of the situation at that time.
Presidential candidates John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are all returning from the campaign trail to Washington to participate in the hearings, McCain and Clinton with the Armed Services Committee and Obama on Foreign Relations. All can be expected to frame their questions so as to buttress their election positions-McCain's that the war should continue to be prosecuted vigorously until victory is won and the Democrats' that Iraq is militarily unsolvable and that a gradual withdrawal should be commenced. If another round of hearings takes place in September, just two months before the election, it will be even more highly politicized.
Americans would do well to step back from the rhetoric and do some hard thinking about Iraq. They might want to ask what America's realistically achievable interests in Iraq are. Visions of a shining democracy are not in that picture. The country is a kaleidoscope of ethnic, tribal and sectarian blocs, all possessing their own armed militias. They will battle for power the old-fashioned way as soon as the U.S. leaves, whether that takes place in two years or twenty. It is the fear of this melee occurring on their watch that has both Clinton and Obama talking of gradual withdrawal, in the longshot hope that somehow it can be averted or at least postponed. Such an approach is like the child who is afraid to take the bandage off and does it a millimeter at a time, prolonging the agony.
We can hope the eventual government is not a partner of Iran, but that is problematical too. The Shiite Muslims are the majority there. Iran is a Shiite Muslim nation. Both major Shiite factions, the Dawa Party of President al-Maliki and the Mahdi Army of mullah al-Sadr, are friendly with Iran. If one of these groups gains power after independence, will their Iraqi nationalism overcome their religious affinity? No one knows.
The alternative, however, is little better. We could support a Sunni Muslim return to power. The upside is that they have no love for Iran on either religious or nationalistic grounds. But the Sunnis are in the minority, constituting perhaps 20% of the population. Saddam Hussein was of this group. The only way the minority is likely to stay on top is through the kinds of totalitarian methods Saddam used, rather brutally suppressing the majority Shiites to keep them quiet.
No, at a minimum, and that is all that can with any intellectual honesty be hoped for, U.S. interests are that Iraq not become a base and haven for international terrorism. Yet it is the very presence of foreign occupiers in an Arab land that, according to the Iraq Study Group, every other independent study and even most American governmental and military studies, inspires resentment and provides recruits for the jihadi extremists. It was not American power but the fact that Iraq's Sunni tribes turned on them for their barbaric atrocities that has put al Qaeda in Iraq on the run.
Thus McCain's preferred policy is flawed too. By its very nature it strengthens the Islamist camp and does nothing to reconcile Iraq's swirling militia factions. All it does is keep the lid on and play for time while the losses mount and the billions evaporate. And time is not infinite. Just last week General Richard Cody, Vice-Chief of the Army Staff and former commander of the 101st Airborne Division, testified to the Senate Armed Forces Committee. He said:
"Today's Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply, and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies.... Soldiers, families, support systems and equipment are stretched and stressed.... Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the all - volunteer force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies."
Perhaps Joe Biden's favored alternative, an Iraq partitioned or federalized into its three primary component parts, offers the best chance for stability. A Kurdish North, Sunni Center and Shiite South, sharing the oil revenues, would give each group autonomy in its own region and provide them a financial incentive to stay out of each other's business. The U.S., at any rate, does not control events there and can do little beyond what the Iraqis themselves wish to do. A transition appears to be long overdue.
Presidential candidates John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are all returning from the campaign trail to Washington to participate in the hearings, McCain and Clinton with the Armed Services Committee and Obama on Foreign Relations. All can be expected to frame their questions so as to buttress their election positions-McCain's that the war should continue to be prosecuted vigorously until victory is won and the Democrats' that Iraq is militarily unsolvable and that a gradual withdrawal should be commenced. If another round of hearings takes place in September, just two months before the election, it will be even more highly politicized.
Americans would do well to step back from the rhetoric and do some hard thinking about Iraq. They might want to ask what America's realistically achievable interests in Iraq are. Visions of a shining democracy are not in that picture. The country is a kaleidoscope of ethnic, tribal and sectarian blocs, all possessing their own armed militias. They will battle for power the old-fashioned way as soon as the U.S. leaves, whether that takes place in two years or twenty. It is the fear of this melee occurring on their watch that has both Clinton and Obama talking of gradual withdrawal, in the longshot hope that somehow it can be averted or at least postponed. Such an approach is like the child who is afraid to take the bandage off and does it a millimeter at a time, prolonging the agony.
We can hope the eventual government is not a partner of Iran, but that is problematical too. The Shiite Muslims are the majority there. Iran is a Shiite Muslim nation. Both major Shiite factions, the Dawa Party of President al-Maliki and the Mahdi Army of mullah al-Sadr, are friendly with Iran. If one of these groups gains power after independence, will their Iraqi nationalism overcome their religious affinity? No one knows.
The alternative, however, is little better. We could support a Sunni Muslim return to power. The upside is that they have no love for Iran on either religious or nationalistic grounds. But the Sunnis are in the minority, constituting perhaps 20% of the population. Saddam Hussein was of this group. The only way the minority is likely to stay on top is through the kinds of totalitarian methods Saddam used, rather brutally suppressing the majority Shiites to keep them quiet.
No, at a minimum, and that is all that can with any intellectual honesty be hoped for, U.S. interests are that Iraq not become a base and haven for international terrorism. Yet it is the very presence of foreign occupiers in an Arab land that, according to the Iraq Study Group, every other independent study and even most American governmental and military studies, inspires resentment and provides recruits for the jihadi extremists. It was not American power but the fact that Iraq's Sunni tribes turned on them for their barbaric atrocities that has put al Qaeda in Iraq on the run.
Thus McCain's preferred policy is flawed too. By its very nature it strengthens the Islamist camp and does nothing to reconcile Iraq's swirling militia factions. All it does is keep the lid on and play for time while the losses mount and the billions evaporate. And time is not infinite. Just last week General Richard Cody, Vice-Chief of the Army Staff and former commander of the 101st Airborne Division, testified to the Senate Armed Forces Committee. He said:
"Today's Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply, and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies.... Soldiers, families, support systems and equipment are stretched and stressed.... Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the all - volunteer force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies."
Perhaps Joe Biden's favored alternative, an Iraq partitioned or federalized into its three primary component parts, offers the best chance for stability. A Kurdish North, Sunni Center and Shiite South, sharing the oil revenues, would give each group autonomy in its own region and provide them a financial incentive to stay out of each other's business. The U.S., at any rate, does not control events there and can do little beyond what the Iraqis themselves wish to do. A transition appears to be long overdue.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Health Care
Health care is a major issue in the country this year. Surveys consistently show it to be second or third on voters' minds, after the economy and either just ahead or just behind Iraq. The voters are right to be worried, for the same kind of bubble that has thrown the housing sector into turmoil has been growing in the health care industry for some time too.
More and more Americans, up to and including middle and upper middle class Americans, are afraid for the first time in decades that they may be left without coverage or lose the coverage they have. An estimated 47 million Americans are currently without health insurance, a number that has been steadily increasing during the Bush years and will certainly grow further in the recession as more workers lose their jobs and more employers find themselves financially strapped.
The availability of health care is a moral and practical necessity. It is a national disgrace that anyone in America should be one illness away from bankruptcy, and that tens of thousands of preventable deaths occur annually because people without health insurance wait until it is too late to seek medical attention. The contention that the richest nation on earth cannot afford medical care for all its citizens is unpersuasive when a country like Turkey can and does. It is impractical as well, since some form of universal care would save billions in lost productivity, early deaths and expensive emergency room treatment for conditions that ought to have been taken care of earlier and cheaper in routine settings.
Senator McCain feels the present system can be made to run more efficiently. He supports tax credits for the purchase of insurance plans. He may be right about efficiency, but his approach does not solve the basic problems. Millions cannot afford policies, tax credits or no. And insurers do not want to insure less affluent people below market prices or those who are high risks. They are in business to make money, and there is no money to be made on such customers.
Senators Obama and Clinton have plans that are quite similar to each other. People could sign up for medicare-type coverage available to all or pay for any other plan, including those available to members of congress. There would be a limit to the percentage of a family's income they would have to pay themselves, and the rest would be government-subsidized. It would be transportable rather than tied to one's job. Employers would still be encouraged to provide coverage to their workers and would get breaks to do so. Insurers and providers would still need to compete; they could not decline coverage to anyone and medical services would still remain in private hands.
Obama's plan requires people to insure their children but not themselves. It is estimated his would cost at least $65-90 billion per year. Clinton's requires everyone to get insurance and is estimated to cost $90-120 billion per year. Both campaigns say they would pay for their programs by rescinding the Bush tax cuts on upper-income earners and perhaps levying unspecified taxes on employers, especially those who do not cover their employees. It may be noted that both plans cost far less than the War in Iraq, which both Democratic candidates have committed to end. That is another potential source of savings that might be applied to either of their health plans.
The voters will thus have a clear choice on health care this year. Will the United States continue to be the only advanced nation that does not make sure all its citizens can go to the doctor when they are ill? That will depend on which candidate and party better enunciates the case for its priorities and the downside if their rival's are adopted instead.
More and more Americans, up to and including middle and upper middle class Americans, are afraid for the first time in decades that they may be left without coverage or lose the coverage they have. An estimated 47 million Americans are currently without health insurance, a number that has been steadily increasing during the Bush years and will certainly grow further in the recession as more workers lose their jobs and more employers find themselves financially strapped.
The availability of health care is a moral and practical necessity. It is a national disgrace that anyone in America should be one illness away from bankruptcy, and that tens of thousands of preventable deaths occur annually because people without health insurance wait until it is too late to seek medical attention. The contention that the richest nation on earth cannot afford medical care for all its citizens is unpersuasive when a country like Turkey can and does. It is impractical as well, since some form of universal care would save billions in lost productivity, early deaths and expensive emergency room treatment for conditions that ought to have been taken care of earlier and cheaper in routine settings.
Senator McCain feels the present system can be made to run more efficiently. He supports tax credits for the purchase of insurance plans. He may be right about efficiency, but his approach does not solve the basic problems. Millions cannot afford policies, tax credits or no. And insurers do not want to insure less affluent people below market prices or those who are high risks. They are in business to make money, and there is no money to be made on such customers.
Senators Obama and Clinton have plans that are quite similar to each other. People could sign up for medicare-type coverage available to all or pay for any other plan, including those available to members of congress. There would be a limit to the percentage of a family's income they would have to pay themselves, and the rest would be government-subsidized. It would be transportable rather than tied to one's job. Employers would still be encouraged to provide coverage to their workers and would get breaks to do so. Insurers and providers would still need to compete; they could not decline coverage to anyone and medical services would still remain in private hands.
Obama's plan requires people to insure their children but not themselves. It is estimated his would cost at least $65-90 billion per year. Clinton's requires everyone to get insurance and is estimated to cost $90-120 billion per year. Both campaigns say they would pay for their programs by rescinding the Bush tax cuts on upper-income earners and perhaps levying unspecified taxes on employers, especially those who do not cover their employees. It may be noted that both plans cost far less than the War in Iraq, which both Democratic candidates have committed to end. That is another potential source of savings that might be applied to either of their health plans.
The voters will thus have a clear choice on health care this year. Will the United States continue to be the only advanced nation that does not make sure all its citizens can go to the doctor when they are ill? That will depend on which candidate and party better enunciates the case for its priorities and the downside if their rival's are adopted instead.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Democratic Outlook
Here's the latest outlook on the upcoming battles for the Democratic nomination. Real Clear Politics has Obama with 1414 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1252. That's a lead of 162. Obama has been chipping away at Clinton's superdelegate lead, which now stands at 251-221, an edge of only 30. Taken together Obama thus has 1635 in his corner while Clinton can count on 1503. That's a 132-delegate lead for Obama.
There are still ten contests ahead in the final eight and a half weeks. From what we have seen, the demographic support of both contenders has set in fairly strongly now, and it's becoming easier to predict the winners. Obama does extremely well with African-Americans and young people, and well with men and upscale and better educated voters. Clinton does very well with Hispanics and older voters, and well with women and downscale whites. With these preferences in mind, it appears Clinton will do better than Obama from here on out, given the states that remain. The big question is whether she can catch him.
Pennsylvania votes on April 22 with 158 delegates at stake. Clinton should win there based on the large white working class vote, probably by about the same 10% margin she won neighboring Ohio. Guam holds the season's last caucuses on May 3 for 4 delegates. I have no information on the race there, but Obama has dominated caucuses and should get at least two if not three there.
North Carolina (115) and Indiana (72) vote on May 6. Obama should roll with the large black and university blocs in North Carolina to the tune of about a 15 point victory. Indiana is viewed as the last tossup. It has a lot of the rural whites who flock to Clinton but also good-sized urban areas in Indianapolis and Gary that should be Obama territory. Some feel Obama may get a boost from the proximity of his home state of Illinois and the fact that northern Indiana is in the enthusiastically pro-Obama Chicago media market. I'd still expect a narrow Clinton win in the Hoosier State.
West Virginia votes for 28 delegates on May 13. The nearly all-white, working class and older than average electorate should produce a smashing Clinton landslide. Similar conditions will prevail in Kentucky the next week on May 20 with 51 delegates up for grabs. Expect another rout for Clinton. She may approach 70% in these two states: I kid you not. See Tennessee's results for what to expect, except with a lot fewer blacks. Oregon with 52 delegates also votes on May 20. It's a made-for-Obama state and he'll take a double-digit win there.
Primary season wraps up with Puerto Rico (55 delegates) on June 1 and Montana (16) and South Dakota (15) on June 3. Puerto Rico is anybody's guess. Will they vote like Hispanics (for Clinton) or Blacks (for Obama)? They are both and neither, since their culture is quite different from that of either mainland group. Montana and South Dakota look easier to call for Obama, since he has done very well in the Mountain West states. The only worry for him is that most of those victories came in caucuses and these will be primary elections.
So let's err on the side of the underdog and posit Clinton 55-45 wins in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico, 65-35 in West Virginia and Kentucky and 53-47 in Indiana. Let's estimate Obama takes North Carolina 55-45 and Oregon, North Dakota and Montana 53-47, and splits the four delegates in Guam. This projection gives Clinton 299 and Obama 257 of the pledged delegates still to be won, a margin of 42 in her favor. That would still leave her 120 behind Obama in pledged delegates and 90 behind overall. She would enter the convention trailing 1892-1802 and would need to convince 206, or 64%, of the 323 currently undecided superdelegates to vote for her to still gain the nomination. Practically all the superdelegates who have declared since February 5 have declared for Obama. The only foreseeable development likely to derail this scenario is a win by one of the candidates on the other's turf, such as Obama taking Pennsylvania or Clinton winning North Carolina. The polling to date does not support any realistic probablility of either event taking place. A Hillary Clinton triumph is not impossible, but it is a real longshot. Barring a minor political miracle Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.
There are still ten contests ahead in the final eight and a half weeks. From what we have seen, the demographic support of both contenders has set in fairly strongly now, and it's becoming easier to predict the winners. Obama does extremely well with African-Americans and young people, and well with men and upscale and better educated voters. Clinton does very well with Hispanics and older voters, and well with women and downscale whites. With these preferences in mind, it appears Clinton will do better than Obama from here on out, given the states that remain. The big question is whether she can catch him.
Pennsylvania votes on April 22 with 158 delegates at stake. Clinton should win there based on the large white working class vote, probably by about the same 10% margin she won neighboring Ohio. Guam holds the season's last caucuses on May 3 for 4 delegates. I have no information on the race there, but Obama has dominated caucuses and should get at least two if not three there.
North Carolina (115) and Indiana (72) vote on May 6. Obama should roll with the large black and university blocs in North Carolina to the tune of about a 15 point victory. Indiana is viewed as the last tossup. It has a lot of the rural whites who flock to Clinton but also good-sized urban areas in Indianapolis and Gary that should be Obama territory. Some feel Obama may get a boost from the proximity of his home state of Illinois and the fact that northern Indiana is in the enthusiastically pro-Obama Chicago media market. I'd still expect a narrow Clinton win in the Hoosier State.
West Virginia votes for 28 delegates on May 13. The nearly all-white, working class and older than average electorate should produce a smashing Clinton landslide. Similar conditions will prevail in Kentucky the next week on May 20 with 51 delegates up for grabs. Expect another rout for Clinton. She may approach 70% in these two states: I kid you not. See Tennessee's results for what to expect, except with a lot fewer blacks. Oregon with 52 delegates also votes on May 20. It's a made-for-Obama state and he'll take a double-digit win there.
Primary season wraps up with Puerto Rico (55 delegates) on June 1 and Montana (16) and South Dakota (15) on June 3. Puerto Rico is anybody's guess. Will they vote like Hispanics (for Clinton) or Blacks (for Obama)? They are both and neither, since their culture is quite different from that of either mainland group. Montana and South Dakota look easier to call for Obama, since he has done very well in the Mountain West states. The only worry for him is that most of those victories came in caucuses and these will be primary elections.
So let's err on the side of the underdog and posit Clinton 55-45 wins in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico, 65-35 in West Virginia and Kentucky and 53-47 in Indiana. Let's estimate Obama takes North Carolina 55-45 and Oregon, North Dakota and Montana 53-47, and splits the four delegates in Guam. This projection gives Clinton 299 and Obama 257 of the pledged delegates still to be won, a margin of 42 in her favor. That would still leave her 120 behind Obama in pledged delegates and 90 behind overall. She would enter the convention trailing 1892-1802 and would need to convince 206, or 64%, of the 323 currently undecided superdelegates to vote for her to still gain the nomination. Practically all the superdelegates who have declared since February 5 have declared for Obama. The only foreseeable development likely to derail this scenario is a win by one of the candidates on the other's turf, such as Obama taking Pennsylvania or Clinton winning North Carolina. The polling to date does not support any realistic probablility of either event taking place. A Hillary Clinton triumph is not impossible, but it is a real longshot. Barring a minor political miracle Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Showdown in Basra
The recent violent confrontations in Iraq again illustrate the ever-unfolding repercussions of America's intervention there. It is a veritable festival of unintended consequences.
First in evidence is the Nouri al-Maliki government's inability to control the country. The Iraqi Army's failure to make headway in Basra, the nation's second largest city, is yet another disapppointment for President Bush and other war supporters. After five years of American tutelage the government is still unable to exert its authority where it is not wanted.
Second is the fractionalized nature of Iraqi politics. The Army loyal to Maliki is primarily composed of the Shiite Dawa Party. It attempted to wrest Basra from a rival Shiite faction, the Mahdi Army loyal to Muktada al-Sadr. It is clear that not even all members of a given sect are on the same page.
Third is the insecurity of Baghdad. The "surge" was thought to have made great progress in pacifying the capital. But as soon as the fighting erupted in Basra, dozens of rockets and mortars began raining down on the Green Zone.
Fourth is the growing influence of Iran in Iraqi affairs. Sadr is now headquartered there, and it was Iranian officials who brokered the cease fire between the two sides. Bush, who early on designated Iran as part of the "axis of evil," cannot be pleased that Iranian President Ahmadinejad was recently received by Maliki in a state visit to Iraq and that it was Iran that was trusted enough by both sides to serve as intermediary.
These most recent developments underscore some of the latest ironic results of the ill-considered American adventure in Iraq. The war's supporters take every such setback as a challenge calling for further efforts to make things right. More and more Americans, however, see this newest snafu only as further confirmation of an irremediable mess, impervious to American resolution, that has to be left to the Iraqis to settle for themselves.
First in evidence is the Nouri al-Maliki government's inability to control the country. The Iraqi Army's failure to make headway in Basra, the nation's second largest city, is yet another disapppointment for President Bush and other war supporters. After five years of American tutelage the government is still unable to exert its authority where it is not wanted.
Second is the fractionalized nature of Iraqi politics. The Army loyal to Maliki is primarily composed of the Shiite Dawa Party. It attempted to wrest Basra from a rival Shiite faction, the Mahdi Army loyal to Muktada al-Sadr. It is clear that not even all members of a given sect are on the same page.
Third is the insecurity of Baghdad. The "surge" was thought to have made great progress in pacifying the capital. But as soon as the fighting erupted in Basra, dozens of rockets and mortars began raining down on the Green Zone.
Fourth is the growing influence of Iran in Iraqi affairs. Sadr is now headquartered there, and it was Iranian officials who brokered the cease fire between the two sides. Bush, who early on designated Iran as part of the "axis of evil," cannot be pleased that Iranian President Ahmadinejad was recently received by Maliki in a state visit to Iraq and that it was Iran that was trusted enough by both sides to serve as intermediary.
These most recent developments underscore some of the latest ironic results of the ill-considered American adventure in Iraq. The war's supporters take every such setback as a challenge calling for further efforts to make things right. More and more Americans, however, see this newest snafu only as further confirmation of an irremediable mess, impervious to American resolution, that has to be left to the Iraqis to settle for themselves.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Supply-Side Foolishness
Ever since the ascension of Ronald Reagan the Republican Party has ridden an anti-tax platform to electoral success. They have won five of the past seven presidential elections and held congress for most of the years since 1994. Reagan wanted to cut taxes in that recession year of 1981 to shrink the size of government. He especially wanted to cut taxes on business and the wealthiest Americans, believing it would free up lots of money for investment that would make the economy grow. He wanted to spend less on social programs but more on defense. It got complicated, because he also wanted to reduce the deficit, which was $59 billion for Jimmy Carter's last year. How could he cut taxes and keep spending the same amount (just spending it on different priorities) without going deeper into debt?
Aha! Professor Arthur Laffer to the rescue. According to the "Laffer Curve" economic model he developed, the tax cuts would spark such tremendous growth that revenues would actually increase. The rates would be lower, but the economy would grow so much that even more money would come gushing into the federal treasury than before. This was just what Reagan wanted to hear, not to mention the voters. It was a "have your cake and eat it too" extravaganza. Pay less tax, get greater prosperity and pay down the national debt all at the same time. Sure the rich would get most of the tax cut money, but they would reinvest it in the good old U.S.A., making for more jobs and higher pay for average folks. Reagan called it "supply-side economics." The press started calling it "Reaganomics." Reagan's main Republican primary opponent, George H. W. Bush, called it "Voodoo economics." The Democrats called it "trickle down."
So how did that all work out? Well, for starters, the debt immediately tripled to $180 billion a year. The economy did grow, but the gains all went to the top-and stayed there. The poverty rate rose by 20%. He figured maybe the problem was he hadn't cut taxes enough. So in his second term he cut them again, especially on corporations and capital gains. The debt went up to $195 billion. Wages for the bottom four-fifths of the labor force stagnated.
The elder George Bush succeeded Reagan in 1989. He knew better, but pledged to continue Reagan's tax cutting ways. Sold by Reagan's sunny optimism, people by now believed in it, or wanted to, and would vote accordingly. "Read my lips: no new taxes!" he said. During his term the deficits went up as high as $230 billion. The demographic pattern remained the same. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class held even by sending more and more women into the work force. Alarmed by the mushrooming red ink, Bush finally agreed to some tax increases. He was defeated for re-election.
During the 1990s Bill Clinton and the Republican congress were often at bitter odds with each other. But they did agree to restore some revenues and saved considerable money by paring down expenses, including military cuts made possible by the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The economy boomed for groups up and down the economic ladder and the federal government actually began running a fiscal surplus.
Then came George W. Bush, a supply-side true believer. With a friendly congress and another recession gathering, he slashed taxes again, by the largest amount ever. Capital gains, once 40%, were now down to 15%. The wealthy again got most of the cash. Would the economy grow fast enough to pay for the cuts? Would the benefits trickle down through the economy? Would the third time be a charm?
Instead, it looks more like three strikes and you're out. In just seven years Bush has run up another $3.335 trillion in debt. The national debt now stands at $9.44 trillion. 35.3% of the total debt accumulated since the founding of the republic in 1776 has been amassed in Bush's time in office, which is just 3% of America's history. Two-thirds of that 9-plus trillion has come in the 19 years of Reagan and the two Bushes-just 8% of the country's existence. It now costs over $430 billion a year just to pay the interest on all that borrowing. That's a lot of money. To compare, the NASA budget is $15 billion, Education $61 billion and Transportation $56 billion.
Where has this theory gotten us? Over the past twenty-eight years the real after-tax income for the top one percent has risen 167%. Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, stated on 6 November, 2006, "In contrast, at the 50th percentile and below real wages rose by only 5 to 10 percent." And that came from the gains of the 90s, when the Reagan ideology was not followed.
There is an old proverb attributed to the Englishman John Heywood in 1546 and used by Jonathan Swift in 1738 and the American Thomas Chalkey in 1713 which says, "There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know." John McCain knows. He opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and for good reason. But he also knows where the Republican votes are and needed to embrace this philosophy of smoke and mirrors to gain the nomination. Now he is wedded to it. This pernicious doctrine that sends hundreds of billions annually to Japan, China and Saudi Arabia in interest payments, that has led to stagnation in the standard of living of most of the American people, contributed to the free fall of the dollar and threatens impending fiscal catastrophe will continue to wreak at least another four years of damage if he is elected. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, see it for the foolishness it is. If for no other reason than this, it is imperative that he not be elected our 44th president and that one of them must be.
Aha! Professor Arthur Laffer to the rescue. According to the "Laffer Curve" economic model he developed, the tax cuts would spark such tremendous growth that revenues would actually increase. The rates would be lower, but the economy would grow so much that even more money would come gushing into the federal treasury than before. This was just what Reagan wanted to hear, not to mention the voters. It was a "have your cake and eat it too" extravaganza. Pay less tax, get greater prosperity and pay down the national debt all at the same time. Sure the rich would get most of the tax cut money, but they would reinvest it in the good old U.S.A., making for more jobs and higher pay for average folks. Reagan called it "supply-side economics." The press started calling it "Reaganomics." Reagan's main Republican primary opponent, George H. W. Bush, called it "Voodoo economics." The Democrats called it "trickle down."
So how did that all work out? Well, for starters, the debt immediately tripled to $180 billion a year. The economy did grow, but the gains all went to the top-and stayed there. The poverty rate rose by 20%. He figured maybe the problem was he hadn't cut taxes enough. So in his second term he cut them again, especially on corporations and capital gains. The debt went up to $195 billion. Wages for the bottom four-fifths of the labor force stagnated.
The elder George Bush succeeded Reagan in 1989. He knew better, but pledged to continue Reagan's tax cutting ways. Sold by Reagan's sunny optimism, people by now believed in it, or wanted to, and would vote accordingly. "Read my lips: no new taxes!" he said. During his term the deficits went up as high as $230 billion. The demographic pattern remained the same. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class held even by sending more and more women into the work force. Alarmed by the mushrooming red ink, Bush finally agreed to some tax increases. He was defeated for re-election.
During the 1990s Bill Clinton and the Republican congress were often at bitter odds with each other. But they did agree to restore some revenues and saved considerable money by paring down expenses, including military cuts made possible by the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The economy boomed for groups up and down the economic ladder and the federal government actually began running a fiscal surplus.
Then came George W. Bush, a supply-side true believer. With a friendly congress and another recession gathering, he slashed taxes again, by the largest amount ever. Capital gains, once 40%, were now down to 15%. The wealthy again got most of the cash. Would the economy grow fast enough to pay for the cuts? Would the benefits trickle down through the economy? Would the third time be a charm?
Instead, it looks more like three strikes and you're out. In just seven years Bush has run up another $3.335 trillion in debt. The national debt now stands at $9.44 trillion. 35.3% of the total debt accumulated since the founding of the republic in 1776 has been amassed in Bush's time in office, which is just 3% of America's history. Two-thirds of that 9-plus trillion has come in the 19 years of Reagan and the two Bushes-just 8% of the country's existence. It now costs over $430 billion a year just to pay the interest on all that borrowing. That's a lot of money. To compare, the NASA budget is $15 billion, Education $61 billion and Transportation $56 billion.
Where has this theory gotten us? Over the past twenty-eight years the real after-tax income for the top one percent has risen 167%. Janet L. Yellen, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, stated on 6 November, 2006, "In contrast, at the 50th percentile and below real wages rose by only 5 to 10 percent." And that came from the gains of the 90s, when the Reagan ideology was not followed.
There is an old proverb attributed to the Englishman John Heywood in 1546 and used by Jonathan Swift in 1738 and the American Thomas Chalkey in 1713 which says, "There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know." John McCain knows. He opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and for good reason. But he also knows where the Republican votes are and needed to embrace this philosophy of smoke and mirrors to gain the nomination. Now he is wedded to it. This pernicious doctrine that sends hundreds of billions annually to Japan, China and Saudi Arabia in interest payments, that has led to stagnation in the standard of living of most of the American people, contributed to the free fall of the dollar and threatens impending fiscal catastrophe will continue to wreak at least another four years of damage if he is elected. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, see it for the foolishness it is. If for no other reason than this, it is imperative that he not be elected our 44th president and that one of them must be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)