President Obama's Address on Libya

President Obama's speech tonight was persuasive in casting the current action in Libya as a humanitarian mission in keeping with American values and interests. If you are a pacifist, of course, you feel that no military action is ever justified. If you are not, this operation is about as reasonably justifiable as any you will ever see. "For decades the United States has served as an anchor of global security and an advocate for human freedom," Obama began. Following close on the heels of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, the ferment for freedom in Libya seemed initially on its way to being successful as well. Then the Moammar Gadhafi regime unleashed its air force and tanks. The President recounted how his Administration remained publicly rather quiet while it evacuated the embassy staff and all other Americans who wished to leave. Meanwhile, $33 billion in Libyan assets were frozen. The UN Security Council imposed sanctions and an arms embargo. Then Obama declared Gadhafi had lost his legitimacy and called for him to step down. Instead, the dictator stepped up his indiscriminate actions against civilians. At this point, the UN called for a no-fly zone to protect civilians, NATO began moving forces toward Libya, and the Arab League and the Libyan opposition invited international help. As regime tanks began their assault on Benghazi, a city of 700,000 people, the allies, led at first by French and American planes and mainly US cruise missiles, began attacking regime air defenses and the tanks moving on Benghazi. Obama drew the distinction that when genocide was taking place in the Balkans in the 1990s it took more than a year to assemble an international response while thousands died. This time in Libya it was all put together in 31 days. Obama addressed two objections to his action: some say we should not have interfered at all, and others complain that the mission should unequivocally be to target Gadhafi or overthrow his regime. Obama spoke to each. On the former, he maintained that in a case of a brutal tyrant with a record of slaughter on the march and promising "no mercy," when we possessed the means and the international political and military support to avert a bloodbath, not to act would be, "a betrayal of who we are. I refuse to wait for images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." He realistically said that to do nothing would be "a signal to all dictators that violence is the best course to cling to power." To those who would like to see more and a policy of US-engineered regime change, Obama said, "To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq." He pointed out that, "Eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi deaths and $1 trillion later, that is something we cannot afford to do." Instead, he said the US will hand off most of the active role to a team of partners now. The group includes Britain, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. They will enforce the no-fly zone and "protect civilians," presumably by continuing to destroy regime tanks and artillery if it goes into action. The US will provide support to the coalition and the Libyan opposition. He said that removing Gadhafi, "may take time, but the Libyan people will now be able to determine their own destiny," including building a democratic Libya that would mainly be up to the Libyan people themselves, "as it should be." The $33 billion in frozen assets is to be used to rebuild the country. Obama ended by painting a picture of, "a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and freedoms any longer," and maintained that, "We must stand beside those who share our values. History is on the move, and wherever people long to be free they will find a friend in the United States." That reputation, he argued "is our greatest strength."

California Budget: Let the People Vote

The California Legislature's Republicans should let the people vote on Governor Brown's plan to balance the state budget. Their excuses for not doing so have grown embarrassingly threadbare of late.

In order to balance the anticipated $25 billion shortfall in the state budget, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed that it be done with $12.5 billion in cuts and $12.5 billion in extending taxes that were passed as part of the 2009 budget settlement. Brown needs two Republican votes in each of the state's Senate and Assembly because a legislative initiative requires two-thirds to pass, as does a tax increase according to Proposition 13. Thanks to the passage of Proposition 25 last fall, the Democratic majorities in both houses could pass a budget, but it would have to be all with cuts if the taxes are not extended. Brown promised in his campaign there would be, "No new taxes without voter approval," and he is sticking to that. So why not let the people decide for themselves?

The first excuse Republicans come up with is that, "the people would not support that." They obviously don't believe that themselves, or they would let the vote take place to prove they had the people on their side. They have been reading the California Field Poll taken this month that shows strong majorities in favor of the public vote and in favor of approving Brown's plan. Their stance on this fools no one.

A second excuse Republicans cite to deny the people a voice is that many of them have signed Grover Norquist's national no-tax pledge. They seem to forget the fact that they are elected to solve California's issues, not lock themselves into inflexible positions based on the directives of a Republican operative from Massachusetts. As Governor, even the conservative Republican Ronald Reagan supported and signed the biggest tax increase in California's history up to his tenure, and also agreed to eleven federal tax increases as President.

A third excuse often cited Republican legislators is that they have not had sufficient input into the plans. If their views are unknown it is only because they have not presented them. They have had nearly five months since the election (an election in which they lost every statewide office, 52 of 80 Assembly seats and 25 of 40 Senate seats) to present a plan for the state budget. Yet they have not done so. They talk of cuts in general but lack the courage to specifically state where they would hack another twelve and a half billion from state spending. They are aware that the same Field Poll referenced above shows the people oppose any further reductions in education and favor them only for prisons and courts. There is, of course, no way to come up with that much money from those two programs alone. As the Fresno Bee editorializes of the GOP, "They don't have the courage to support tax extensions. And they don't have the courage to put forth an all-cuts proposal." Instead, they simply say no to any proposed solution, hoping they can then blame someone else when problems go unsolved. They prove themselves bereft of either the vision or the fortitude to lead.

Maine Librarian Gives Legislators Food for Thought

I don't usually do this, but my wife ran across an article so wonderful I'm just going to refer you to it with minimal comment from myself. It concerns a story in the Portland (Maine) Press newspaper and what Kelley McDaniel, a school librarian, had to say during her three-minute public comment to the Maine State Senate's Appropriations Committee. She was able to encapsulate a great deal of moral, ethical, and practical content into a limited number of cogent words. Enjoy. Go to the article.

Texas Turning Democratic?

Changing population demographics and an increasingly anti-immigrant political stance may soon cost Republicans the state of Texas in national elections. Such is the convincing analysis by Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post this week. Any Republican hope of winning a presidential election starts with Texas. As the biggest solid Republican state, its electoral votes (likely to rise by four to 38 after the 2010 census) are crucial to the GOP to offset the massive bloc of 55 electoral votes California customarily puts into the Democratic column every election night. This tectonic shift may not come in 2012, but it is coming a few years down the road unless major voting patterns drastically change.

Hispanics tend to vote Democratic. Nationally, in 2004 they supported Kerry over Bush by 20 points, 60 to 40. In 2008 they went even more lopsidedly for Obama over McCain, 67 to 31. Results in the state of Texas mirrored the national results, especially without former Texas Governor George W. Bush on the ballot in 2008. Kerry had just edged Bush 50-49 among Hispanics in 2004, but Obama walloped McCain with Hispanics in the Lone Star State in 2010, 63-35.

This is significant because census figures show the ethnic balance in Texas tilting away from a white majority. In fact, "during the past decade, Texas joined California as a majority-minority state: The percentage of whites in the Texas population declined from 53 percent in 2000 to 45 percent in 2010, while the percentage of Latinos rose from 32 percent to 38 percent." And of all Texans under age 18, 48 percent are now Latinos. Add in the 12 percent of Texans who are black, and these two strong Democratic-leaning groups now account for 50 percent of the Texas population between them. The only thing currently saving Republican prospects in Texas are turnout figures. In 2008 whites were less than 50 percent of the population but constituted 63 percent of the voters. Blacks came out at their percentage of the population (13), but Hispanics, 36 percent of the people, provided only 20 percent of the votes. Once the Democrats can register more of them and get them to the polls, the Republicans are sunk there.

Even more ominous for the GOP, Meyerson points out that nationally, "whites are now a minority-49.9%-of Americans 3 and under. Looking at all school enrollment, pre-K through graduate school, whites were 58.8% of all students in 2009, down from 64.6% in 2000." And yet, "As America becomes increasingly multiracial, the Republicans have chosen to become increasingly white." 90 percent of McCain's voters were white, compared to 61 percent of Obama's.

Rather than reaching out to Hispanics, Republicans have intensified a campaign against their concerns. By passing the Arizona identification law, opposing the Dream Act and introducing constitutional amendments to deny birthright citizenship to children of the undocumented, they have chosen a stance of hostility. Hispanics have responded in kind at the polls. As Meyerson points out, in Nevada, Colorado and California last year, "Republicans ran statewide candidates who embraced Arizona's draconian racial identification law. And massive turnout from Latinos, who overwhelmingly voted Democratic, defeated those candidates."

In view of the inexorable population trend and the Republican base's ever more rightist and anti-immigrant requirements, it is hard to see how the GOP can hold onto Texas from 2016 onward. And once it slips from their grasp they will face an existential electoral dilemma. For with California and Texas both firmly in the Democratic camp, those two states alone will provide them with more than one-third of the electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Together with the 16 other safely Blue states and the District of Columbia that have voted Democratic at least five elections in a row, Democratic presidential candidates would have 264 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win before a campaign even started. Republican hopefuls would have to sweep every swing state every time to barely squeak out a victory.