2012: A Good Year for Progressives

There always seems to be plenty of bad news burdening people's spirits, so I thought it might be a good idea to counteract that and help put Democrats and progressives in a positive frame of mind for the new year by highlighting some of the many electoral successes achieved in 2012.

First and biggest of all, of course, was President Barack Obama's decisive re-election victory on November 6.  The final outcome wasn't as close as many expected, with the President running up margins of 332-206 in the Electoral College, nearly 4 million in the popular vote, and 4% in the popular vote percentage.  The Obama-Biden ticket pulled in over 51% of the total vote, while, in delicious irony, Republican challenger Mitt Romney and running mate Paul Ryan garnered...you guessed it...47%!  See all the final results here. 

Congress will be more friendly this session too.  Democrats had to defend 23 Senate seats to only 10 for the GOP.  Democrats annihilated the opposition, winning 25 seats to only 8 for the GOP.  Consequently, the Democratic majority in the Senate will expand by two, to 55-45.  In the House, Democrats prevailed too, taking 1% more of the people's votes nationally than the Republicans.  GOP monkey business with District "gerrymandering" kept Democrats from taking control of the House, but they still picked up 8 seats, 4 of them here in California.

Here in California, Democrats set the table in 2010 by winning every statewide office from Governor down to Secretary of State.  Thanks to the people's nonpartisan reapportionment commission and the Republicans' increasingly out of touch stands on the issues, Democrats finished the job in 2012 by rolling to 2/3 majorities in both the State Assembly (55-25) and State Senate (30-10).  These super majorities mean the Republicans will no longer be able to block the budget as they have been doing for years now, returning state government to functionality for the first time in years.

Progressivism also prevailed in the balloting for state initiatives.  The schools were saved from additional devastating cuts courtesy of the voters' solid approval of Proposition 30.  The public also saw through and turned down repugnant special interest efforts to silence the political voice of workers while leaving those of corporations and the wealthy untouched (Prop 32, the Koch brothers) and to fleece auto insurance customers (Prop 33, Mercury Insurance).   

What's more, around the country there were other important progressive victories in direct democracy.  For the first time, same-sex marriage was approved by the voters.  The first states to share the distinction of voting for marriage equality are Maine, Maryland and Wisconsin.  In addition, Minnesota turned down an initiative that would have prohibited gay marriage. 

There were also successful ballot measures in Montana, Colorado and the city of Chicago to declare that corporations do not have the rights of people and to direct their states to draft a constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. 

All in all, it was a satisfying year at the ballot box for progressives in 2012, making it all the easier to keep a positive and optimistic attitude for the coming year.  A Happy New Year to one and all!     

News Article Misleads

I saw a news story about this year's national retail Christmas sales today, and it really bothered me.  It seems like it's getting harder and harder to find news stories that are just that--news stories--rather than opinion pieces in the guise of news, or perhaps news stories, but, as in this case, presented in a slanted way that skews the meaning in a misleading direction.

The story that got my goat this morning was by Mae Anderson and Candice Choi of the Associated Press.  It paints a bleak picture of anemic holiday sales and a commercial disaster for retailers this Christmas season.  It starts, "Bargain-hungry Americans will need to go on a post-Christmas spending binge to salvage this holiday shopping season."  My goodness, that's terrible.  And I had been hearing before Christmas that things were looking good!  The article goes on, "...U.S. holiday sales so far this year have been the weakest since 2008, when the nation was in deep recession."  

After reading this I was wondering how much sales had dropped compared to last year.  So, after the distressing opening about merchants needing salvation and sales being weak, then slogging through several individual examples of shoppers in the stores after Christmas looking for deep discounts, I finally got to paragraph fourteen.  It states, "So far, holiday sales of electronics, clothing, jewelry and home goods in the two months before Christmas increased 0.7 percent compared with last year, according to the MasterCard Advisors SpendingPulse report." 

What, sales increased?  As in, they sold more this year than last?  Objectively, that is not weak or worse.  It is better.  And what is more, the report is incomplete, with more data apparently still to come in.  In paragraph eighteen we read, "The National Retail Federation, the nation's largest retail trade group, said Wednesday that it's sticking to its forecast for total sales for November and December to be up 4.1 percent to $586.1 billion this year."  So, despite the gloom and doom opening, we find out that sales are up, not down, and that the industry itself remains optimistic that when the final figures come in they will be much better yet.

So what on earth were the authors talking about?  Farther into paragraph eighteen they shed some light on this by writing, "That's more than a percentage point lower than the growth in each of the past two years, and the smallest increase since 2009 when sales were up just 0.3 percent." 

Now we see.  Instead of writing that Christmas sales in 2012 continued the upward trend of the past three years, though at a slower rate than the past two, which would have been accurate, we are told that business is dire and can only be "salvaged" by a last-minute "binge."  Terms like "salvaged" and "binge" conjure up images of disaster and manic behavior, a perfect picture of desperation before an impending calamity, rather than ongoing growth at a marginally lower level than the last couple of holiday seasons.

As an AP story, the item was picked up by ABC News and major papers across the country such as the San Francisco Chronicle, Denver Post and Houston Chronicle.  When consumers turn to news sources they need to be able to depend on unbiased information.  When they get slant in the guise of information, they are savvy enough to recognize that for what it is.  The more this happens the more it breeds cynicism among the public about the news in general.  Without accepted facts rational civic debate is impossible.  Opinion and analysis pieces have their places.  This blog is certainly one, for instance.  And like it, they need to be clearly labelled as such.  

Mass Murder: No More Excuses, It's Time to Act

It already seems like more than three days since Sandy Hook Elementary School and the hamlet of Newtown, Connecticut first entered our consciousness.  This most recent in our nightmare series of massacres, the thirtieth since Colorado's Columbine High School (see list here) in 1999, is just one more, just the latest. And yet it isn't.  This time it's different.  We have watched the growing frequency of these rampages, but now a line has been crossed with the slaughter of twenty little children.  Now, finally, the ground seems to have shifted.  Now, at last, there is a sense that action will be taken.  The question is, what?

The problem is complex.  There isn't just one reason the United States has fifteen times the per capita gun deaths of the other industrialized countries.  No one solution will solve the carnage on its own.  And make no mistake, no matter what we do, there will be more of these mass murders in the future.  But the fact that we cannot eliminate the problem completely no longer means that we should do nothing and put up with the evil as it gets steadily worse.  We haven't eliminated road fatalities either, and yet actions we have taken--seat belts, air bags, reinforcement bars, cars designed with crumple zones, better road engineering, lighting, signage, and a societal sea change against drunk driving to name some--have resulted in cutting the number of fatalities significantly over the years.

Major voices are speaking out again.  It started in the New York times with Nicholas Kristof.  Mayor Bloomberg added his voice.  President Obama's remarks yesterday at Newtown's interfaith memorial service, that "We can't tolerate this anymore.  We aren't doing enough and we will have to change," made it clear that business as usual is not acceptable, and that the weight of the presidency will soon be engaged.  The consensus for action is spreading.  This morning conservative Republican Joe Scarborough repudiated his previous thinking and spoke at length about the imperative need to take action.

Here's what need to be done.  First, we have to reimpose the assault weapons ban, that is, we must get rid of automatic and semiautomatic rapid fire weapons.  That includes a program to buy back as many as we can that are already out there.  We have to restrict rounds in magazines and clips to some reasonable number such as 9 or 10.  A massacre is only possible when the killer has a weapon capable of perpetrating one.  Along with that, we have to make sure everyone who buys a gun has a background check.  Forty percent of gun sales (at gun shows) need not be screened.  That has to stop.  We don't excuse 40% of drivers from having to take the tests necessary to get a driver's license.  We don't neglect to screen 40% of the passengers getting on a plane.  Next, all the security lists have to be coordinated, brought up to date and put online for all dealers and law enforcement agencies to see.  A person on a terrorist watch list who is not allowed to get on a plane should not be allowed to buy explosives or a gun, either.  As these things are done, gun owners have to be included and have a say in the conversation at the table.  They must be reassured that no one's hunting rifle or target or personal protection pistol is being taken away.  The vast majority of gun owners are decent and law-abiding citizens.  They don't want criminals with military assault weapons either.  They don't go dove, quail or deer hunting with AK-47s and AR-15s.

We also have to do a much better job of identifying and treating people with dangerous psychological conditions.  Read this piece for one woman's chilling account of trying to control her violently delusional son.  Mental health services have been cut too much.  Too many people are not getting the help they need.  Too many families are overwhelmed and have nowhere to turn until crimes are committed and the justice system is left to deal with the wreckage.  Yes, people have rights.  But society has a right to be protected, too.  Where is the line?  There needs to be one.

Finally, what in society is fostering a climate of death and mayhem?  Is there an eroticism of the power of violence?  Are violent video games, movies and music contributing?  If so, to what extent?  Who is vulnerable?  Are we making things worse by publicizing the names and pictures of the authors of these heinous atrocities?  Can the social climate itself be changed?  Look at what has happened over the years to the former acceptability of such practices as drunk driving, smoking and racial and gender discrimination.  When society decides that something is not cool, but contemptuous, real changes in behavior, changes for the good, can take place.  It's time to engage the  findings of the behavioral sciences to sort these things out.  Let's get to work.     

  


    

Why the Closed Union Shop is Fair

Last week the Republican-controlled Michigan House and Senate passed legislation banning the closed union shop.  What it basically does is make it illegal to require someone to belong to the union in order to work at a unionized employer.  I'd like to touch on the reasons why the closed shop is reasonable and justifiable. 

The most often-cited justification is to stop the unfair practice of "free riders."  Since negotiated wages, benefits and safe and healthy working conditions are enjoyed by all the workers, it is unfair for some to reap the rewards without contributing through their membership and dues to the cost and support of bargaining for them.

A second reason comes from the idea of the corporation as a cooperative endeavor in which management and labor each have roles and responsibilities to the organization.  The company cannot operate without both.  Opponents of union shop often say they stand for the freedom of workers to choose.  They like to call such laws as recently passed in Michigan "right to work laws."  A better frame of reference might be "corporate servitude laws."  When a person hires into a firm there are always a number of requirements involved.  The prospective employee doesn't get the freedom to tailor everything to his or her own personal wishes.  A host of such issues as hours, pay, breaks, vacation policies, sick leave, retirement benefits, discipline procedures, scheduling and the work to be performed are all part of the package.  When you hire in you are accepting all of the above.  To say that the worker has no freedom with regards to what management wants but freedom only in what their fellow workers want smacks of the authoritarian mindset toward which that view is slanted.

Finally, the union shop can only exist where it is democratic and contractual.  Unlike the corporation, the union is a democratic organization.  It must be voted in by the workers and the contracts it negotiates for them must be democratically approved by their votes.  When union shop arrangements are in place they exist because they have been negotiated and accepted by both sides and ratified by a vote of the workers.  The result is a contract, a binding agreement on both sides with the force of law.  Consequently, to pass laws like Michigan's is to restrict the freedom of labor and management to negotiate conditions of employment, to subvert the force of a contract and to obviate the democratically expressed voice of the workers.

Spielberg's "Lincoln" a Masterpiece

I saw Steven Spielberg's film "Lincoln" and was tremendously impressed.  This History Professor scores it an A+.  Whether your interest is historical accuracy, a compelling story or fine cinema, you will not leave the theater disappointed.  Spielberg's dramatic portrayal of the successful passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forever ended American slavery, is a masterwork.

I was most gratified to see the care with which the film scrupulously remained faithful to the historical record and the sense of the era it portrayed.  Spielberg retained the consulting services of eminent presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, and it showed.  I've read Goodwin's book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. She knows the history and how to spin it into a good yarn.  The movie apparently consciously included scenes recreated in intricate detail from Civil War era photographs and lithographs, such as the conflagration that consumed Richmond, Virginia.  The public events and words were spot on, as were the attention to period fashion, attitudes, technology and patterns of speech.  Private conversations, as between Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln or between Secretary of State William Seward and the political operatives charged with securing votes in the House of Representatives, are not part of the historical record but were faithful to the sense of what we know and highly plausible renditions.  And yes, President Lincoln did actually meet with Confederate peace envoys scant weeks before the end of the dreadful conflict.

The story has an edge of your seat quality, both because of the great stakes involved within the setting of the nation's most terrible ordeal, but also as a result of the fine script.  I was reminded of the film Apollo 13, in that as a viewer you already know the outcome but get so wrapped up in the story that it is gripping anyway.  Lincoln is a political story of strategy and maneuvering, but it also transcends that due to the timeless nature of the human rights it's concerned with, the interpersonal electricity between the people involved, and the fierce urgency with which the president pursued the fight over the Thirteenth.  His political and historical sense told him it was a moment that might pass, given the sweeping changes about to envelop the nation with its terrible war coming to an end.  The story is an object lesson in the scope of an individual with a firm moral compass to drive events and of the individual struggles many faced in making their fateful choices pro and con.

As a piece of movie making I feel only Schindler's List can compare with this film in all of Spielberg's lengthy repertoire.  It will be nominated for Best Picture and Best Director and I'd say will be odds on to win, as may well the script by Tony Kushner.  Although portraying an issue and a time fraught with high emotion, he strongly depicts those emotions clearly without shading off into the oversentimentalism that has sometimes infected Spielberg movies.  The characters are vibrant and vivid.  Expect to see nominations for Best Actor for Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role, Best Actress for Sally Field as Mrs. Lincoln, and Tommy Lee Jones as Best Supporting Actor for his brilliant portrayal of fire-breathing abolitionist Congressman Thaddeus Stevens.  Some, accustomed to the stentorian and somber voice Abraham Lincoln has often been given in previous theatrical depictions, will be surprised at the high pitch and storytelling felicity Day-Lewis gives the Sixteenth President.  There were no recordings of Lincoln's voice, but make no mistake, those are precisely the qualities ascribed to Abe by the contemporary sources. 

On all levels then, I loved Spielberg's Lincoln.  It was true to the history and presented it in such a way as to bring it alive for a general audience.  The cinematic values were high, the cast superb, the script outstanding and the concept and direction magnificent.  Do yourself a favor and treat yourself to Lincoln while it's still in theaters.  You'll be glad you did. 


 

Happy Birthday, Vin Scully!

Yesterday Vin Scully celebrated his 85th birthday.  The Los Angeles Dodgers Hall of Fame broadcaster was born November 29, 1927 in New York.  Some of my earliest memories are of listening to him at home as a boy on summer evenings as he recounted the baseball exploits of Sandy Koufax, Junior Gilliam, Don Drysdale, Maury Wills, Tommy Davis, Duke Snider and the rest of the boys in blue.  Three generations of Southern Californians have cherished Scully as a dear friend for 54 years.  Before that, he called the games for the Dodgers for 8 years when they were still in Brooklyn.  His service of 62 years with the same team is a record without parallel in sports.

Vinny has been acclaimed as the greatest baseball announcer of all time.  He calls a game simply but vividly in an expressive tenor.  He is personal and personable.  "Good evening to you, wherever you may be," he often starts out, "time to pull up a chair and settle down for a fine matchup tonight." References to poetry, songs, literature, and anecdotes about the players, both Dodgers and opponents, and even the umpires, spice up the narrative.  Sixty-two years of history and memory serve to weave  the mystique and nostalgia that is so much of baseball in Scully's rich tapestry.  We hear comparisons of Albert Pujols to Henry Aaron, or how a current player's stance, technique or demeanor is remindful of Jackie Robinson, Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays.  He is not a "homer;" he calls a game even-handedly and gives due credit to the achievements of the worthy foes as well as the Dodgers. 

It's been a wonder to hear this friendly and intimate voice for over fifty years, and it's clear that each new year is a gift.  These days Vin is on contract a year at a time, depending on whether he thinks he can still keep up.  He doesn't go on road trips east of the Mississippi any more.  I feel like he's my friend, though I've never met him.  I'm sure I'm not the only one, considering the fact that he once won a fan vote as the favorite all-time Dodger--yes, as a write-in over the team's great star players!  He always did such a wonderful job he was even given special contracts by the networks to do the major golf tournaments, world series and the super bowl.  You can click on the next link to hear a local Los Angeles sportscast from his birthday last year play their list of his 5 greatest calls.

All in all it's been a marvelous life for the self-described "scrawny, red-headed, left-handed kid who couldn't hit" to be such a big part of the game he loves for better than six decades.  Even more, not only has he lived those 62 years of joy, he's brought his warmth, love of the game and love of people into the cars, living rooms, headsets and hearts of millions with him along the way.   

Going to the Inauguration

Today I began firming up my arrangements to attend President Obama's Second Inaugural in Washington, D.C.  It will be held Monday January 21, 2013--appropriately enough, it will be Martin Luther King Day.  I'm excited to be able to go and be part of this quadrennial rite of American democracy.     

The first thing I did was call a friend in Northern Virginia to see about staying over for a few days.  I've known Greg Guernsey since high school.  He and wife Lorene said they would be happy to take me in.  With that in hand I went ahead and booked the flight.  I used Delta Skymiles to get one out of Fresno to Dulles with stops in Salt Lake and Detroit.  The return trip will go through Cincinnati and Salt Lake back to Fresno.  I also got a rental car and bought a special Inaugural commemorative D.C. Metrorail pass good for unlimited transportation on the subway and bus system for the day.

I'm travelling in on Saturday the 19th and flying out on Wednesday the 23rd.  That ought to give me time to perhaps do a little tourist visiting on Sunday and Tuesday.  There are myriad historical and other points of interest in the vicinity and it's been since 1997 that Joan and I took the kids to the area. I'll need to do a little research and see what looks both interesting and manageable.

One thing I'm waiting on is a call from my congressman's office.  I phoned them last week to get on a list for a ticket for seating at the ceremony at the Capitol steps.  Every national legislator gets some tickets so I thought I'd give it a try.  Chances are I'll just be standing with the other thousands farther back along the mall, but since Rep. Devin Nunes is a Republican I'm hoping there won't be too many of his regular supporters who want to go and maybe I'll get lucky!  They did say they could assure me of getting a ticket for a Capitol tour. 

I'll be posting on this now and then as developments go forward.  I've been a big Obama supporter so it's particularly meaningful for me to attend what will be my first time at an Inaugural.  For that matter, there's every good chance it will be my only time.  And that being the case, who better to see than the nation's first minority president being sworn in as the re-elected incumbent?    

  

      

Democrats Get More Votes but Republicans Win House of Representatives

It's really important who wins elections in years ending in zero.  Those are the years the U.S. Census is taken, and the Census forms the basis upon which every state's election districts are drawn.  The fact that Republicans did so well in the 2010 "off-year" (non-presidential) election meant that with newly-won control of many state legislatures and governorships, they were able to redraw election districts so as to maximize their chances of winning as many seats as possible.

A party does this by packing as many residents of the other party into a few districts where they have large majorities, and giving themselves perhaps less decisive but still safe majorities in as many of the rest of the districts as they can.  This practice is called "gerrymandering," named after Elbridge Gerry, a Massachusetts politician famous (or perhaps notorious) for perfecting this strategem in his state in the early 1800s.   See the famous Boson Gazette cartoon of the "gerrymander."

Most people who keep up with the news know that Republicans have retained control of the House of Representatives.  What few know, however, is that although a handful of close races are still to be decided based on absentee and provisional ballots, it appears that Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives actually out polled their Republican rivals nationally this year by more than 550,000 votes.  The current tally is 53,952,240 for Democratic candidates and 53,402,643 for Republicans.  Out of the more than 107 million votes that is a narrow percentage victory of 50.26% to 49.74%.  If the seats were awarded proportionally the Democrats would have 219 seats and the Republicans 216.  But instead, thanks to gerrymandering, Speaker John Boehner and his Republicans will have a comfortable 235-200 advantage. 

Take Ohio, for example.  President Obama won a 1.9% victory there statewide, and Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown prevailed for re-election by 5.2%.  But 12 of the Buckeye state's 16 congressional districts went to Republicans, thanks to the way the districts were set up.  Check it out here.  In Pennsylvania the case was much the same.  Obama won there by 5.2% and Democratic Senator Bob Casey was re-elected by 8.9%.  Yet 13 of Pennsylvania's 18-member congressional delegation will be Republicans.  Here's the source for Pa. 

In both these states, Republicans got governors and legislative majorities elected during the 2010 wave and put these to good partisan use in drawing election maps skewed to their interest.  It will be exceedingly difficult for the Democrats to gain congressional majorities in either state, or those like them until at least 2020, and then only if they do well in the elections that year.  It's a quirk of the American electoral system, and it certainly makes not only winning, but when you win, of paramount importance. 

Young Voters Show Power in California for Proposition 30

It was with tremendous relief that I woke up Wednesday morning and learned that California's Proposition 30 passed with 54% of the vote.  When I went to bed Tuesday night it had been trailing by four percent.  I knew that if it failed it would result in an additional $3 million in cuts to College of the Sequoias where I teach and the cancellation of hundreds of classes our students need.  We are already serving 3000 fewer students than we did five years ago and are the only institution of higher learning in our predominantly rural vicinity.  For those of you who don't know, Prop 30 was Governor Jerry Brown's initiative to impose a 1/4% sales tax for four years and a 1% to 3% income tax increase on upper income earners for seven years to raise about $6 billion per year, 98.5% of it for education.

I am grateful to the voters of California, and especially to the younger voters.   This proposition became THE great cause for college students in California this election.  At COS our Associated Student Body and Young Democrats campaigned very hard for it.  They secured 600 student endorsement signatures in two hours to fill a full-page newspaper ad the teachers ran in support of Prop 30 last week.  They registered hundreds of voters and made sure they voted by mail or on election day.  This effort was repeated across the state and produced an amazing result.

As Scott Lay, President of the Community College League of California, reported in his newsletter under the title "Winners:"  

Young voters - I know I've been harping on this. Polling firms undersampled 18-29 year old voters through the cycle, particularly after Prop. 30 became a rallying cry on campuses. In the last four presidentials, 18-29 year olds have ranged from 15% (1996) to 22% (2008). So, why were they only expected to be 12% of the California electorate in Monday's Field Poll projections? In the end, the exit poll found that 28% of California's electorate were 18-29 year olds. And, with their 63% yes vote on Prop 30, they single-handedly put Jerry Brown's tax measure over the top. This also led to a 1.9 million 20-point margin for Obama in California that ensured that he won the national popular vote.

In addition to Scott's analysis above, when the dust settles I expect it will be shown they also had a great deal to do with Democrats securing 2/3 supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature.  Pretty impressive, wouldn't you say?  Who says young voters are apathetic?  Give them an issue that strikes close to home and they proved they are very much a force to be reckoned with.

What's At Stake in This Election

A number of questions will be answered on Tuesday November 6, 2012.

Will Medicare be preserved or will it be turned into a voucher plan?

Will Social Security be preserved or privatized and tied to the ups and downs of the stock market?

Will Obamacare be fully instituted or will we go back to having 47 million uninsured citizens at the cost of 45,000 lives per year?

Will Pell Grants for college students be expanded or drastically cut back?

Will workers continue to have the right to organize and bargain or will this be taken away?

In foreign policy, Mitt Romney is surrounded by many of the same neoconservative advisors who believe most overseas problems can be solved militarily and who convinced the last internationally ignorant president into starting a war in Iraq. Will they be back advising the next president?

If they are, will the United States continue to follow strong but measured and effective international policies or will we initiate another land war in the Middle East, likely this time against Iran and/or Syria?

Will FEMA remain a federal responsibility or will it be privatized or turned over to the states, most of which lack sufficient resources to do its job?

Will the economic philosophies of Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush be reintroduced?  Or will we go back to investing in the education, technology and infrastructure necessary to compete in the 21st century?

Will child nutrition, aid to schools, head start, Medicaid, disaster relief, veteran's programs for PTSD and other such services be drastically slashed so millionaires can keep from going back to the tax rate they paid under Bill Clinton?

Will the capital gains tax be eliminated so people like Mitt Romney won't have to pay any taxes at all?

Will the sensible regulations on finance emplaced under Dodd-Frank be repealed, and the unimpeded exotic markets in risky instruments like derivatives come roaring back?

Will we throw in our lot with those who deny science or those who embrace it?

Will we elect those who scoff at human-induced climate change or those who intend to do something about it?

Will we safeguard the gains made over the past 60 years in voting rights, women's rights and gay rights or will we empower those who want to roll these all back?

Will we reaffirm the principle of the separation of church and state or will we put in power those who believe it is their obligation to use the power of the state to enforce their version of religion on everyone else?

Will a sensible immigration policy finally be put in place, or will racist and xenophobic sloganeering continue to serve as a substitute for one?

Will anonymous billionaires continue to buy elections and politicians or will sensible campaign finance trasparency and limitations be enacted?

In the final analysis, do we believe that community needs and interests can be served by the democratic process or do we believe that everyone is on their own?

Election Race Analysis: 9 Days Out

Here's the promised "horse race" analysis 9 days before the election.  The fallout from the three presidential and one vice presidential debates has had its effect and the race has stabilized into its final contours.  In a nutshell, President Obama retains has the electoral college advantage and the inside track for re-election, but Mitt Romney remains close and still has a reasonable chance to win.

We start with the states where one candidate has a big and likely insurmountable lead.  For Obama that's 18 states and the District of Columbia for 237 electoral votes (EVs).  Romney has 23 states worth 191 EVs securely in his column.  That leaves 9 states worth 110 EVs still up for grabs.  With 538 total EVs at stake, it takes 270 to win the White House.  So Obama needs 33 of those still-to-be-won 110 EVs while Romney would need 79 of them.  You can easily see that is a steeper hill for the challenger.  So let's look more closely at those remaining nine states.  

Three of the tossup states are leaning fairly strongly to one side.  These are North Carolina, Nevada and Wisconsin.  Recent polls give Romney a consistent 3.8% average margin in the race for North Carolina's 15 EVs.  Obama has twin 2.3% leads in Wisconsin (10 EV) and Nevada (6), and observers rate the Obama turnout operations strong in those states as well.  So let's put these three states in their respective columns.  That brings Obama to 253 and Romney to 206.

That leaves us, barring major unforeseen news developments or surprising statewide election upsets, with 6 states totalling 79 EVs that will decide the next president.  Obama needs 17 EVs out of this group and Romney needs 64.  From most to least EVs they are:

Florida, 29 EV.  Romney has to have Florida.  If Obama wins the Sunshine State it's game over.  Recent polls give Romney an average of a 1.8% edge.  It was nip and tuck until the first debate, after which Romney took the small lead he still holds.  The subsequent debates stalled Romney's surge, but Obama has not been able to reverse it.  It's still close but Florida is a big state, and the bigger they are the harder they are to turn around.  Romney has a pretty strong chance to win here, probably over 60%.

Ohio, 18 EV.  Romney has to have Ohio, too.  But it doesn't look good for him.  Obama holds a 1.9% average lead in the state both campaigns are visiting the most and spending more money in than any other.  The Buckeye State is Obama's firewall.  As long as he stays ahead here he is assured of victory.  That's why both sides will spare no expense or effort in Ohio in the last nine days.  Watch this call closely on Election Night, because it may tell the story early.  

Virginia, 13 EV.  Obama had a narrow lead until the first debate, when Romney went ahead.  Since then it has been moving back Obama's way.  The average of recent polls shows Virginia as a dead even tie, though two of three recent polls give Obama the edge.  Expect this one to linger a long time before the networks call it on Election Night.  It's the Washington, D.C. suburbs in the Northern part of Virginia for the President against the more conservative Southern part of the Old Dominion for the GOP.  If Obama loses Ohio this is his next best line of defense.  If Romney takes Florida and Ohio, a win here starts to make his chances for the presidency look good.

Colorado, 9 EV.  Like Virginia, the latest polling average finds Colorado as a dead heat.  Also like Virginia, it's a state where Obama had a pre-debate advantage, Romney reversed that, and now it's back to even.  The most recent surveys are going Obama's way. 

Iowa, 6 EV.  Obama is up 2.3% in recent poll averages, and the latest surveys continue to show a narrow Obama lead.

New Hampshire, 4 EV.  The average has Obama in the lead by only 1.4% in a small state, so that's not many people.  The latest polls are on both sides, too, some showing Romney ahead and others Obama.  This one could really go either way. 

To sum up, Obama wins if he takes Florida or Ohio.  He can also win by prevailing in Virginia and any one of the smaller states of Colorado, Iowa or Hew Hampshire.  If Romney were to take Florida, Ohio and Virginia, Obama would have to win all three of the smaller states to hold his job.  To sum it all up statistically, as it currently stands Obama has better than a 70% likelihood of winning the election, and Romney a little less than 30%. 

For a look at some good sources, go to the FiveThirtyEight or Real Clear Politics web sites.




       

The End Game Begins

President Obama emerged as the clear winner in the third debate last night.  A synopsis of polls taken after the foreign policy discussion found the president besting the challenger by as much as a margin of 30 points, 53% to 23%. Obama was very much the seasoned commander in chief while Romney was strangely passive, agreeing with the President on the substance of important policies time and again.  Though strong performances in the second and third debates appear to have blunted the momentum Mitt Romney gained after the first debate, there is little evidence this latest face-off changed many votes. 

The Obama camp was apparently thinking along the same lines as my Saturday blog, "What Obama Needs to Do," for as both men opened tours of battleground states, Obama unveiled his own 5-point economic plan on the campaign trail today.  Titled "A Plan for Jobs & Middle Class Security" the "glossy new 20-page magazine" lays out a directly competing blueprint to Romney's.  The five points are education and training, manufacturing, energy, the deficit and "ending the war in Afghanistan to do some nation building here at home."  Click on the last link to examine the program in detail or see the President's latest 60-second ad introducing the initiative.

The economic plan contains focused versions of proposals Obama has already been advocating for some time.  What is novel (and more effective) is putting them together in a concise and pithy way in the manner Romney has done with his own plan.  Having this ready and printed with ads already recorded clearly shows the campaign had been planning this roll out to coincide with the end of the debates.  The timing for this to come out now, at this late date just two weeks before the election, can only be seen as intentional and carefully considered.  This was unquestionably the right thing to do.  

I'll get back to you with a "horse race" analysis piece at the end of the week once new tracking polls have digested the impact of the debate, the Obama economic roll out and the beginning of the two sides' closing appeals.

What Obama Needs to Do

We now head into the home stretch of the election campaign.  The last of three debates will be Monday and election day follows fifteen days later.  The election promises to be close, and could go either way.  At this late juncture, what can the Obama campaign do to regain its earlier edge, or at least enough of an edge to win?

The first debate legitimized the Romney candidacy.  His campaign was flagging and slowly falling farther behind.  The Obama strategy had been to make him unacceptable, and the strategy was working.  But then a weak debate performance by the President derailed that strategy.  Romney became an acceptable alternative to many people who hadn't thought so before.

The second debate seems to have arrested Romney's momentum.  Obama was prepared, back on his game, and in command.  Analyst Nate Silver, whose FiveThirtyEight site has an unblemished track record at this sort of thing, currently pegs Obama with an electoral lead of 289 to 249 and a 68% probability of winning the election.  Yet that margin is razor-thin.  A turnaround in closely-contested Ohio and any other single state Obama leads in and Romney would win.

Monday's debate will be on foreign policy.  In order to do well, Obama will need to offer a cogent explanation and defense of the Administration's handling of events in Libya, Syria and Iran, where Romney will surely be on the attack.  China policy will come up too, and will offer an opportunity for both candidates to give their pitches on the economy, which is what the American people most want to hear about.  And it is here, I believe, that Obama must change his strategy to make headway toward securing victory in this election.

It is valid to point out that Romney's economic plans are "sketchy" and "don't add up," as the President frequently says.  They are a combination of talking points and vagaries, justified by laughable inconsistencies in basic arithmetic.  But the likelihood that one candidate is trying to sell snake oil in and of itself may not beat him if the other candidate has nothing to replace it with.  Obama's pitch is mostly that Romney's plan is no good.  As for himself, Obama points to the mess he inherited, then talks about the Detroit bailout, green jobs, and that indicators such as unemployment, and that home starts, prices and foreclosures have been trending better of late.  What he lacks is a memorable vision of what he will do if elected to a second term.  Romney can recite his Five Point Plan.  It may mostly be smoke and mirrors but at least it is a plan.  In my view, the President needs one of his own if he is to make his re-election more than a fifty-fifty proposition.  Just today Paul Ryan said of Obama, "He's not even telling you what he plans on doing."

A winning plan ought to touch on manufacturing, preserving Social Security and Medicare, energy, infrastructure, education and comprehensive fiscal reform, i.e. something like Simpson-Bowles to attack the deficit problem.  Obama does have ideas and initiatives on all of these, but really needs to encapsulate them in an easy-to-remember six point plan.  You can't fight something with nothing, and without his own economic plan firmly fixed in the voters' minds a lot of people will opt for the guy with a sketchy plan over the guy seemingly without one.  The third debate will provide an audience of at least 50 million people, the largest viewership left for either campaign to make its last best appeal.  We'll see if the President and his team are on top of this one.  They need to be, and it's getting very late in the game. 

Is This the Best We Can Do?

Fellow Visalian Bill Osak did some research on the lamentable record of our local U.S. Representative, Devin Nunes, who has been our congressman since 2002.  Bill circulated the message below and I felt it interesting enough to secure his permission to post it on this blog.  I've done just a bit of light editing.

 

Former Republican Senator Alan K. Simpson wrote, in a criticism of fellow Republicans, "If you want to be a purist, go somewhere on a mountaintop and praise the east or something.  But if you want to be in politics, you learn to compromise.  And you learn to compromise on the issue without compromising yourself.  Show me a guy who won't compromise and I'll show you a guy with rock for brains."

 

It's election time and where does our representative, Devin Nunes stand?
 

A less than average voting record shows that our representative voted against the Home Affordable mortgage program and voted against anti-recession stimulus funding. At the same time he voted against monitoring the TARP funds to ensure mortgage relief. Our representative voted against the auto bailout and against regulating the subprime mortgage industry responsible for the biggest equity loss in American history. Yet he expends political capital by strongly supporting an unlikely constitutional amendment to ensure marriage is between one man and one woman. He did not support funding for green public schools or federal funding for education. So where does he stand on energy issues that impact our wallet? Well, he voted against tax credits or incentives for renewable energy production and conservation efforts. He also voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC that “fix” prices. It is interesting, though, he would not remove oil and gas exploration subsidies to companies having huge profits. His vision includes more off-shore drilling and more nuclear plants. Supporting Amtrak is not his style as well. He consistently votes against Amtrak funding for improvements and operation. While he has voted against education funding, he also has voted against assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization. This is an odd position since he has favored several open trade treaties in South America that allow cheap goods to be imported and jobs exported. He is against “police state” union organizing, increasing the minimum wage, and any extension of unemployment benefits.

 

So what has he done to court favor here in the heartland of the valley? Depending on your station in life, different opinions will arise regarding his continued support of the Ryan budget plan, changing Medicare to a voucher program, and continuing the Bush tax and spending cuts that benefit the wealthy. One might think that since his district suffers economically, he would support expanding the Children Health Insurance Program and increase eligibility of the children in his district. But alas, his votes did not reflect that. Though the Medicare population here has similar economic issues, our representative has sided instead with corporate profit by voting against “negotiated Rx prices”while reducing Medicare prescription drug benefits.
 

It is a surprising fact that he voted NO to increasing the funds for waterway infrastructure from $4.9 billion to $23 billion. Apparently, water issues are not all that important to him.
 

Supporters often cite his strength in foreign affairs. After all, he has voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan, NO on getting out of Iraq, YES on declaring Iraq part of the war on terror, (thus starting 2 wars that can demonstrate American superiority.) He voted NO on supporting democratic institutions in Pakistan but supported foreign arms transfers to China. More worrisome is his YES vote on supporting Israel unconditionally. He votes consistently to stop funding for National Public Radio, is against gun registration, but supports photo IDs in federal elections.
 

So do YOU have a representative that reflects the wants and needs here in the valley? The “fiscal cliff” in January is looming and our representative played a role in the last downgrade of the US dollar.
 

I suggest that you look at Otto Lee , successful businessman and Iraq veteran as the alternative choice. Mr. Nunes, who has missed more votes than the average congressman, does not represent us nor has he been successful as a congressman. The above represents the votes that Nunes has taken since 2006. If you are happy with his inability to be effective, vote. If you do not like his positions, vote for Lee. We need to have a voice at the table and not someone who fits Alan Simpson's description. See the website http://ottoforcongress.org/about.html for more information.
 

Devin Nunes has a $2 million fund and is so confident of his re-election that little effort is being made here in his district. The only way to rock the boat and let him know change is needed is to get the word out and let people know there really is a good choice this time around. Circulate this email if you agree.

 

Joe Biden Comes Through in Debate

Joe Biden definitely got the job done in a spirited performance against Paul Ryan in their debate last night, winning the debate50% to 31% among undecided voters, according to CBS News.  In doing so, Biden did much to blunt GOP momentum and set things up for the crucial Obama-Romney rematch coming next Tuesday.  The Vice President was extremely good on foreign policy topics and highly effective on domestic policy.  For his part, Congressman Ryan was able to get his message out and avoid any big mistakes, though the Republican representative was short on specifics and outdebated on several issues.  You can watch the debate here. 

Biden was at his best on foreign policy.  He deftly handled Ryan's criticisms on Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and defense spending, turning the issues back against Ryan's contentions.  Ryan's best criticism was on Libya, the first item brought up by on-the-ball moderator Martha Raddatz.  Biden's answer that intelligence was slow to come in may be true but lacked strength.  After that Biden asserted mastery over his younger rival.  Ryan was for American troops spearheading major new operations in eastern Afghanistan.  Biden countered that after ten years it's time for the Afghans to take the lead.  Ryan seemed to want to leave U.S. troops there indefinitely, based on conditions.  Biden assured a war-weary American public that we will leave the country on schedule at the end of 2014.  Ryan finally threw in the towel and agreed his ticket would pull out by then, too.  Ryan attacked again on Iran, accusing the Administration of weakness.  Biden said the "toughest sanctions in the history of sanctions" were wrecking the Iranian economy and that in the final analysis, in a clear threat of force if necessary, we would not allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb.  He asked Ryan if he wanted war and what he would do differently.  Ryan had no answer.  Ryan again attacked on Syria, saying the Administration was wasting time going through the U.N., should be arming the opposition to dictator Bashir Assad, and hinted about military action.  Biden countered that we are not only using the U.N., that weapons are reaching the opposition and that we are working closely with Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  The implication that America is making sure weapons are getting in through these other nations rather took the wind out of Ryan's sails.  Asked again whether he wanted another American land war in the Middle East, Ryan beat a hasty retreat.

In domestic affairs, Biden brought up Mitt Romney's 47 percent comment and sharply defended against the spurious Romney critique that Obamacare takes money from Medicare and against Romney-Ryan plans to voucherize Medicare.  He tellingly looked right into the camera and asked the American people whether they trusted the party--the Democrats--that created and has fought for Medicare and Social Security since their inception to protect them, or would they rather turn that job over to the other party--the GOP--who has never liked these programs and has always tried to cut them.  "Use your common sense," he advised the American people.  Biden's defense of choice was also effective and should resonate with a lot of women.  After Ryan delivered his ticket's position of a ban on abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother, Biden said he accepted his Catholic Church's teachings on the subject but felt he would not impose that view on others.  He also held Ryan's feet to the fire on the Romney-Ryan tax plan, pointing out that the numbers don't add up unless they take away the home mortgage, health, and charitable deductions, or higher taxes on the middle class, and demanded specifics.  When Ryan provided none, the moderator finally pointed that out and cut him off, moving on to another topic.

The bottom line of this debate is that Biden delivered the strong game the Democrats needed to stop the impetus Republicans gained after last week's presidential debate, which many perceived as a lackluster showing by President Obama.  It should encourage the Democratic base and reset the small undecided middle for presidential round two next Tuesday.  Tune in then for what I expect to be the crucial showdown of the campaign.

Debate Recap and What's to Come

In the debate on Wednesday Mitt Romney came with his A game and Barack Obama brought his C game.  The result was, as most viewers saw it, a definite win for Romney.  The average of flash surveys of viewers showed that about 50% saw Romney as the victor while 25% thought Obama outduelled his challenger. 

Romney was clearly the better prepared, the most animated and the most focused.  His points were sharp, and often surprising.  Time and again, he appeared to flummox Obama by asserting and sticking to outright fabrications.  A few of these included such statements as these: that his tax cuts were revenue-neutral, that his health plan covers people with pre-existing conditions, that Obama's stimulus package spent $90 billion a year on green energy, and that Obama's health plan took $716 billion away from Medicare recipients but that his own plan did not.  (The truth on these Health Plan numbers is that first, these numbers are over 10 years.  Second, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, got insurers to agree to cut that much from the cost of their services in exchange for all the extra customers they are going to get when the plan's provisions activate in 2014.  So it is pure savings for the program.  The Romney-Ryan Plan, in contrast, simply reduces Medicare by that much to the recipients as they take their vouchers out to try to buy insurance. So it is all taken from the consumers.) The President tried to rebut some of these points, though not all, and often with reasonable and factual but lengthy and complicated explanations that no doubt often confused or bored debate viewers.

I feel the Obama team planned to try to run out the clock on an opponent who has been trailing in the race and causing most of his own problems.  They did not want Obama to seem "unpresidential" by too harshly attacking his opponent.  They committed the dangerous mistake of underestimating their foe and taking the match for granted.  They did not spend nearly as much time in preparation as did Romney and his team, and it showed.  While Obama was more "cool" and delivered some humor, which Romney did little of, these small personality advantages were likely at least offset by Romney's earnestness and superior sense of engagement in the process.

For the president, the first debate represents a huge lost opportunity.  He was clearly pulling ahead and had nearly locked up an electoral vote stranglehold on the election.  Republican Party supporters were vocally berating the Romney campaign.  There were murmurings that big money donors were going to start pulling their support from a losing proposition to concentrate on down ballot candidates and issues.  With a strong debate Obama could have effectively ended the Romney candidacy.  Instead, it is now game on. 

You can expect to see a very different Barack Obama on October 16 when the two meet again in Hempstead, New York.  Expect Obama to have ready and devastating ammunition when Romney talks about his budget, health plan or how much he cares about the average American.  Expect him also to have winning defenses of the Administration's accomplishments, along the lines so successfully laid out in Bill Clinton's Convention speech.  If this doesn't happen the President will find himself in serious trouble down the stretch.  You can also expect to see this counteroffensive start with Joe Biden coming at Paul Ryan very hard this Thursday in the Vice Presidential debate in much the same way Dick Cheney blasted away at and largely flattened John Edwards in 2004 after John Kerry got the better of George W. Bush in their first debate of that year.  It should get plenty lively from here on in. 

Debate Watch Event

I would like to invite everyone to join me in viewing the upcoming presidential debate this Wednesday and having a discussion afterward.  The Tulare County Democratic Central Committee has asked me to moderate their debate watch, and if you are in the area you are welcome to come.

The first of three debates between President Obama and Governor Romney will take place on Wednesday the third at 6:00 P.M. Pacific time.  The Central Committee's campaign office has a 60-inch flat screen set up for the debate which is scheduled to last 90 minutes.  When it ends at 7:30 I'll give my own recap and analysis and then invite questions or comments from the audience.  I plan to ask those who wish to contribute to keep the language clean and the demeanor appropriate for a gathering of respectable citizens.  I anticipate wrapping things up by 8:00.

The Central Committee's office is located at 1616 W. Mineral King Blvd. in Visalia, about two blocks east of Marie Callendar's Restaurant.  They have some free campaign materials and others (particularly the Obama items) for purchase, and will gladly accept donations.  There will be free hot dogs, and light refreshments for those like myself who will  be missing dinner to attend.  If you can make it I hope to see you there!

. 

Presidential Race: States to Watch

The average of recent national polls between President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney has the president ahead by four percent.  However, the national vote doesn't mean anything in an American presidential election.  What matters are the separate elections in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia.  The winner of each state will win its electoral vote (EV), a number equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation, which includes the number of its members in the House of Representatives, plus its two Senators.  (D.C. gets three votes, the same as the smallest states.)

The total number of EVs at stake in the election is 538, and it will take 270 to win.  In this Electoral College election there are only eight states that really matter in 2012, and you will see the candidates and their running mates returning to them time and again in the next five and a half weeks.  Their residents will also be bombarded with broadcast advertising.   

The reason only eight states matter from here on is that 42 of the 50 states, along with Washington, D.C., are already safely in one or the other candidate's columns.  Obama has comfortable leads in 19 states plus D.C. worth a total of 247 EVs.  Romney has sewed up 23 states worth 191 EVs.  That leaves eight closely contested states worth exactly 100 EVs that are still up for grabs.  To win reelection Obama needs 23 of these remaining 100 EVs.  To unseat him Romney needs 79 of them.  This makes it clear that Obama has much the easier task.  Here are the close states and the pertinent statistics.

West
Colorado (9 EV) Obama leads in recent polls by an average of 3 percent. 
Nevada (6 EV) Obama is ahead by 4. 

Midwest
Ohio (18 EV) Obama leads by 5. 
Iowa (6 EV) Obama is up by 4.

East
New Hampshire (4 EV) has Obama ahead by 3. 

South
Florida (29 EV) Obama leads by 3.
North Carolina (15 EV) Obama is up by a slim 1 percent.   
Virginia (13 EV) Obama is ahead by 4.

All these states are close but you will notice that Obama leads in every one of them.  He can win the election by winning Florida alone, even if he loses the other seven.  Winning Ohio and any other state bigger than New Hampshire would also reelect the president.  Or he could take North Carolina and Virginia, or North Carolina and Colorado, Virginia and any two other states, in short, anything that adds up to 23 or more.  He has many paths to victory.

Romney, on the other hand, has less margin for error.  He has to win Florida, and more or less has to win Ohio too.  (If Romney loses Ohio and New Hampshire but wins the other six both candidates would wind up with 269 EVs.  The tie would be settled by the House of Representatives.)  In any case, Romney has to keep Obama from winning any combination of these states adding up to 23 EVs or more. 

Now you know what to look for in the coming weeks.  You can play around with the arithmetic yourself and try out the various combinations.  And remember, a survey that tells who is leading in Iowa, Colorado or any of these states is a lot more important than one indicating who has the most votes nationwide.

Who are Romney's 47 Percent?

In my last post I discussed how, earlier this month, Mitt Romney made big news when a video recording released by Mother Jones magazine showed him disdainfully dismissing the 47 percent of the American people who do not pay federal income tax.  Romney told a small gathering of wealthy donors he feels "it's not my job to worry about" such people who "think of themselves as victims" and who "have no concern for their own lives."  Romneys' remarks created a furor by expressing the commonly held conservative view that a huge proportion of the American people are lazy moochers living off the hard work of the rest.  Today in the blog I will present the numbers on who these 47 percent really are.

See the pie chart below.  This is reprinted from BusinessInsider.com, though you can find it in many other reputable places as well.   As you can see, 46.4 percent do not pay federal income tax, making


Romney's 47 percent figure only a slight exaggeration.  Of that number, almost all of them were not paying income tax because they are either old or poor.  Most of the non payers (28.3%) are employed and are paying federal withholding tax for Social Security and Medicare.  The next largest group (10.3%) are senior citizens, most of them on Social Security.   A smaller slice (6.9%) is made up of people earning less than $20,000.  These working poor are frequently part of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a bipartisan program passed with considerable Republican support to make sure gainful employment pays more than "welfare" in order to get people off public assistance.  Only a tiny fraction (0.9%) are those who do not pay income taxes and are neither elderly nor poor.  And some of these, (an estimated 35,000 in 2009), were not stereotypical "poor moochers" but more like rich avoiders, people earning over $200,000 who took advantage of shelters and deductions to avoid paying.

As often occurs with conservative scapegoat references, the facts and numbers simply do not substantiate Mitt Romney's erroneously skewed stereotypical references.  Sadly, I have seldom seen the truth  persuade people of his world view to change their biased preconceptions.  For those of you amenable to reason, however, you now have the facts to refute the common plutocratic and Tea Party picture of what nearly half the American people are like.  

Romney's 47% Remarks

Mitt Romney's done it again.  I've commented before on the Republican nominee's tendency to let his plutocratic Thurston Howell III inner self show through in unguarded comments.  See my February 2, 2012 post "Romney's Not Very Concerned About the Poor."  You remember the kind of statements I'm talking about.  He "likes being able to fire people."  He's "not very concerned about the poor."  He thinks "corporations are people, too."  He offered to make a little friendly $10,000 bet on the stage in a nationally televised debate.  When asked about the jobless he quipped, "I am also unemployed!"  He characterized the $370,000 he made in speaking fees last year as "not very much."  He thinks those who believe the wealthy should pay a greater share in taxes are "motivated by envy."  He advises those who want to start a business to just ask their parents for the money.  Well, why not?  It worked for him.       

But this time he has really outdone himself.  He was captured on video telling a $50,000 a plate crowd at a Boca Raton fundraiser that 47 percent of the American people do not pay income tax and will vote for President Obama no matter what because they feel they are victims to whom the government owes a living.  He further opined that such people do not care about their own lives, and that, for himself, "My job is not to worry about those people."  Watch the actual recording here.  If you have not yet seen or heard it prepare to be dumbfounded. 

The disdain and contempt encapsulated in these remarks are delivered with feeling by a clearly energized and peeved Romney.  As with his earlier above-referenced series of "gaffes," he follows a well-trod path of condescension and contempt toward those below his socioeconomic level.  The arrogance and enmity of these attitudes are exceeded only by his lack of comprehension of how most people really live.  Americans are among the hardest working people on earth.  Most of those who pay no income tax are senior citizens on Social Security who did pay income taxes for forty to fifty years.  Most of the rest are the working poor, who already pay withholding taxes for Social Security and Medicare but who make too little to pay income tax.

Rather than try to explain he didn't mean to insult and demean nearly half the American people or call them all lazy parasites, today Gov. Romney doubled down on his rhetoric.  He admitted his words might have been "inartfully expressed" but he stands behind his characterization of nearly half the  population of the country.   To hear such remarks from a major party nominee is remarkable.  It's strange for such a high-profile candidate to be so politically clueless.  Even if one holds such views, an astute politician must always presume everything said will be recorded and reported on.  An astute politician would recognize the folly of demeaning nearly half the electorate.  A citizen who had rubbed elbows with everyday people would have understood how inaccurate and unfair a stereotype such pejorative attitudes are.  But Mitt Romney isn't, isn't and hasn't.  It is getting more and more difficult to identify a more poorly suited major party nominee for the office of president within living memory.    

Budget Woes Spark Challenges at Work

Here is a piece I submitted to our local newspaper yesterday.  In difficult budget times where I teach, how have contentious negotiations played out?  How will it affect students?  Here is my take.

After reading two recent pieces in the Times-Delta’s Opinion section, I felt the need to set the record straight on how things really are at College of the Sequoias.  One was an editorial urging the Board of Trustees to implement a benefits cap on faculty to save money.  The other was a letter imploring faculty and administration to work together for the good of the students rather than let difficult contract negotiations get in the way.

I am currently in my thirtieth year of full time teaching and my fourteenth at College of the Sequoias.  Counting a couple of years as a substitute when I was starting out, it adds up to thirty-two years of teaching.  That includes time at adult school, high school, middle school and community college.  I bring this up to underscore the point that although I have found a high level of dedication and professionalism in all the levels and settings of education I have been in, none exceeds my experience here at COS. 

Whenever there are money problems in a school system there will be disagreements between employees, administration and boards.  I have seen them before in other districts and here, and I expect to see them again.  When revenues are reduced at the college level it means fewer students can be served.  COS is serving some 3,000 fewer students now than when finances were better.  Summer school has been eliminated the past two years.  Programs and people have to do with less.  Sometimes people are financially hurt.  Where and whom to cut are contentious issues.  I have served on the teachers association bargaining team for the past two years and can attest that at COS, contract negotiations between the District and the employee unions representing both the faculty and the classified staff have been long and trying for all concerned.  

As far as the health, vision and dental benefits cap goes, as reported in this newspaper, the Board acted to impose such a cap at their last public meeting.  The faculty and classified associations have been willing to and have proposed many ways of saving the District substantial funds, including salary and other concessions in the amounts management felt were necessary.  For tax and other reasons, their members have preferred these savings come out of things other than benefits.  At one point, faculty even ratified a tentative agreement in which they would have agreed to teach extra classes for free.  This would, if ratified by the Board, have saved the District over half a million dollars a year.  The amount of savings to achieve was never the point of contention; the manner in which they would be exacted has been the issue.  It is clear the Board’s judgment has been that only the benefits cap was acceptable as a way to achieve these savings.  The employee associations have believed there are other ways to accomplish the same goal.  I personally feel that everyone involved has been sincere in their views, and concerned with the financial condition of the District in trying times.  Unfortunately, the District’s insistence on the cap has indeed caused exasperation and been a source of frustration among employees at the college.         

Yet on the other topic, despite such disagreements, the parties have continued to work together to serve students in a highly professional manner.  Community members who have taken courses at COS, or those whose children have, will confirm what I have seen since I arrived here: the quality of the faculty and their dedication to students is exceptional.  As Academic Senate president I got to know and work with most of them, not only teaching faculty but also counselors, work experience technicians, technology and curriculum specialists and librarians.  And I extend this to include the adjunct, or part-time faculty as well, many of whom are experienced local high school teachers or highly skilled professional and vocational practitioners presently in business in the area.

But in a larger sense, I have found this same standard of responsibility across all the staff at COS.  The truth is, the COS family is full of good people who take seriously their service to students and the institution and work collegially to get things done.  That includes the classified staff who do their part to keep things running smoothly in such fields as maintenance, computer services, registration, financial aid, food services, the bookstore, student life, payroll, copy and mail, our police officers, secretaries and many others too numerous to name.  Our administrators have the often thankless task of monitoring and leading programs that are expected to achieve consistently improving results with shrinking budgets and fewer personnel.  They are highly competent people.  Our Trustees are all respected community members strongly interested in expanding the educational opportunities COS offers but keenly aware of their fiduciary responsibility to the financial condition of the District in these challenging times.  They are conscientious public servants.   

I know practically all the people behind the titles I’ve mentioned on a first name basis and believe all are working sincerely to help the school.  The advice to stop bickering and help the students misses the point.  The fact that contract talks have been tough has not stopped the COS family from working together and putting students first.  For example, I recently served on a committee working on the Accreditation process the college goes through every six years.  A fine administrator and I jointly chaired our part of this effort.  Our committee included not only administrators and faculty, but classified (non-teaching) staff, students, and one member of the Board of Trustees.  Everyone worked as a team for the good of the school.  In another example, the Teachers Association recently got together with the Academic Senate to ask faculty to expedite a number of curriculum issues critical to students meeting their program and graduation requirements.  To teachers, students are not just enrollment figures or names on a sheet.  They are people whose names and faces we know, people who, though often contending with numerous obstacles, inspire us with their personal stories and dreams and the efforts they are putting forth to achieve them.  We will not let them down.

Steve Natoli

Democrats Win Battle of the Conventions

Now that both major party conventions are over, it's time for a bit of reflection on how they did.  Nowadays a convention rarely chooses the party's nominee.  That is what the grueling primary process is for, and it usually does its job of winnowing things down to one candidate who will bear the standard.

There are two true purposes of the modern convention, one internal and the other external.  The internal purpose is to excite and energize delegates from all over the country to go back home and work hard for the party in the campaign.  The external purpose is to showcase the party's members, views,  leadership, and most of all its presidential and vice presidential candidates in the most favorable light possible for the nation's voters.  And in this most crucial contest there can be no doubt the Democrats at their convention gave President Obama a huge boost going forward into the home stretch of the campaign.

The Republican Convention in Tampa was certainly presentable, but it wasn't electrifying.  When it was all over, Mitt Romney got a one percent "bounce" in the polls.  Keynote Speaker New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was flat.  Florida Senator Marco Rubio, speaking to introduce Governor Romney's acceptance speech, impressed me as an excellent speaker, the best I saw in the GOP fold.   Both, however, unfortunately talked more about themselves than their party's nominee.  It seemed more they were positioning themselves for 2016 than addressing themselves wholeheartedly to the full-throated support of the 2012 ticket.  Vice Presidential pick Paul Ryan came across as a regular guy, but his remarks included so many factual inaccuracies they became the focus of the coverage.  Prospective first lady Ann Romney did a good job with a weak speech.  See for yourself.  Clint Eastwood embarrassed himself and the party with a rambling conversation with an empty chair meant to symbolize President Obama.  It derailed things right before the nominee himself took the floor.  Finally came Mitt Romney himself.  I felt he gave the best delivery of a speech I have even seen from him.  That means it was average.  See Romney's speech here.  It was not memorable, however, and included, like most of the other speakers' remarks, hardly anything of firm substance that he would do as president.  He made quick reference to a 5-point plan for the country in about fifteen seconds, then went back to generalities.

The Democratic Convention in Charlotte was, in the eyes of most longtime observers, the best in memory.  The clearest evidence for this is President Obama polling a post-convention seven percent bump in his approval rating.  Michelle Obama easily out duelled her counterpart talking about her man in her First Lady speech.  Bill Clinton gave what was likely the strongest address in either convention, taking on virtually every Republican objection to Obama's outlook and policies in impressive fashion.  He made the kinds of defenses of Democratic policies the Obama administration has been largely fumbling with during most of its tenure.  This was followed on the final night by Obama's acceptance speech, one of his customary stem winders that had the audience in tears and on its feet throughout.  It definitely helped the Democrats to go second, as they had clearly tailored their remarks to rebut earlier GOP points and pounce on Republican missteps.  Obama came off as confident yet caring, immersed in policy yet still imbued with the optimism and idealism that launched his election four years ago. 

This time it was the Democrats who put their social issues (gay rights, immigration, women's issues) front and center while the Republicans tried to avoid discussing them.  This time it was the Democrats who were on top of foreign policy while their rivals scarcely brought it up.  Obama gave detailed solutions while Romney avoided specifics altogether.  There are still eight weeks left in the campaign and a lot can happen.  But the strong edge the Democrats gained in the Battle of the Conventions puts Obama in the driver seat at this point.  To win, Team Romney will have to come from behind to make up a good deal of lost ground.      

10,000 Milestone Reached

Dear Readers:

I started this blog in December, 2007.  This week, 495 posts and four years and seven months later, Brave Gnu Whirled passed its ten thousandth page view!  I sincerely thank everyone who subscribes or just checks in and looks around, either regularly or just every once in awhile.

Whether it's a comment on politics, society, the news, or a personal item, this blog is an outlet for me.  I hope it's also a diversion for you.  Whether it informs, amuses or exasperates, my object is that it always at least interests.

After the United States, the next most popular areas of readership are France, Russia and China.  So,  thank you, merci, spasiba and sheishei to everyone! 

Steve Natoli

Preserving Social Security: What Students Say

I was intrigued by the front page story in Monday’s Visalia Times-Delta about a recent national poll on Social Security, (Poll: Raise taxes if it will save Social Security) so I decided to conduct the same survey with my students at College of the Sequoias to compare their responses with those of Americans as a whole.  

According to Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher, the AP-GfK survey consisted of two questions, both dealing with proposed solutions to the long-term solvency of the Social Security program.  The first asked whether respondents would rather raise taxes or cut benefits.  53 percent said to raise taxes and 36 percent preferred to cut benefits.  The second question posed a choice between increasing the retirement age and cutting benefits.  53 percent said to raise the retirement age while 35 percent said they would cut monthly payments. 

In both cases, strong majorities, 17 and 18 percent, favored preserving Social Security income for seniors, even at the cost of higher taxes or a longer wait to start collecting benefits.  Since most of my students are between 18 and 25 years old, I was curious whether how they would feel about a program whose benefits are more than 40 years in the future for most of them.  The results were remarkable.

212 students in my History classes took the survey.  I asked them to mark their choices individually without talking them over with classmates.  To question one, 128 students chose Option A, to “Raise the Social Security tax and pay full benefits.”  84 opted for Option B, “Keep Social Security taxes the same and reduce benefits.”  Thus 60 percent preferred the idea of raising the tax to preserve full benefits while 40 percent wanted to cut benefits rather than raise taxes.

On question two, 130 students picked Option A, “Raise the retirement age and pay full benefits.”  82 chose Option B, “Keep the retirement age the same and reduce benefits.”  On this question 61 percent said they would rather raise the retirement age and 39 percent to cut benefits.  The majorities were therefore 20 percent on increasing taxes rather than cutting payments and 22 percent on increasing the eligibility age rather than cutting payments. 

Both results are in line with the national findings, but are held even more strongly.  One might have expected younger people to be less supportive of a system most of them will not benefit from for many years, as compared to a survey population that included senior citizens drawing benefits at the present time and other workers currently much closer to retirement.  One might also have expected opinion in our rather conservative area to be more resistant to a tax increase than in the nation at large.  Neither expectation would have been accurate, at least among this sampling of local college-enrolled young adults.

The students’ choices seem to indicate a strong attachment to Social Security, perhaps partly for the benefit of older relatives and family friends currently receiving benefits, and partly for their own retirement security after their working years are over.  Most are prepared to make sacrifices to keep the system solvent for the foreseeable future.  Among these young adults, Social Security remains a popular program they hope to keep around and viable for a long time to come.

Yes on Proposition 30

Californians should do the right thing and vote yes on Proposition 30 this November 6.  The passage of Proposition 30 will not only staunch the disastrous litany of cuts to education and public services, but will also finally enable the state to balance its budget.  Go to the complete official explanation of Prop 30 on the Secretary of State's website here.

If Proposition 30 does not pass the state will be forced to cut an additional $6 billion from education next year.  That's on top of $20 billion in cuts over the past three years.  The cuts would include $500 million to the University of California, $750 million to the California State University system, $300 million to the community colleges and $4.5 billion to k-12 schools.  We have already laid off 30,000 teachers in the state, with the resulting increase in class sizes, and losses in such classes as languages, the arts and vocational offerings.  On the Community College level alone it has meant the denial of access to college for 485,000 students per year.

Proposition 30 would forestall these added blows to our childrens' education at a surprisingly modest cost.  Prop 30 would increase the sales tax by 1/4 of a percent for four years.  That is the total impact 99% of Californians would see on the revenue side.  A $100 pair of shoes would cost 25 cents more.  A fancy $1000 hi def flat screen TV would cost an extra $2.50.  Even a nice $20,000 new car would only cost an extra 50 bucks.  Most people wouldn't even notice.  For people at the highest income levels, an additional 1% income tax would be assessed for joint filers making $500,000 to $600,000, 2% for those making $600,000 to $1 million, and 3% on incomes over $1 million.  In other words, an adjusted income after deductions of half a mill would pay an extra $5,000 a year.  These levies would expire in 7 years.

We can continue providing our children less and less education while our international competitors, particularly in China and India, ramp theirs up.  We can continue turning away hundreds of thousands of young men and women from the college degrees that will give them an opportunity for a middle class standard of living.  Or we can, for a very modest cost, address these crucial needs and balance our state budget at the same time.  The choice is clear and obvious.  Vote yes on Proposition 30.