Monday, March 28, 2011
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."
Sunday, March 20, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
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.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Deficits, Tax Fairness and the Economy
Even Goldman Sachs says that to cut federal domestic outlays by $61 billion right now would result in a "1.5% to 2% drag on GDP growth." Even the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce supports California Governor Jerry Brown's plan to put a 5-year tax extension plan on the June ballot to take care of half of the state's $26 billion deficit problem. But Republican lawmakers in both cases continue with an ideological approach that considers only cuts as a response to current economic and fiscal challenges.
State governments across the country have laid off 426,000 workers in the past year. These people are no longer making house, rent or car payments, buying major appliances, going on trips or dining out. The contraction of their spending contributes to the slow recovery.
Although government spending is always a cause celebre for the GOP, it must be remembered that government spending did not cause the recession. Badly regulated housing and speculative markets did that. Budgets that used to balance do not now balance because government receipts are down, not because spending went up. And the reason they are down is because most people are not spending much. Robert Reich points out that high-end sales are booming as the upper class is doing quite well. But prosperity and spending among the top 5% is not enough to pull up the entire economy. "Americans bought 17 million new cars in 2005 but just 12 million last year." Yet compensation at the 25 biggest Wall Street players was $130 billion in 2007 and is now at $140 billion. And we all know that corporate America is sitting on $2 trillion in cash from increased profits over the past couple of years, profits they are not using to step up much hiring because sales haven't grown that much.
If the capital gains rate were 20%, or even the 40% it was at the peak of American prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, and if the top income tax rate had even been restored to 39% from 1999 when we had a balanced budget rather than the 35% where it now is, the deficits and impetus to cut would scarcely exist. Yet rather than ask the wealthy to contribute as they once did, we see the spectacle of laying off thousands of teachers, bus drivers and police and a drag on the entire economy. It's the oldest play in the book: turn the have-nots against each other while the aristocrats wallow in luxurious indifference.
State governments across the country have laid off 426,000 workers in the past year. These people are no longer making house, rent or car payments, buying major appliances, going on trips or dining out. The contraction of their spending contributes to the slow recovery.
Although government spending is always a cause celebre for the GOP, it must be remembered that government spending did not cause the recession. Badly regulated housing and speculative markets did that. Budgets that used to balance do not now balance because government receipts are down, not because spending went up. And the reason they are down is because most people are not spending much. Robert Reich points out that high-end sales are booming as the upper class is doing quite well. But prosperity and spending among the top 5% is not enough to pull up the entire economy. "Americans bought 17 million new cars in 2005 but just 12 million last year." Yet compensation at the 25 biggest Wall Street players was $130 billion in 2007 and is now at $140 billion. And we all know that corporate America is sitting on $2 trillion in cash from increased profits over the past couple of years, profits they are not using to step up much hiring because sales haven't grown that much.
If the capital gains rate were 20%, or even the 40% it was at the peak of American prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s, and if the top income tax rate had even been restored to 39% from 1999 when we had a balanced budget rather than the 35% where it now is, the deficits and impetus to cut would scarcely exist. Yet rather than ask the wealthy to contribute as they once did, we see the spectacle of laying off thousands of teachers, bus drivers and police and a drag on the entire economy. It's the oldest play in the book: turn the have-nots against each other while the aristocrats wallow in luxurious indifference.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Fixing California's 2010-2011 Budget
Here's your latest chance to solve California's state budget imbalance. A site called Next 10 has a clear and thorough program with plenty of good explanatory data to help you make up your mind. The site has been updated with new figures since I was on a panel last October that invited the public to try their hand. You can access my earlier blog on that here. I actually found it was easier for me to balance the budget this time than it was four months ago.
The Next 10 scenario takes you through options issue by issue, first for expenditures and then for revenues in your quest to balance a budget that starts out $19.4 billion out of kilter. (The $25 billion figure you may have read about is for a year and a half.) You typically have three or four choices on each issue, usually including a status quo, one that makes the deficit worse (either through raising spending or cutting a tax), and one or two others that offer spending cuts or tax increases.
Be sure to read the Overview, including the "Frequently Asked Budget Questions" at the beginning to get a good handle on how things in the Golden State stack up. You may be surprised at what you learn. The information is presented concisely and there are some illustrative graphs and pie charts to give you a visual picture too. The whole exercise took me only 10-15 minutes.
If you try your hand at it I look forward to your telling us how you did it and your reactions to the process. I do hope you will chime in with a comment. (You may need to be using Firefox rather than Explorer to comment on the blog. And I do have to moderate and OK the comments to appear after having some spamming trouble.) As Governor Jerry Brown says, California, with a $2 trillion economy and roughly a $20 billion state deficit, has a 1% problem. There are some tough choices to be made, and you can't reasonably do it with only program cuts or only tax hikes, but it is quite doable. Give it a try!
The Next 10 scenario takes you through options issue by issue, first for expenditures and then for revenues in your quest to balance a budget that starts out $19.4 billion out of kilter. (The $25 billion figure you may have read about is for a year and a half.) You typically have three or four choices on each issue, usually including a status quo, one that makes the deficit worse (either through raising spending or cutting a tax), and one or two others that offer spending cuts or tax increases.
Be sure to read the Overview, including the "Frequently Asked Budget Questions" at the beginning to get a good handle on how things in the Golden State stack up. You may be surprised at what you learn. The information is presented concisely and there are some illustrative graphs and pie charts to give you a visual picture too. The whole exercise took me only 10-15 minutes.
If you try your hand at it I look forward to your telling us how you did it and your reactions to the process. I do hope you will chime in with a comment. (You may need to be using Firefox rather than Explorer to comment on the blog. And I do have to moderate and OK the comments to appear after having some spamming trouble.) As Governor Jerry Brown says, California, with a $2 trillion economy and roughly a $20 billion state deficit, has a 1% problem. There are some tough choices to be made, and you can't reasonably do it with only program cuts or only tax hikes, but it is quite doable. Give it a try!
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Wisconsin Smoke Screen is Cover for Union Busting
The state of Wisconsin faces a projected budget shortfall of $3.6 billion over two years. The new Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, has proposed that the state's 175,000 state employees pay more into their retirement and health plans to solve the problem. The two-year savings for this proposal--$300,000,000--is only 8.3% of the savings needed. That is the smoke screen covering his real agenda. He has also introduced a bill into the newly Republican-majority legislature that would take away collective bargaining rights for all state workers except for police, firefighters and the state patrol. 10,000 state workers descended on the state capitol in Madison for protests today. Click here for more details.
At a time in history when rights seem to be advancing elsewhere around the world, even in such places as Sudan, Egypt and Tunisia, they are under siege in the United States. First, the 5-4 "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision overturned a century of precedent banning corporate cash in the political process and even struck down transparency requirements that allowed the public to know where such contributions were coming from. Now the other shoe is dropping, and the campaign to disable the one institution somewhat capable of opposing the pro-corporate and anti-worker agenda, workers united with the right to bargain together, has begun.
Before the New Deal Wagner Act of 1935 most workers toiled 12-hour days six days a week without benefits for starvation wages. Once the right to organize and bargain was enshrined and federally protected, America developed the largest middle class in the world and became the most broadly prosperous nation on earth.
But corporate America has never been happy with having to share a reasonable portion of profits with the help. They and their Republican partners have always looked forward to the day when such rights could be rolled back and the plutocratic days of the Gilded Age restored. If Walker and his legislators are successful, more such efforts will rapidly get under way in other states. Ohio and Tennessee are two of the first likely targets. The conservative court has opened the floodgates to corporate cash inundating the election process, to the great advantage of the Republican Party. If that party were also able to destroy the union movement, they would thereby eliminate the main countervailing funding source that supports the Democrats.
These developments are profoundly threatening to the well-being of the American people. A great deal hangs in the balance in Wisconsin over the next few days and weeks. If rights can actually be taken away from people it bodes most ill for the future prosperity and liberty of America's hard-pressed middle class. We'll see what fight still resides in the hearts of the descendants of Fighting Bob La Follette in the Cheese State.
At a time in history when rights seem to be advancing elsewhere around the world, even in such places as Sudan, Egypt and Tunisia, they are under siege in the United States. First, the 5-4 "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision overturned a century of precedent banning corporate cash in the political process and even struck down transparency requirements that allowed the public to know where such contributions were coming from. Now the other shoe is dropping, and the campaign to disable the one institution somewhat capable of opposing the pro-corporate and anti-worker agenda, workers united with the right to bargain together, has begun.
Before the New Deal Wagner Act of 1935 most workers toiled 12-hour days six days a week without benefits for starvation wages. Once the right to organize and bargain was enshrined and federally protected, America developed the largest middle class in the world and became the most broadly prosperous nation on earth.
But corporate America has never been happy with having to share a reasonable portion of profits with the help. They and their Republican partners have always looked forward to the day when such rights could be rolled back and the plutocratic days of the Gilded Age restored. If Walker and his legislators are successful, more such efforts will rapidly get under way in other states. Ohio and Tennessee are two of the first likely targets. The conservative court has opened the floodgates to corporate cash inundating the election process, to the great advantage of the Republican Party. If that party were also able to destroy the union movement, they would thereby eliminate the main countervailing funding source that supports the Democrats.
These developments are profoundly threatening to the well-being of the American people. A great deal hangs in the balance in Wisconsin over the next few days and weeks. If rights can actually be taken away from people it bodes most ill for the future prosperity and liberty of America's hard-pressed middle class. We'll see what fight still resides in the hearts of the descendants of Fighting Bob La Follette in the Cheese State.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)