Many observers have reported on a growing sense of economic anxiety among middle class Americans. Surveys tell us they feel the nation is "on the wrong track" by margins of three to one. Consumer confidence indicators show pessimism at the highest levels in nearly thirty years. For the first time since the Great Depression there is a negative savings rate in the U.S., which is to say that average Americans are spending more than they earn and simply piling up debt.
These conditions go beyond the current slowdown or possible recession, whichever the final statistics officially determine it to be. Instead they appear to be part of an overall squeeze that has been building since the mid 1970s. It is not just a perception. The American middle class is in trouble-deep trouble.
In an important analysis in the Financial Times of London, "America's Middle Classes Are No Longer Coping," of January 29, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes, "The fact is, middle-class families have exhausted the coping mechanisms they have used for more than three decades to get by on median wages that are barely higher than they were in 1970, adjusted for inflation. Male wages today are in fact lower than they were then: the income of a young man in his 30s is now 12 per cent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Yet for years now, America's middle class has lived beyond its pay cheque. Middle-class lifestyles have flourished even though median wages have barely budged. That is ending and Americans are beginning to feel the consequences."
I find my community college students stunned to learn that from the 1950s-1970s it was customary for even blue collar American families to afford a home based on the earnings of one income. Judging from the conditions that have prevailed their entire lives this is inconceivable to them. Even with two incomes, home foreclosures are at record highs, millions are being priced out of health coverage, income and asset inequity are the greatest since the 1920s and the affordability of a four-year college education-the surest ticket into the middle class-continues to grow beyond the reach of more millions every year.
Americans have tried three successive strategies to stave off inexorable decline in their standard of living. Reich explains, "The first coping mechanism was moving more women into paid work. The percentage of American working mothers with school-age children has almost doubled since 1970 - from 38 per cent to close to 70 per cent. But we reached the limit to how many mothers could maintain paying jobs."
Yet things continued to tighten. "We turned to a second coping mechanism. When families could not paddle any harder, they started paddling longer. The typical American now works two weeks more each year than 30 years ago. Compared with any other advanced nation we are veritable workaholics, putting in 350 more hours a year than the average European, more even than the notoriously industrious Japanese."
Not even that was enough. "As the tide of economic necessity continued to rise, we turned to the third coping mechanism. We began to borrow, big time. With housing prices rising briskly through the 1990s and even faster between 2002 and 2006, we turned our homes into piggy banks through home equity loans. Americans got nearly $250 billion worth of home equity every quarter in second mortgages and refinancings. That is nearly 10 per cent of disposable income. With credit cards raining down like manna, we bought plasma television sets, new appliances, vacations. With dollars artificially high because foreigners continued to hold them even as the nation sank deeper into debt, we summoned inexpensive goods and services from the rest of the world. But this final coping mechanism can no longer keep us going, either. The era of easy money is over. With the bursting of the housing bubble, home equity is drying up."
With housing prices rising much faster than incomes, there came the inevitable point at which most people could no longer afford to buy homes at these inflated prices. "As Moody's reported recently, defaults on home equity loans have surged to the highest level this decade. Car and credit card debt is next. Personal bankruptcies rose 48 per cent in first half of 2007, probably even more in the second half, which means a wave of defaults on consumer loans. Meanwhile, as foreigners begin shifting out of dollars, we will no longer have access to cheap foreign goods and services."
Reich summarizes: "In short, the anxiety gripping the middle class is not simply a product of the current economic slowdown. The underlying problem began around 1970. Any presidential candidate seeking to address it will have to think bigger than bailing out lenders and borrowers, or stimulating the economy with tax cuts and spending increases. Most Americans are still not prospering in the high-technology, global economy that emerged three decades ago. Almost all the benefits of economic growth since then have gone to a small number of people at the very top." (emphasis added).
With an eye toward the 2008 election, Reich advises, "The candidate who acknowledges this and comes up with ways not just to stimulate the economy but also to boost wages - through, say, a more progressive tax, stronger unions and, over the longer term, better schools for children from lower-income families and better access to higher education - will have a good chance of winning over America's increasingly anxious voters."
To this I would add the effects of soaring energy costs. This long period of pain began with the first energy shocks: the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979, two events that led to the effective consolidation of the OPEC oil cartel. Much of the earlier prosperity was fueled by dirt cheap energy. It is imperative that we pursue energy independence, particularly with renewable sources, as though our economic future depended on it. It does.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Democratic Debate #19
Tonight's CNN/Univision debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was the nineteenth for the Democratic contenders and the second in which they were the only two participants. The race's dynamics have drastically changed since the series began. Sen. Clinton took the stage in Austin tonight at a point where she had to force a major turn in the campaign's momentum to hang on to her remaining hopes.
This she was unable to do. While she may have won the debate narrowly on points, the overall outcome was a wash. In an interplay that was largely civil, Obama effectively parried Clinton's points on health care, negotiations with hostile leaders, the economy and his fitness as commander in chief.
As always, Clinton displayed her command of policy. For his part, Obama continued to improve in that arena. He comes across as more confident and believably presidential as the campaign goes on. He has grown during this process.
A striking facet of the evening was how little the two disagree on most of the issues. On such matters as Iraq, the economy, tax policy, immigration and foreign affairs in general there is but little daylight between them. It portends well for Party unity in the general election; there appears to be a solid consensus among Democrats about what they believe and will run on.
That leaves the intangibles as the deciding factor in this race, and that is why Obama has seized the lead. He exudes vision and the appeal of a people power movement to energize the citizenry against the interests opposing the changes Democrats and many independents want. Clinton does best when she lets her emotional commitment to her causes shine through. For some reason, those moments have been few in this campaign. I got the impression she ought to have been portraying herself as a fighter all along. It's probably too late for that now.
Both impressed me as outstanding candidates who could make excellent presidents. In probably her finest moment, Clinton closed at debate's end by saying, "No matter what happens I am proud to be here with Barack Obama." As they reached over to smilingly shake hands she mentioned a soldier she had met who had lost most of his face to a roadside bomb. She continued, "But you know, we (she and Obama) are going to be fine. We have the support of many family and friends. I hope we we will be able to say the same thing about the American people. That's what this election should be about." The friendly gesture and salute to the opponent who appears poised to wrest away a nomination most had conceded was hers, her refocusing away from self and to the needs of the American people, and the almost wistful acceptance of the likely fate of her life's mission all combined to bring down the house. It struck me as by far the classiest thing she has ever done.
This she was unable to do. While she may have won the debate narrowly on points, the overall outcome was a wash. In an interplay that was largely civil, Obama effectively parried Clinton's points on health care, negotiations with hostile leaders, the economy and his fitness as commander in chief.
As always, Clinton displayed her command of policy. For his part, Obama continued to improve in that arena. He comes across as more confident and believably presidential as the campaign goes on. He has grown during this process.
A striking facet of the evening was how little the two disagree on most of the issues. On such matters as Iraq, the economy, tax policy, immigration and foreign affairs in general there is but little daylight between them. It portends well for Party unity in the general election; there appears to be a solid consensus among Democrats about what they believe and will run on.
That leaves the intangibles as the deciding factor in this race, and that is why Obama has seized the lead. He exudes vision and the appeal of a people power movement to energize the citizenry against the interests opposing the changes Democrats and many independents want. Clinton does best when she lets her emotional commitment to her causes shine through. For some reason, those moments have been few in this campaign. I got the impression she ought to have been portraying herself as a fighter all along. It's probably too late for that now.
Both impressed me as outstanding candidates who could make excellent presidents. In probably her finest moment, Clinton closed at debate's end by saying, "No matter what happens I am proud to be here with Barack Obama." As they reached over to smilingly shake hands she mentioned a soldier she had met who had lost most of his face to a roadside bomb. She continued, "But you know, we (she and Obama) are going to be fine. We have the support of many family and friends. I hope we we will be able to say the same thing about the American people. That's what this election should be about." The friendly gesture and salute to the opponent who appears poised to wrest away a nomination most had conceded was hers, her refocusing away from self and to the needs of the American people, and the almost wistful acceptance of the likely fate of her life's mission all combined to bring down the house. It struck me as by far the classiest thing she has ever done.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Clinton on the Ropes
Richard Adams, writing in the Manchester (U.K.) Guardian, made a persuasive case today in explaining the Clinton campaign's descent into desperate straits. He attributed it to strategic miscalculation and lack of organizational foresight.
The big Super Tuesday primary elections were held on February 5. The titanic clash in 22 states produced a delegate draw, a virtual dead heat between the two democratic frontrunners. The next day Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million-a tacit admission that her team had shot the wad on Super Tuesday, expected a knockout victory, and had neither thought about nor prepared for what might come next.
The Barack Obama campaign had meanwhile been busy opening field offices and running ads in the upcoming battlegrounds: Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska, Maine, and the Potomac primaries. Caught flatfooted, the Clinton team was beaten to the punch in state after state. Contests that should have been close, such as Maine, Virginia, and most recently Wisconsin, weren't. The Obama ground teams were there first in every case; the Clinton effort gave every indication of not having expected a contest in any of these places. The result has been a 10-0 winning streak for Obama that has left Clinton facing daunting odds of catching up in the delegate count.
Even today, Obama's organization concedes nothing. Both sides are making maximum efforts in delegate-rich Texas and Ohio, which vote March 4. The difference is that Vermont and Rhode Island also vote that day. Obama has four field offices up and running in Vermont; Hillary Clinton's campaign has none. True, Vermont is a small prize compared to Texas and Ohio. But a small professional organization in a small state can make a big difference. As an electoral strategy Obama has made the most of winning big in a lot of small states and losing close in the few big ones. Like an inexperienced boxer, the Clinton campaign walks into that same punch in every round.
The organizational facts on the ground, the smooth, well-thought-out nuts and bolts operations directed by David Axelrod, and the repeated inability of the Clinton forces to learn from their mistakes and plan ahead do much to obviate Clinton's central campaign pitch: that she is the experienced, savvy, competent leader who can get things done. What we have seen since the race hung in the balance two weeks ago points instead to Barack Obama as that candidate.
The big Super Tuesday primary elections were held on February 5. The titanic clash in 22 states produced a delegate draw, a virtual dead heat between the two democratic frontrunners. The next day Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million-a tacit admission that her team had shot the wad on Super Tuesday, expected a knockout victory, and had neither thought about nor prepared for what might come next.
The Barack Obama campaign had meanwhile been busy opening field offices and running ads in the upcoming battlegrounds: Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska, Maine, and the Potomac primaries. Caught flatfooted, the Clinton team was beaten to the punch in state after state. Contests that should have been close, such as Maine, Virginia, and most recently Wisconsin, weren't. The Obama ground teams were there first in every case; the Clinton effort gave every indication of not having expected a contest in any of these places. The result has been a 10-0 winning streak for Obama that has left Clinton facing daunting odds of catching up in the delegate count.
Even today, Obama's organization concedes nothing. Both sides are making maximum efforts in delegate-rich Texas and Ohio, which vote March 4. The difference is that Vermont and Rhode Island also vote that day. Obama has four field offices up and running in Vermont; Hillary Clinton's campaign has none. True, Vermont is a small prize compared to Texas and Ohio. But a small professional organization in a small state can make a big difference. As an electoral strategy Obama has made the most of winning big in a lot of small states and losing close in the few big ones. Like an inexperienced boxer, the Clinton campaign walks into that same punch in every round.
The organizational facts on the ground, the smooth, well-thought-out nuts and bolts operations directed by David Axelrod, and the repeated inability of the Clinton forces to learn from their mistakes and plan ahead do much to obviate Clinton's central campaign pitch: that she is the experienced, savvy, competent leader who can get things done. What we have seen since the race hung in the balance two weeks ago points instead to Barack Obama as that candidate.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Obama on the Threshold
Barack Obama moved closer to the Democratic nomination for president today with a substantial victory in the Wisconsin primary. He should further extend his delegate lead when results from the Hawaii caucuses come in. It isn't over yet, but the fat lady is running through her warmup exercises.
It seems more and more as though Hillary Clinton's coalition is starting to come apart. She barely won among women. She lost among whites. Her deficit among men continues to widen. Obama split the vote among working class whites. It's getting past demographics and looks a lot more like an incoming tide; all groups are moving toward Obama.
The math says Clinton must win 58% of the remaining pledged delegates, and that's a tall order. Given that some upcoming states give Obama a clear advantage (Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina for instance) that means Clinton will need to take 60-40 splits at least in her projected big three of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. This kind of scenario grows more remote by the day.
Obama now leads by about 140 pledged delegates. Clinton leads by about 70 among superdelegates who have declared a preference. If Obama winds up ahead in pledged delegates after all states have voted, as seems extremely likely, it will be nearly impossible for the superdelegates to overturn that verdict. Remember that most of them are elected officials who would have to face the anger of the voters for doing so. And about 400 of them are still sitting on the fence. They'll go for whomever is ahead come convention time.
The only other wild cards in the mix are Florida and Michigan. Both would have to come up with a new selection process for seating their delegations. The case could be made to seat Florida's delegation as is, since Obama was on the ballot. The Obama side would oppose that, since no one was allowed to campaign (and since he lost by 50-30.) Michigan would be even more problematical, since Obama was not even on the ballot there. I have heard that holding new elections in the two states would cost $10 million. That is money the state parties do not have. It would be cheaper to hold caucuses, but given Obama's strong past results in caucuses you could expect the Clinton side to oppose that vigorously. This is a drama that will play out as Clinton's position becomes ever more precarious, but the results on March 4 will do much to decide the issue.
Even the Clinton campaign has said they will need to carry Texas and Ohio handily. If they do not it will be the final evidence that her star is falling and Obama's rising. The superdelegates, under the public encouragement of party elders such as Al Gore, will move to embrace the primary leader, and Barack Obama will proceed to the nomination. Hillary Clinton's once seemingly inevitable nomination will have been upset by Obama's message of change.
This is all rather ironic. After all, Hillary Clinton has been an agent of change her entire public life. But Obama's campaign has been too good and too attuned to this year's message. Her emphasis on experience allowed Obama to take the change mantle. He stuck to that message through thick and thin and now he is reaping the rewards. It is really not that Clinton has lost the confidence of Democratic voters. She remains popular with them. She draws crowds of 5,000 to 6,000 people, high by primary standards, and four to five times what John McCain draws. She got more votes in Wisconsin by herself than the entire Republican field. But Obama pulls in 10,000 to 20,000 at his events and outpolled her 58-41.
Her last chance may be an Obama blunder of epic proportions in Thursday's debate. Don't count on it. McCain has already begun previewing his general election strategy, referring to his great experience and chiding the opposing party for being "eloquent but empty." We see what the experience and skepticism of idealism strategy has done for Hillary Clinton. It's hard to believe Sen. McCain is going to try to run on that against Barack Obama, too. This just gets more interesting all the time.
It seems more and more as though Hillary Clinton's coalition is starting to come apart. She barely won among women. She lost among whites. Her deficit among men continues to widen. Obama split the vote among working class whites. It's getting past demographics and looks a lot more like an incoming tide; all groups are moving toward Obama.
The math says Clinton must win 58% of the remaining pledged delegates, and that's a tall order. Given that some upcoming states give Obama a clear advantage (Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina for instance) that means Clinton will need to take 60-40 splits at least in her projected big three of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. This kind of scenario grows more remote by the day.
Obama now leads by about 140 pledged delegates. Clinton leads by about 70 among superdelegates who have declared a preference. If Obama winds up ahead in pledged delegates after all states have voted, as seems extremely likely, it will be nearly impossible for the superdelegates to overturn that verdict. Remember that most of them are elected officials who would have to face the anger of the voters for doing so. And about 400 of them are still sitting on the fence. They'll go for whomever is ahead come convention time.
The only other wild cards in the mix are Florida and Michigan. Both would have to come up with a new selection process for seating their delegations. The case could be made to seat Florida's delegation as is, since Obama was on the ballot. The Obama side would oppose that, since no one was allowed to campaign (and since he lost by 50-30.) Michigan would be even more problematical, since Obama was not even on the ballot there. I have heard that holding new elections in the two states would cost $10 million. That is money the state parties do not have. It would be cheaper to hold caucuses, but given Obama's strong past results in caucuses you could expect the Clinton side to oppose that vigorously. This is a drama that will play out as Clinton's position becomes ever more precarious, but the results on March 4 will do much to decide the issue.
Even the Clinton campaign has said they will need to carry Texas and Ohio handily. If they do not it will be the final evidence that her star is falling and Obama's rising. The superdelegates, under the public encouragement of party elders such as Al Gore, will move to embrace the primary leader, and Barack Obama will proceed to the nomination. Hillary Clinton's once seemingly inevitable nomination will have been upset by Obama's message of change.
This is all rather ironic. After all, Hillary Clinton has been an agent of change her entire public life. But Obama's campaign has been too good and too attuned to this year's message. Her emphasis on experience allowed Obama to take the change mantle. He stuck to that message through thick and thin and now he is reaping the rewards. It is really not that Clinton has lost the confidence of Democratic voters. She remains popular with them. She draws crowds of 5,000 to 6,000 people, high by primary standards, and four to five times what John McCain draws. She got more votes in Wisconsin by herself than the entire Republican field. But Obama pulls in 10,000 to 20,000 at his events and outpolled her 58-41.
Her last chance may be an Obama blunder of epic proportions in Thursday's debate. Don't count on it. McCain has already begun previewing his general election strategy, referring to his great experience and chiding the opposing party for being "eloquent but empty." We see what the experience and skepticism of idealism strategy has done for Hillary Clinton. It's hard to believe Sen. McCain is going to try to run on that against Barack Obama, too. This just gets more interesting all the time.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Solving Immigration
There are an approximately 12 million immigrants in the United States who have not been admitted through the normal immigration and naturalization procedures. An estimated 400,000 to 700,000 more arrive every year, compared with about 800,000 who enter legally. Most Americans see this as a problem. Many are even hysterical about it. It should be pointed out that these 12 million represent 4% of the U.S. population. By way of comparison, the 1920 census found that 58% of the residents of all American cities of 100,000 or more were foreign-born. So today's figures are in fact very mild by historical standards. Even so, it is an issue of concern and should be dealt with.
The debate over what to do about it has been dominated by extremists on the one hand who would like to see the lot of them rounded up and deported and extremists on the other hand who feel all who wish to come to America should be welcomed with open arms. Currently the deportation group has by far the upper hand politically, but the welcome group has the upper hand de facto.
Both positions are complete nonsense, of course. A reasonable approach based on the national interest and humanitarian morality must take a set of reality-based facts and principles into account. Here are a few of them.
The United States has the right to control its borders and determine who gets in and who does not. The American economy requires the services of these immigrants. It is in the national interest that immigrant labor does not displace citizen labor, that all residents have access to health care and education, that they are identifiable persons, and that they not become a permanent underclass in American society. All these objectives can be met by establishing a set of practical and reasonable processes.
The first goal requires firm security at the borders. This is indeed essential, and it is as far as many of the anti-immigrant extremists go. While this is necessary it must be recognized that no such system will ever be effective by itself. The borders and seacoasts are too long, and they are not the only ways people enter the country. Many enter legally at ports of entry by land, air and sea as tourists, students or on business and simply overstay their visas and never leave. The 9-11 hijackers were all here legally, for instance.
If we are serious about getting a handle on the issue there must be tamper-proof identification cards. These must include those for citizens, legal resident non-citizens and temporary visitors. It must be made impossible for people to function for long in the United States without them. There must be deterrent penalties for those who hire, sell property, extend credit, provide rental cars, book transportation, rent hotel rooms and so on to those who cannot establish a legal right to be in the U.S. Some will cry "police state" at this practice, but the issue cannot be dealt with otherwise. Almost all residents have a government-issued ID already, whether it be a driver's license or a social security card and number.
The labor department should compile periodic assessments of how many and what types of workers are needed and must communicate the specifics to immigration authorities. Immigration should then issue that many and type of temporary worker cards with tamper-proof IDs that are valid for a stated time period to that many workers. Here in California's San Joaquin Valley the harvest cannot be brought in without guest workers. It is a fool's game to do as we do now by trying to stop them at the border while leaving agriculture no choice but to hire them if they can make it in. The current system is grossly inefficient, not to mention degrading and sometimes life-threatening to the immigrants. Transportation ought to be furnished to the guest workers to and from their places of employment.
Those non-citizens who are currently in the United States, are self-supporting or dependents of those who are, and have no serious criminal record must be allowed to stay. This, I know, infuriates the anti-immigrant set, but there is no practical alternative. It is simply not possible to locate and deport 12 million people. It's not happening. The antis must come to grips with reality, and politicians have to stand up to them. 75% of the American people agree that a mass deportation of all illegals is impractical. Only 16% think otherwise. Government leaders must find the courage to stand with rationality and not with the 16% who scream the loudest. Why can't it be done?
For one thing, it is beyond our logistical capacity. For another, to attempt to do so would cripple the American economy which depends on their labor. The oft-repeated myth that they are all here to get welfare is malarkey. Hispanic males have the highest workforce participation of any subgroup in American society. Finally, it would precipitate a human rights calamity. 12 million people would go underground like hunted animals or like the Jews of World War II Europe. Families would be torn apart or children who are American citizens would be sent to foreign lands they have never lived in. Many of the deported would not be able to find a job in impoverished third-world countries and would likely starve. It's not happening and will never happen. Anti-immigrant extremists are going to have to get over it.
So if they are staying, and they are, they must become eligible for services such as health care, education, driver's licenses, and so on. Public health, preventing the establishment of a caste of helots in an egalitarian society and law enforcement imperatives necessitate it. To do otherwise would also be an egregious moral injustice. Those who are here, self-supporting and law-abiding and want to stay must be issued ID cards with a path to permanent residency and citizenship if they learn English and remain productive members of society. Period.
It's high time to end the ugly and emotion-fueled immigration conundrum. With firm border enforcement, a tamper-proof ID, serious penalties for hiring the undocumented and a rational procedure for anticipating and admitting the proper number of immigrants legally, the issue can be resolved.
The debate over what to do about it has been dominated by extremists on the one hand who would like to see the lot of them rounded up and deported and extremists on the other hand who feel all who wish to come to America should be welcomed with open arms. Currently the deportation group has by far the upper hand politically, but the welcome group has the upper hand de facto.
Both positions are complete nonsense, of course. A reasonable approach based on the national interest and humanitarian morality must take a set of reality-based facts and principles into account. Here are a few of them.
The United States has the right to control its borders and determine who gets in and who does not. The American economy requires the services of these immigrants. It is in the national interest that immigrant labor does not displace citizen labor, that all residents have access to health care and education, that they are identifiable persons, and that they not become a permanent underclass in American society. All these objectives can be met by establishing a set of practical and reasonable processes.
The first goal requires firm security at the borders. This is indeed essential, and it is as far as many of the anti-immigrant extremists go. While this is necessary it must be recognized that no such system will ever be effective by itself. The borders and seacoasts are too long, and they are not the only ways people enter the country. Many enter legally at ports of entry by land, air and sea as tourists, students or on business and simply overstay their visas and never leave. The 9-11 hijackers were all here legally, for instance.
If we are serious about getting a handle on the issue there must be tamper-proof identification cards. These must include those for citizens, legal resident non-citizens and temporary visitors. It must be made impossible for people to function for long in the United States without them. There must be deterrent penalties for those who hire, sell property, extend credit, provide rental cars, book transportation, rent hotel rooms and so on to those who cannot establish a legal right to be in the U.S. Some will cry "police state" at this practice, but the issue cannot be dealt with otherwise. Almost all residents have a government-issued ID already, whether it be a driver's license or a social security card and number.
The labor department should compile periodic assessments of how many and what types of workers are needed and must communicate the specifics to immigration authorities. Immigration should then issue that many and type of temporary worker cards with tamper-proof IDs that are valid for a stated time period to that many workers. Here in California's San Joaquin Valley the harvest cannot be brought in without guest workers. It is a fool's game to do as we do now by trying to stop them at the border while leaving agriculture no choice but to hire them if they can make it in. The current system is grossly inefficient, not to mention degrading and sometimes life-threatening to the immigrants. Transportation ought to be furnished to the guest workers to and from their places of employment.
Those non-citizens who are currently in the United States, are self-supporting or dependents of those who are, and have no serious criminal record must be allowed to stay. This, I know, infuriates the anti-immigrant set, but there is no practical alternative. It is simply not possible to locate and deport 12 million people. It's not happening. The antis must come to grips with reality, and politicians have to stand up to them. 75% of the American people agree that a mass deportation of all illegals is impractical. Only 16% think otherwise. Government leaders must find the courage to stand with rationality and not with the 16% who scream the loudest. Why can't it be done?
For one thing, it is beyond our logistical capacity. For another, to attempt to do so would cripple the American economy which depends on their labor. The oft-repeated myth that they are all here to get welfare is malarkey. Hispanic males have the highest workforce participation of any subgroup in American society. Finally, it would precipitate a human rights calamity. 12 million people would go underground like hunted animals or like the Jews of World War II Europe. Families would be torn apart or children who are American citizens would be sent to foreign lands they have never lived in. Many of the deported would not be able to find a job in impoverished third-world countries and would likely starve. It's not happening and will never happen. Anti-immigrant extremists are going to have to get over it.
So if they are staying, and they are, they must become eligible for services such as health care, education, driver's licenses, and so on. Public health, preventing the establishment of a caste of helots in an egalitarian society and law enforcement imperatives necessitate it. To do otherwise would also be an egregious moral injustice. Those who are here, self-supporting and law-abiding and want to stay must be issued ID cards with a path to permanent residency and citizenship if they learn English and remain productive members of society. Period.
It's high time to end the ugly and emotion-fueled immigration conundrum. With firm border enforcement, a tamper-proof ID, serious penalties for hiring the undocumented and a rational procedure for anticipating and admitting the proper number of immigrants legally, the issue can be resolved.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
How McCain Won
Last summer John McCain's campaign was left for dead. Today, after taking the winner-take-all Virginia Primary, along with Maryland and the District of Columbia, he stands on the verge of gaining the Republican nomination for president. The venerable candidate, so short of funds he had to mothball his spacious motor home for a van, and whose senior brain trust had begun fleeing his sinking campaign in droves, will soon eliminate his last remaining serious challenger and lead his party into the general election. It's one of the great political comeback stories in recent memory. How it happened can be summed up in four words: Thompson, Huckabee, Giuliani and time. The great might-have-been is Mitt Romney.
Romney was a formidable candidate. He had good looks and an unbroken record of effectiveness in private business, the Olympic Games and as Governor of Massachusetts. There has never been the slightest hint of personal scandal about him. On top of that he had nearly limitless funds to commit to the race. Romney crafted a winning strategy against the projected field. He would run to the right of McCain and Rudy Giuliani and slightly to the left of Bible Belt social conservatives Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee. McCain and Giuliani would split the moderate vote to his left. Thompson and Huckabee would split the conservative vote to his right. Romney would have the 35% of moderate conservatives in the middle all to himself while the other four came in at 15% each. Ron Paul and arch-conservatives Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo would siphon up the rest. It was a good strategy. Then everything fell apart for him and into the waiting arms of John McCain.
McCain's first break came with the entry of Fred Thompson into the contest, if it can be characterized as such. After waiting so long to get in that much of the early enthusiasm for drafting him had dissipated, Thompson proved an absolute flop on the campaign trail. With his lackluster performances and paucity of message he could have been dubbed the Sominex candidate.
This opened the door for Huckabee. With no competition for the social conservative vote, Huckabee quickly gobbled up the lion's share of it and won the opening round at the Iowa caucuses. Speaking like the affable Baptist preacher he once was, Huckabee could relate to born-agains in the images and terminologies they knew and loved. He not only absorbed the predicted Thompson vote but ate into Romney's right flank. Romney began repositioning himself as a true dyed-in-the-wool conservative to fend off this encroachment.
McCain's next break was the implosion of Rudy Giuliani. Leading in national polls into early December, Giuliani's support proved to be of the "mile wide and inch deep" variety. Though hurt by allegations of spending city funds for the security of his then-mistress, Giuliani's difficulty was more basic than that. His real problem was that the more voters saw him the less they liked him. The abrasive New Yorker seemed to rub everybody the wrong way. His numbers dropped faster than a Buffalo thermometer in January. With no competition for the moderate vote, McCain grabbed Rudy's will o' the wisp adherents. With Romney's fire directed now at Huckabee, McCain began making unopposed inroads into Romney's left flank as well. McCain won the New Hampshire Primary. Romney was now trapped between the unified left and right wings of the party. Faced with a Faustian choice, he decided to take out the upstart preacher first and go after McCain once that was done. He never got the chance. Huckabee's bloc had solidified and could not be budged. Once Romney's moderate support began defecting to McCain he went after the Arizonan, but by then it was too late. On Super Tuesday Huckabee ran wild in the South and McCain swept California and the big states of the Northeast. Romney's success in Massachusetts and the Mountain West wasn't enough. He was done.
McCain's last ally was time. Enough of it had elapsed to take the sting out of some of the pre-campaign positions he had taken that rankled conservatives. Conservative anger based on his voting against the Bush tax cuts, supporting McCain-Kennedy-Bush immigration reform and McCain-Feingold campaign reform had receded just enough that Huckabee couldn't stop him far from the South. Enough of it had elapsed to make his support for the Iraq surge seem providential to most Republicans. And too little of it remained for the cash-strapped Huckabee to overcome the delegate lead McCain had amassed in his big winner-take all victories.
Thus reads the remarkable story of John McCain's improbable march to the nomination in 2008. He may go on to make history as the oldest president elected to a first term. But whether or not he does he has already made history in a primary season the like of which may not be seen again.
Romney was a formidable candidate. He had good looks and an unbroken record of effectiveness in private business, the Olympic Games and as Governor of Massachusetts. There has never been the slightest hint of personal scandal about him. On top of that he had nearly limitless funds to commit to the race. Romney crafted a winning strategy against the projected field. He would run to the right of McCain and Rudy Giuliani and slightly to the left of Bible Belt social conservatives Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee. McCain and Giuliani would split the moderate vote to his left. Thompson and Huckabee would split the conservative vote to his right. Romney would have the 35% of moderate conservatives in the middle all to himself while the other four came in at 15% each. Ron Paul and arch-conservatives Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo would siphon up the rest. It was a good strategy. Then everything fell apart for him and into the waiting arms of John McCain.
McCain's first break came with the entry of Fred Thompson into the contest, if it can be characterized as such. After waiting so long to get in that much of the early enthusiasm for drafting him had dissipated, Thompson proved an absolute flop on the campaign trail. With his lackluster performances and paucity of message he could have been dubbed the Sominex candidate.
This opened the door for Huckabee. With no competition for the social conservative vote, Huckabee quickly gobbled up the lion's share of it and won the opening round at the Iowa caucuses. Speaking like the affable Baptist preacher he once was, Huckabee could relate to born-agains in the images and terminologies they knew and loved. He not only absorbed the predicted Thompson vote but ate into Romney's right flank. Romney began repositioning himself as a true dyed-in-the-wool conservative to fend off this encroachment.
McCain's next break was the implosion of Rudy Giuliani. Leading in national polls into early December, Giuliani's support proved to be of the "mile wide and inch deep" variety. Though hurt by allegations of spending city funds for the security of his then-mistress, Giuliani's difficulty was more basic than that. His real problem was that the more voters saw him the less they liked him. The abrasive New Yorker seemed to rub everybody the wrong way. His numbers dropped faster than a Buffalo thermometer in January. With no competition for the moderate vote, McCain grabbed Rudy's will o' the wisp adherents. With Romney's fire directed now at Huckabee, McCain began making unopposed inroads into Romney's left flank as well. McCain won the New Hampshire Primary. Romney was now trapped between the unified left and right wings of the party. Faced with a Faustian choice, he decided to take out the upstart preacher first and go after McCain once that was done. He never got the chance. Huckabee's bloc had solidified and could not be budged. Once Romney's moderate support began defecting to McCain he went after the Arizonan, but by then it was too late. On Super Tuesday Huckabee ran wild in the South and McCain swept California and the big states of the Northeast. Romney's success in Massachusetts and the Mountain West wasn't enough. He was done.
McCain's last ally was time. Enough of it had elapsed to take the sting out of some of the pre-campaign positions he had taken that rankled conservatives. Conservative anger based on his voting against the Bush tax cuts, supporting McCain-Kennedy-Bush immigration reform and McCain-Feingold campaign reform had receded just enough that Huckabee couldn't stop him far from the South. Enough of it had elapsed to make his support for the Iraq surge seem providential to most Republicans. And too little of it remained for the cash-strapped Huckabee to overcome the delegate lead McCain had amassed in his big winner-take all victories.
Thus reads the remarkable story of John McCain's improbable march to the nomination in 2008. He may go on to make history as the oldest president elected to a first term. But whether or not he does he has already made history in a primary season the like of which may not be seen again.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Iraq: The Elephant in the Living Room
An interesting answer came up when the American people were recently asked in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll what should be done to get the country out of recession. The number one response, named by nearly half the people, was to get the country out of Iraq. Though Iraq is in the news less these days, the American people seem not to have forgotten about it. It's still the largest of elephants in the national living room.
The survey found that 48% offered ending the war as the most important thing we could do to revive an economy that most feel is already in recession. Another 20% said it would help at least somewhat. That adds up to 68% who are worried about the war's economic impact on the country and themsleves. It is instructive that even without a great deal of recent media or political prodding, it is clear the war remains strongly in the people's minds. Other polls show nearly 60% feel the invasion and occupation was a mistake and nearly 70% say the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year. But the economic connection shows people are thinking this through and drawing important conclusions about what the entire Iraqi fiasco means for the country.
The other day I published a list of the direct economic costs of the wars this country has fought, in constant 2007 dollars. Iraq recently moved into second place behind only World War II. The bill is now over $700 billion, and that includes just the appropriations for the war itself. It does not count the costs of caring for wounded veterans here at home, income lost by reservists called up, productivity lost by their businesses or employers due to their absences, mental health costs for the returning soldiers and their families, the increased incidence of suicide, violent crime and alcohol and drug abuse that has begun to be documented among the war's veterans, the opportunity cost of funds spent in Iraq that would otherwise have gone into commercial and consumer activity building the economy here at home and a host of other such indirect costs that together have drained the national coffers more than the war itself.
One study estimated the overall price tag at over $3 trillion. Impossibly high, some say. Perhaps. But just consider one item. The entire $700 billion is borrowed money. At 8% that's $56 billion in interest per year. And it keeps going up. If we spend another $200 billion this year that will not only bring the direct total to $900 billion but will add another $16 billion to next year's interest payment, which will rise to $72 billion per annum. Just the current direct-only figure of $700 billion works out to $2333 per person in the United States. People are thinking, 'If our family of four had our share back that would amount to $9300. How would that affect our financial situation?'
This fall the voters will get a clear choice on what to do next in Iraq. John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate, enthusiastically backs continuing the war. He says we may be there a hundred years. His appeals are directed to pride and fear. The Democratic candidates want to, "wave the white flag of surrender," he says, as though there is dishonor in turning from self-destructive folly to sensible thinking. "If we leave Iraq, al-Qaeda will follow us home and attack us here," he says, as though the presence of 200,000 American troops and mercenaries in Iraq makes America more secure when the al-Qaeda leadership is in Pakistan and they have operations in 70 other countries. Rational people realize they will try to attack us here whether we have foolishly tied the bulk of our ground forces down in Iraq or not. Discerning people understand that putting our forces in the wrong place actually makes us less able to defend ourselves, not more. And in financial terms, having come to these conclusions the people do not feel we are getting good value for the price this is exacting on our individual and national purses.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say they would begin withdrawing forces from Iraq rapidly following their inauguration. Based on what the people are telling the pollsters this looks like a winning position for the general election. We'll see whether the electorate's disillusionment with the war and rational objections to the premises for its continuation can be overcome by McCain's coming campaign of flag-waving and baseless fearmongering. It will be most instructive to learn whether those old reliable staples of Karl Rove and George Bush still have legs or whether the people, who began to see through the charade before the 2006 congressional elections, have truly broken free of their spell.
The survey found that 48% offered ending the war as the most important thing we could do to revive an economy that most feel is already in recession. Another 20% said it would help at least somewhat. That adds up to 68% who are worried about the war's economic impact on the country and themsleves. It is instructive that even without a great deal of recent media or political prodding, it is clear the war remains strongly in the people's minds. Other polls show nearly 60% feel the invasion and occupation was a mistake and nearly 70% say the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year. But the economic connection shows people are thinking this through and drawing important conclusions about what the entire Iraqi fiasco means for the country.
The other day I published a list of the direct economic costs of the wars this country has fought, in constant 2007 dollars. Iraq recently moved into second place behind only World War II. The bill is now over $700 billion, and that includes just the appropriations for the war itself. It does not count the costs of caring for wounded veterans here at home, income lost by reservists called up, productivity lost by their businesses or employers due to their absences, mental health costs for the returning soldiers and their families, the increased incidence of suicide, violent crime and alcohol and drug abuse that has begun to be documented among the war's veterans, the opportunity cost of funds spent in Iraq that would otherwise have gone into commercial and consumer activity building the economy here at home and a host of other such indirect costs that together have drained the national coffers more than the war itself.
One study estimated the overall price tag at over $3 trillion. Impossibly high, some say. Perhaps. But just consider one item. The entire $700 billion is borrowed money. At 8% that's $56 billion in interest per year. And it keeps going up. If we spend another $200 billion this year that will not only bring the direct total to $900 billion but will add another $16 billion to next year's interest payment, which will rise to $72 billion per annum. Just the current direct-only figure of $700 billion works out to $2333 per person in the United States. People are thinking, 'If our family of four had our share back that would amount to $9300. How would that affect our financial situation?'
This fall the voters will get a clear choice on what to do next in Iraq. John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate, enthusiastically backs continuing the war. He says we may be there a hundred years. His appeals are directed to pride and fear. The Democratic candidates want to, "wave the white flag of surrender," he says, as though there is dishonor in turning from self-destructive folly to sensible thinking. "If we leave Iraq, al-Qaeda will follow us home and attack us here," he says, as though the presence of 200,000 American troops and mercenaries in Iraq makes America more secure when the al-Qaeda leadership is in Pakistan and they have operations in 70 other countries. Rational people realize they will try to attack us here whether we have foolishly tied the bulk of our ground forces down in Iraq or not. Discerning people understand that putting our forces in the wrong place actually makes us less able to defend ourselves, not more. And in financial terms, having come to these conclusions the people do not feel we are getting good value for the price this is exacting on our individual and national purses.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say they would begin withdrawing forces from Iraq rapidly following their inauguration. Based on what the people are telling the pollsters this looks like a winning position for the general election. We'll see whether the electorate's disillusionment with the war and rational objections to the premises for its continuation can be overcome by McCain's coming campaign of flag-waving and baseless fearmongering. It will be most instructive to learn whether those old reliable staples of Karl Rove and George Bush still have legs or whether the people, who began to see through the charade before the 2006 congressional elections, have truly broken free of their spell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)