Results are now in for today's Republican presidential primaries in Mississippi and Alabama. In both races, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum came in first, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich came in a close second and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney came in third, a few percentage points back. Representative Ron Paul finished far back in fourth place with single-digit percentages of the vote in both states. Look up the specific numbers here.
Here's what it means: For Rick Santorum, it is great news. He has now firmly assumed the role of the main conservative alternative to Romney. For Newt Gingrich, the air has officially left his balloon. If the Southern regional candidate cannot win in the South, then what is his rationale for going on? He was close, but in his home region he needed better. Gingrich announced he would stay in the race but we are likely to see his numbers rapidly deflate in upcoming contests. For Mitt Romney it was another opportunity lost. He remains the front runner, but also remains vulnerable. Wins in both Southern states would have basically locked up the nomination for him. A win in one would have put his opponents on life support. Instead, the fight will go on. For Paul, the handwriting is on the wall as he slips into irrelevance.
Even if Gingrich stays in the race, his power to siphon votes away from Santorum, now the Un-romney, will have been severely weakened. Santorum will get a better shot at a true one on one against him next Tuesday in Illinois. A Romney victory would once again fire up his inevitability train and could well lead to putting the nomination effectively in his pocket by mid-April. Romney will outspend Santorum by several magnitudes to one, but the Pennsylvanian will have the heart of the social conservatives. It will be a real showdown on March 20. If Santorum can win, expect panic in the GOP establishment. He came close in Ohio and Michigan, so this is a real possibility with fewer anti-Romney votes being split with Gingrich.
A Santorum victory in Illinois is a real possibility and could well lead to either a wild race to the finish between the two or even a war of attrition in which neither secures the necessary delegates to hold a majority when the party convention opens in Tampa. The first brokered convention since 1952 would certainly be a sight to see, and not one for the squeamish.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
What to Do About Contraceptive Coverage
One of the hot topics in the forefront of current public debate concerns the Affordable Health Care Act's requirement that contraception must be covered in health plans. See the Department of Health and Human Services summary here. While religious bodies that object to contraception are allowed to exempt their ministry employees from this coverage, the Obama Administration has ruled that the Act requiresthat employees not directly involved in the ministry of the body, such as employees of a church-owned hospital, must be covered. In order to keep such religious bodies from having to pay premiums for services they do not agree with, health insurers have said they will be happy to include the coverage free. Insurance companies have not made this offer out of charity; it's because paying for birth control pills is a lot cheaper than paying for prenatal care, delivery and health care for a child. But this has not satisfied all the objectors. Let's take a look at the positions.
Opponents see the mandate as an egregious intrusion of government control into the realm of religious free choice. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, decries the requirement on its website under the heading "unconscionable to require citizens to buy contraceptives against their will." They and others see First Amendment ramifications that threaten religious liberty. The Blunt Amendment (Senator Roy Blunt, R-Missouri) to the Health Care Act, which passed the House but was defeated in the Senate, would have allowed any employer to opt out of the mandate on religious, moral or other personally-held grounds.
Supporters see the mandate as providing needed services used by most women, and as a part of the larger issue of women's freedom to make their own decisions. A survey by the Public Religion Research Institute covered in the Washington Post shows the majority of Americans support the mandate, with Catholics supporting it more strongly than the population as a whole. The story points to other findings that 99% of all women and 98% of Catholic women have used artificial contraception at some point in their lives.
Since there are strongly-held principles in apparent conflict here, where should the balance of rights and interests be drawn? It seems to me that the outline of a reasonable and just solution is clear, and it lies in personal choice. To deny a widespread pharmaceutical practice used by virtually every American woman due to the objections of religious bodies smacks not of freedom of religion but of establishment of religion prohibited under the same First Amendment. The statement of the bishops that anyone will be made to "buy contraceptives against their will" is completely wrong. First, the employer will not be buying them. Second, no woman is required to ask for or take them. Only women who ask their doctor for a prescription for birth control pills will get one. The idea that anyone will be forced to ingest birth control pills against her will is a complete invention and red herring.
In this way, the decision is where it belongs: with the patient. Make the coverage available to all. If anyone has a religious or any other objection, she may decline to ask for contraception. But the decision should not be up to her employer, her preacher, her husband or any other person. These may give advice, but as with any other medical decision in a free country, the choice is up to the patient. Picture the shoe on the other foot: Imagine how it would go over if a man had to get permission from his boss in order to buy a condom. If a boss is a Jehovah's Witness should he have the authority to keep any of his employees from getting a blood transfusion when they are bleeding to death? If the boss is a Christian Scientist should he or she be able to deny employees antibiotics when they contract an infection because the boss doesn't believe in them, regardless of what the sufferer believes? Under what principle do we give a person's employer the power to make life and death medical decisions, rather than letting people choose for themselves? When viewed in this light the issue clarifies itself. The mandate to cover everyone and let them decide their own medical needs for themselves is better from a public health perspective and more in accord with American concepts of personal liberty, including religious liberty.
Opponents see the mandate as an egregious intrusion of government control into the realm of religious free choice. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, decries the requirement on its website under the heading "unconscionable to require citizens to buy contraceptives against their will." They and others see First Amendment ramifications that threaten religious liberty. The Blunt Amendment (Senator Roy Blunt, R-Missouri) to the Health Care Act, which passed the House but was defeated in the Senate, would have allowed any employer to opt out of the mandate on religious, moral or other personally-held grounds.
Supporters see the mandate as providing needed services used by most women, and as a part of the larger issue of women's freedom to make their own decisions. A survey by the Public Religion Research Institute covered in the Washington Post shows the majority of Americans support the mandate, with Catholics supporting it more strongly than the population as a whole. The story points to other findings that 99% of all women and 98% of Catholic women have used artificial contraception at some point in their lives.
Since there are strongly-held principles in apparent conflict here, where should the balance of rights and interests be drawn? It seems to me that the outline of a reasonable and just solution is clear, and it lies in personal choice. To deny a widespread pharmaceutical practice used by virtually every American woman due to the objections of religious bodies smacks not of freedom of religion but of establishment of religion prohibited under the same First Amendment. The statement of the bishops that anyone will be made to "buy contraceptives against their will" is completely wrong. First, the employer will not be buying them. Second, no woman is required to ask for or take them. Only women who ask their doctor for a prescription for birth control pills will get one. The idea that anyone will be forced to ingest birth control pills against her will is a complete invention and red herring.
In this way, the decision is where it belongs: with the patient. Make the coverage available to all. If anyone has a religious or any other objection, she may decline to ask for contraception. But the decision should not be up to her employer, her preacher, her husband or any other person. These may give advice, but as with any other medical decision in a free country, the choice is up to the patient. Picture the shoe on the other foot: Imagine how it would go over if a man had to get permission from his boss in order to buy a condom. If a boss is a Jehovah's Witness should he have the authority to keep any of his employees from getting a blood transfusion when they are bleeding to death? If the boss is a Christian Scientist should he or she be able to deny employees antibiotics when they contract an infection because the boss doesn't believe in them, regardless of what the sufferer believes? Under what principle do we give a person's employer the power to make life and death medical decisions, rather than letting people choose for themselves? When viewed in this light the issue clarifies itself. The mandate to cover everyone and let them decide their own medical needs for themselves is better from a public health perspective and more in accord with American concepts of personal liberty, including religious liberty.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Demystifying Syria
Demonstrations for freedom and democracy began in Syria as an outgrowth of last year's "Arab Spring" movement. Syrian demonstrators began taking to the streets in late January 2011 and gathered strength in March, following the successful liberalization movements in Tunisia and Egypt and while the Libyan effort was still underway. While most Americans are aware of the turmoil in Syria, especially now that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is speaking out strongly in favor of the rebels, the overall situation seems rather confusing. There are indeed several levels of complexity, both from the mix of different groups inside Syria and from the intricacies of international politics. I'll try to shed some light on things.
You can learn quite a bit about the country from the U.S. State Department site on Syria. It's strategically important because it is situated on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea next to Israel and Lebanon. It also borders Iraq, Jordan and regional power Turkey. Protests arose in Syria as a result of its repressive governmental regime. Though ostensibly a republic, Syria is in actuality an authoritarian one-party state that has labored under the grip of the Assad family since 1970, when Air Force Colonel and Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad seized power in a coup. The Ba'ath (Arab Socialist Renaissance) Party runs the show, enforced by a security apparatus that operates outside the bounds of the constitutional legal system. Upon Assad's death in 2000 he was succeeded by his Western-educated son Bashar.
There was quite a bit of hope of reform when Bashar took over, given his Western training and public relations charm offensive upon taking over the government. But disapointment in his continuation of police-state ruthlessness combined with economic stagnation and the examples of other Arab people throwing off oppressive regimes finally led to upheaval in Syria. What began as peaceful protests and demonstrations was met by increasingly brutal force from police elements and even the military. Finally, defections from army units by soldiers unwilling to fire on their own people led to an armed resistance to Assad's crackdown. The city of Homs, population 1.7 million, has been surrounded and unceasingly shelled by Syrian Army units for weeks. An estimated 9,000 people have been killed throughout the country by regime forces. See video here.
In addition to the objection to dictatorship and police-state control, religious division is part of the equation in Syria too. Syria is a majority-Muslim nation, and about 74% of the nation's 22.5 million people follow mainline Sunni Islam. Another 10% are Christians. The Assads, however, are members of the secretive Allawi sect, to which about 12% of Syrians adhere. Allawites claim to be Muslims, basing their views on Ali, a cousin of Muhammad from whom the group derives its name, but many Sunnis see them as heretics against traditional Islam. Though Sunnis and Christians are carefully included in the Assad Ba'ath power structure at lower levels, Allawites close to the Assads dominate all the higher echelon posts. A desire to break minority Allawi control of the state is an important contributing factor to the anti-government movement.
The tangled international situation regarding Syria can be confusing as well. Though the Assad regime has been condemned and asked to resign by the Arab League and the United Nations General Assembly and subjected to economic sanctions by the United States and the European Union for its murderous crackdown on its own citizens, Russia and China have used their U.N. Security Council vetoes to prevent U.N. sanctions or possible military intervention. Many wonder why. It is part of a larger power struggle of alignments playing out across the region. As a fellow pariah regime, Syria has allied itself with Iran, providing its services as a conduit of support for the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. Without much oil itself, the Syrian regime felt the need for a wealthy benefactor, and Iran has filled the bill. Cozying up to Iran had already put Syria out of the good graces of the United States and Europe. But what is more, it also incurred the hostility of Sunni Muslim Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Egypt, who not only disagree religiously with Iran's Shia version of Islam but fear Iran's apparent drive to develop a nuclear weapon which could be used to intimidate or even attack them. Arabs also feel no ethnic affinity for Iranians, who are Persians and not Arabs.
Russia and China are so far sticking up for Syria, in a gambit to prevent increasing Western inroads into the Middle East and to try to enhance their own leverage. Part of this is due to Chinese dependence on Iranian oil. But also in the calculation is the thought that if the pro-Iranian Syrian government goes down that could mean another pro-Western nation in the region, isolating Iran and Russian and Chinese influence even further. It wouldn't be surprising to see Sunni arms getting into Syria to aid the rebels soon, perhaps through Jordan. If Turkey were to similarly cooperate it would quickly spell curtains for Assad and his regime--unless Russia and/or China came to his aid. That would be a perilous situation indeed, for it could run the risk of a great-power confrontation.
You can learn quite a bit about the country from the U.S. State Department site on Syria. It's strategically important because it is situated on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea next to Israel and Lebanon. It also borders Iraq, Jordan and regional power Turkey. Protests arose in Syria as a result of its repressive governmental regime. Though ostensibly a republic, Syria is in actuality an authoritarian one-party state that has labored under the grip of the Assad family since 1970, when Air Force Colonel and Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad seized power in a coup. The Ba'ath (Arab Socialist Renaissance) Party runs the show, enforced by a security apparatus that operates outside the bounds of the constitutional legal system. Upon Assad's death in 2000 he was succeeded by his Western-educated son Bashar.
There was quite a bit of hope of reform when Bashar took over, given his Western training and public relations charm offensive upon taking over the government. But disapointment in his continuation of police-state ruthlessness combined with economic stagnation and the examples of other Arab people throwing off oppressive regimes finally led to upheaval in Syria. What began as peaceful protests and demonstrations was met by increasingly brutal force from police elements and even the military. Finally, defections from army units by soldiers unwilling to fire on their own people led to an armed resistance to Assad's crackdown. The city of Homs, population 1.7 million, has been surrounded and unceasingly shelled by Syrian Army units for weeks. An estimated 9,000 people have been killed throughout the country by regime forces. See video here.
In addition to the objection to dictatorship and police-state control, religious division is part of the equation in Syria too. Syria is a majority-Muslim nation, and about 74% of the nation's 22.5 million people follow mainline Sunni Islam. Another 10% are Christians. The Assads, however, are members of the secretive Allawi sect, to which about 12% of Syrians adhere. Allawites claim to be Muslims, basing their views on Ali, a cousin of Muhammad from whom the group derives its name, but many Sunnis see them as heretics against traditional Islam. Though Sunnis and Christians are carefully included in the Assad Ba'ath power structure at lower levels, Allawites close to the Assads dominate all the higher echelon posts. A desire to break minority Allawi control of the state is an important contributing factor to the anti-government movement.
The tangled international situation regarding Syria can be confusing as well. Though the Assad regime has been condemned and asked to resign by the Arab League and the United Nations General Assembly and subjected to economic sanctions by the United States and the European Union for its murderous crackdown on its own citizens, Russia and China have used their U.N. Security Council vetoes to prevent U.N. sanctions or possible military intervention. Many wonder why. It is part of a larger power struggle of alignments playing out across the region. As a fellow pariah regime, Syria has allied itself with Iran, providing its services as a conduit of support for the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. Without much oil itself, the Syrian regime felt the need for a wealthy benefactor, and Iran has filled the bill. Cozying up to Iran had already put Syria out of the good graces of the United States and Europe. But what is more, it also incurred the hostility of Sunni Muslim Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Egypt, who not only disagree religiously with Iran's Shia version of Islam but fear Iran's apparent drive to develop a nuclear weapon which could be used to intimidate or even attack them. Arabs also feel no ethnic affinity for Iranians, who are Persians and not Arabs.
Russia and China are so far sticking up for Syria, in a gambit to prevent increasing Western inroads into the Middle East and to try to enhance their own leverage. Part of this is due to Chinese dependence on Iranian oil. But also in the calculation is the thought that if the pro-Iranian Syrian government goes down that could mean another pro-Western nation in the region, isolating Iran and Russian and Chinese influence even further. It wouldn't be surprising to see Sunni arms getting into Syria to aid the rebels soon, perhaps through Jordan. If Turkey were to similarly cooperate it would quickly spell curtains for Assad and his regime--unless Russia and/or China came to his aid. That would be a perilous situation indeed, for it could run the risk of a great-power confrontation.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Libertarianism
Reader David asked me to comment on libertarianism. I'll first take a look at what libertarianism is and believes and then I'll share my perspectives on its usefulness for our society. You can find a good definition and background explanation of the development of libertarian thought in the WordIQ article here. The Libertarian Party of the United States provides an excellent synopsis of its beliefs on various issues in its 2010 Libertarian Party Platform.
The fundamental idea of libertarianism is, as the word implies, to maximize individual liberty. Libertarians believe that all rights originate with the individual and that collective, national or government entities have no rights or prerogatives. In this view, individuals should enjoy the maximum freedom possible in their economic, personal and private lives to do as they see fit with as little restriction as possible. Basically, everyone should take care of themselves and no one should be obligated to contribute to the welfare of anyone else.
Not all libertarians agree on every detail, but based on the philosophical basis described in the previous paragraph, most libertarians are minarchists, people who believe there should be a government but that its responsibilities should be strictly minimal. The Libertarian Party Platform identifies governmental responsibilities as enforcing property rights and contracts, enforcing laws against force and fraud, and national defense and intelligence.
The 2010 Platform document shows they do not feel that government has legitimate authority to do such things as tax people or regulate the economy, including trade and the prevention of monopolies. They oppose any regulation of immigration or the environment, personal behavior such as drug use or consensual sexual relations, and the institution of a military draft under any circumstances. People's retirement, medical care and education should be their own responsibilities, thus programs such as Social Security, Medicare and the public school systems ought to be abolished.
As most thinking people will ascertain from what they have read so far, libertarianism is a utopian philosophy. It has a total faith in private decision making and none at all in group decision making or in society acting together or though its elected representatives to protect its own rights and interests from individual threats or dangers. Back in 2010 I did one of these blogs ("What Rand Paul Means") on the views of libertarian-leaning Republican Tennessee Senator Rand Paul, relating how in an interview he took issue with such laws as the Civil Rights Act and environmental laws. In his interview, Paul asserted the superiority of property rights over human rights. He said, for example, that a restaurant owner ought to be able to racially discriminate in his own place of business and that BP should have been able to pollute the Gulf of Mexico to its heart's content.
Ron Paul is a Texas Congressman and current Republican Presidential candidate. The father of Rand Paul, Ron is a former Libertarian Party presidential nominee. Much of his support this year has come from younger voters, most of whom are male. I would surmise that libertarianism may have a particular appeal to some younger people because of its simplicity. It is indeed logically consistent. Just take all the controls off everything; there is no need to think about anything except one's own self-interest. And young men, in particular, tend to consider themselves invulnerable. They think they will never be old and sick, or laid off and broke.
The reality, however, is that the libertarian utopian vision is impractical in the extreme. I believe a nation governed under strongly libertarian principles would descend into a hellish chaos. Without counter cyclical policies, recessions would be deeper and last longer. Pollution would rage uncontrolled. Racial, ethnic and gender discrimination would return. A monopoly or syndicalized cartel would soon control every aspect of the economy, pauperizing the citizenry and likely setting up a corporative fascist-style society. Only the wealthy could afford to school their children or medically insure themselves. The elderly and infirm would consequently starve in their hovels and epidemics would rage uncontrolled. The gap between the wealthy few and the desperate many would come to resemble that of France and Russia on the eves of their respective cataclysmic revolutions. The final chapter would, I feel, entail such a revolution happening here.
The fundamental idea of libertarianism is, as the word implies, to maximize individual liberty. Libertarians believe that all rights originate with the individual and that collective, national or government entities have no rights or prerogatives. In this view, individuals should enjoy the maximum freedom possible in their economic, personal and private lives to do as they see fit with as little restriction as possible. Basically, everyone should take care of themselves and no one should be obligated to contribute to the welfare of anyone else.
Not all libertarians agree on every detail, but based on the philosophical basis described in the previous paragraph, most libertarians are minarchists, people who believe there should be a government but that its responsibilities should be strictly minimal. The Libertarian Party Platform identifies governmental responsibilities as enforcing property rights and contracts, enforcing laws against force and fraud, and national defense and intelligence.
The 2010 Platform document shows they do not feel that government has legitimate authority to do such things as tax people or regulate the economy, including trade and the prevention of monopolies. They oppose any regulation of immigration or the environment, personal behavior such as drug use or consensual sexual relations, and the institution of a military draft under any circumstances. People's retirement, medical care and education should be their own responsibilities, thus programs such as Social Security, Medicare and the public school systems ought to be abolished.
As most thinking people will ascertain from what they have read so far, libertarianism is a utopian philosophy. It has a total faith in private decision making and none at all in group decision making or in society acting together or though its elected representatives to protect its own rights and interests from individual threats or dangers. Back in 2010 I did one of these blogs ("What Rand Paul Means") on the views of libertarian-leaning Republican Tennessee Senator Rand Paul, relating how in an interview he took issue with such laws as the Civil Rights Act and environmental laws. In his interview, Paul asserted the superiority of property rights over human rights. He said, for example, that a restaurant owner ought to be able to racially discriminate in his own place of business and that BP should have been able to pollute the Gulf of Mexico to its heart's content.
Ron Paul is a Texas Congressman and current Republican Presidential candidate. The father of Rand Paul, Ron is a former Libertarian Party presidential nominee. Much of his support this year has come from younger voters, most of whom are male. I would surmise that libertarianism may have a particular appeal to some younger people because of its simplicity. It is indeed logically consistent. Just take all the controls off everything; there is no need to think about anything except one's own self-interest. And young men, in particular, tend to consider themselves invulnerable. They think they will never be old and sick, or laid off and broke.
The reality, however, is that the libertarian utopian vision is impractical in the extreme. I believe a nation governed under strongly libertarian principles would descend into a hellish chaos. Without counter cyclical policies, recessions would be deeper and last longer. Pollution would rage uncontrolled. Racial, ethnic and gender discrimination would return. A monopoly or syndicalized cartel would soon control every aspect of the economy, pauperizing the citizenry and likely setting up a corporative fascist-style society. Only the wealthy could afford to school their children or medically insure themselves. The elderly and infirm would consequently starve in their hovels and epidemics would rage uncontrolled. The gap between the wealthy few and the desperate many would come to resemble that of France and Russia on the eves of their respective cataclysmic revolutions. The final chapter would, I feel, entail such a revolution happening here.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Conventioneering in San Diego
Over the weekend of February 10-12 I went to the California Democratic Party Convention in San Diego. I attended as a delegate and also went with nine students of the College of the Sequoias Young Democrats Club. We came down in two vans; two faculty colleagues, Lisa Greer and Sandy Valenzuela, came with us and drove the other van. This was the club's fourth consecutive annual state convention, and mine as well. In a recap today at the club meeting, President Jerry Lopez said the experience helped get him energized and eager to help campaign in 2012 for issues and candidates.
Governor Jerry Brown and Senator Dianne Feinstein represented the voices of experience. Brown understands state government like few others and laid out a clear vision of priorities centered on economic growth, investment in necessary infrastructure and education. He is keenly aware of limits but realizes there are down payments on the future that must be paid. Feinstein was the voice of reason in national affairs. As befits what needs doing in a recession, her focus is jobs now, deficits later.
Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Kamala Harris seemed like the leaders of the future, statewide officers who will be the ones to contend for the top posts when the old guard changes. Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor who was briefly able to legalize gay marriage in the city, has done a great deal of work on a very comprehensive development plan for the state over the next few years. In addition to his strong speaking skills, the ladies never fail to mention his leading-man good looks. Former prosecutor Harris was flush off her tremendous performance in the national negotiations over financial malfeasance. Despite heavy pressure to settle for easy terms, Harris demanded and got a nine fold increase in the penalties assessed to the five biggest banks in the lending and foreclosure crisis, a total of $25 billion, $18 billion of which is coming to California. She gave a rousing speech on consumer protection and income and tax fairness that brought down the house.
U. S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis represented President Obama's administration. She reminded the convention of Obama's many achievements and commitment to keep fighting for initiatives that foster jobs and opportunity. Access to higher education, labor rights, tax policies that incentivize creating and keeping jobs in America were some of her main themes.
It was a long drive but San Diego is a beautiful city and the Young Democrats got to enjoy a rare close-up glimpse of prominent officials, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who pointed out that a gain of 25 seats in the election could once again make her Speaker. The YD's also got to run their own show and held their own convention from 4 to 7 on Saturday night. Besides Jerry, our other attendees were Chelsea Velasquez, Rebecca Salgado, Samuel Diamant, Edith Pedraza, Erin Hitchcock, Jovani Lemus, Evann Peterson and Jonathon Sosa. (Yes, I got those spellings right!) Most remarkable, COS Young Democrats member Louie Campos was named "Democrat of the Year" for California Region 11 (Tulare, Inyo and San Bernardino Counties)! It is great to see our young people take an interest in public affairs and work to make a difference.
Governor Jerry Brown and Senator Dianne Feinstein represented the voices of experience. Brown understands state government like few others and laid out a clear vision of priorities centered on economic growth, investment in necessary infrastructure and education. He is keenly aware of limits but realizes there are down payments on the future that must be paid. Feinstein was the voice of reason in national affairs. As befits what needs doing in a recession, her focus is jobs now, deficits later.
Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Kamala Harris seemed like the leaders of the future, statewide officers who will be the ones to contend for the top posts when the old guard changes. Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor who was briefly able to legalize gay marriage in the city, has done a great deal of work on a very comprehensive development plan for the state over the next few years. In addition to his strong speaking skills, the ladies never fail to mention his leading-man good looks. Former prosecutor Harris was flush off her tremendous performance in the national negotiations over financial malfeasance. Despite heavy pressure to settle for easy terms, Harris demanded and got a nine fold increase in the penalties assessed to the five biggest banks in the lending and foreclosure crisis, a total of $25 billion, $18 billion of which is coming to California. She gave a rousing speech on consumer protection and income and tax fairness that brought down the house.
U. S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis represented President Obama's administration. She reminded the convention of Obama's many achievements and commitment to keep fighting for initiatives that foster jobs and opportunity. Access to higher education, labor rights, tax policies that incentivize creating and keeping jobs in America were some of her main themes.
It was a long drive but San Diego is a beautiful city and the Young Democrats got to enjoy a rare close-up glimpse of prominent officials, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who pointed out that a gain of 25 seats in the election could once again make her Speaker. The YD's also got to run their own show and held their own convention from 4 to 7 on Saturday night. Besides Jerry, our other attendees were Chelsea Velasquez, Rebecca Salgado, Samuel Diamant, Edith Pedraza, Erin Hitchcock, Jovani Lemus, Evann Peterson and Jonathon Sosa. (Yes, I got those spellings right!) Most remarkable, COS Young Democrats member Louie Campos was named "Democrat of the Year" for California Region 11 (Tulare, Inyo and San Bernardino Counties)! It is great to see our young people take an interest in public affairs and work to make a difference.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Romney's Not Very Concerned About the Poor
There's something just not quite right about Mitt Romney. It's true he has been governor of a state and did a good job running the Salt Lake City Olympic Games. He made a lot of money at Bain Capital. He reads a script well and has a handsome smile, but when he speaks off the cuff he tends to reveal an astonishingly deaf ear and callously dismissive attitude about those who don't move in his upper crust circles. He talks a lot about regular Americans but doesn't seems to have the slightest comprehension of what being one is really like. Yesterday he committed another huge "gaffe." This is the latest in a now lengthening succession of such verbal missteps. It seems to me when someone keeps saying the same kinds of things over and over it's not an exception or an aberration; it's how a person really thinks.
Yesterday's stunner was, "I'm not concerned about the very poor." The rich are doing "just fine" and the poor have a "safety net" that he will attend to if it needs some fixing, but that's apparently about it. He wants to focus on being president of the middle class, he said. Even Newt Gingrich quickly shot back that he looked forward to being president and looking after the needs of the whole American people. Today at the National Prayer Breakfast President Obama spoke of the Sermon on the Mount and how Jesus's commands to help the plight of "the least among us" motivates much of his policy thinking. Even Rush Limbaugh lectured on the sheer political stupidity of Romney's remark, of making himself a caricature of the "stereotypical rich Republican."
This follows a string of comments all hitting the same note. One was told jokingly, "I should tell my own story, I'm also unemployed!" The son of the president of an automobile manufacturer who later became governor of a state, Romney implausibly purported to have "worried about getting a pink slip" during one campaign stop. Then there was his challenge to bet Rick Perry $10,000 during a debate, a figure seemingly meant to signify a small friendly wager to him. He commented that his income from speaking fees last year was "not very much." It was $370,000, or seven times the income of the average American. He famously said he, "likes firing people" who provide services to him. He made major headlines by opposing tax hikes on corporations at one event by opining that, "Corporations are people too, my friend." He can't seem to comprehend how anyone could think his 13.9% tax rate on his largely investment-derived income was unfair compared to the 35% rate many pay on money earned actually working at a job. He has ascribed such a perspective to "envy."
While Obama was at the prayer breakfast discussing the New Testament's injunctions to serve those in pain and need, Romney, as if to underscore his plutocratic pedigree, was today in Las Vegas receiving the endorsement of none other than Donald Trump. Mr. Romney can't seem to help coming across as a "swell," a rich kid who has never had to interact with regular folks very much and has very little clue what it's like to actually be one. And that's likely because, well, that's who he really is.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
2012 State of the Union
President Barack Obama delivered a forward-looking and effective State of the Union Address last night. His mix of principles and policies were clearly and evocatively expressed. The president's prescriptions for the country are clear and necessary, his proposals reasonable and his principles practically unassailable. By planting his flag in this firm ground, Obama has served notice that he will present a most formidable challenge to whichever Republican eventually secures the GOP presidential nomination.
Obama clearly staked out a position in favor of wider prosperity, identifying his concern with the 99% instead of the 1%. Bringing up the example of the great middle class expansion after the Depression and World War II with the promise of a decent living and retirement for those willing to work, the president made clear that the middle class has been stagnating since long before the current downturn. The "defining issue" of our time, he stated, is to "keep that promise alive." He asked whether the United States will we be a country where a few do really well while everyone else barely gets by, or rather where "everyone gets a fair shot, gets a fair share and plays by the same rules?" It's hard to see how his political foes could win an argument with the president on this.
To support this, he pointed to his rescue of the auto industry and a million jobs when the critics said to let it die. He proposed ending tax breaks for companies to outsource jobs and grant them for those who create jobs in America. He called for "no bailouts, no handouts and no copouts." He sketched out a plan to fund community colleges to train workers for two million jobs that are vacant now, and to help pressed homeowners who are barely making their payments to help qualify for refinanced loans at today's lower interest rates. He promised aid to students to afford education and incentives to universities to contain costs so people can afford to attend. He pointed out how, under his watch the U.S. has become the world's biggest natural gas producer and is pumping more oil than under his predecessor. And he called again for investments in the energies of the future rather than ceding their lead to others. He pointed out that 8 million jobs disappeared before he took office and in his first few months, and how 3 million have been created since. Again, it is difficult to see how exactly can Obama lose these arguments.
He proposed spending half the money saved in ending the Iraq War and in winding down the Afghan War to service the deficit and half to fund a major infrastructure program to provide jobs and enhance American competitiveness. Explaining things clearly and simply, Obama said, "We need to change our tax code. We can either continue to extend temporary tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires or pay for everything else. We cannot do both. The American people realize that and support what needs to be done." He called for enacting the "Buffet rule," that no one with an income of a million or more should pay less than 30% tax. At a time when average working people pay 25% to 35% while multimillionaires like Mitt Romney pay 13% to 15%, it's hard to see how an opponent beats the president by coming out against this perspective.
Infectious optimism infused the speech, along with both frequent pleas to work together and promises to fight back against senseless obstruction. "I will oppose obstruction with action and I will oppose any return to the policies that caused the problems in the first place," Obama declared. He placed himself firmly on the right side of the immigration issue, reminding congress what even George W. Bush stood for, and called for for "comprehensive immigration reform now. You are out of excuses."
The president closed with a survey of world events, pointing out his many successes in Iraq, the Middle East, in negotiating trade deals that have America on track to meet his goal of doubling exports, and in the effective diplomacy that has now isolated Iran in the world economy and will "take no option off the table" to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. "For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country," and his organization has been seriously degraded. He also pledged strong support for Israel.
President Obama has been an effective leader despite Republican opposition and obstruction, as the State of the Union Address underscores. His ideas make sense to the majority of the American people, and will present a difficult challenge for whomever his chief opponent turns out to be. There is much more in the speech I could not address in this short synopsis. To see the entire address, click here.
Obama clearly staked out a position in favor of wider prosperity, identifying his concern with the 99% instead of the 1%. Bringing up the example of the great middle class expansion after the Depression and World War II with the promise of a decent living and retirement for those willing to work, the president made clear that the middle class has been stagnating since long before the current downturn. The "defining issue" of our time, he stated, is to "keep that promise alive." He asked whether the United States will we be a country where a few do really well while everyone else barely gets by, or rather where "everyone gets a fair shot, gets a fair share and plays by the same rules?" It's hard to see how his political foes could win an argument with the president on this.
To support this, he pointed to his rescue of the auto industry and a million jobs when the critics said to let it die. He proposed ending tax breaks for companies to outsource jobs and grant them for those who create jobs in America. He called for "no bailouts, no handouts and no copouts." He sketched out a plan to fund community colleges to train workers for two million jobs that are vacant now, and to help pressed homeowners who are barely making their payments to help qualify for refinanced loans at today's lower interest rates. He promised aid to students to afford education and incentives to universities to contain costs so people can afford to attend. He pointed out how, under his watch the U.S. has become the world's biggest natural gas producer and is pumping more oil than under his predecessor. And he called again for investments in the energies of the future rather than ceding their lead to others. He pointed out that 8 million jobs disappeared before he took office and in his first few months, and how 3 million have been created since. Again, it is difficult to see how exactly can Obama lose these arguments.
He proposed spending half the money saved in ending the Iraq War and in winding down the Afghan War to service the deficit and half to fund a major infrastructure program to provide jobs and enhance American competitiveness. Explaining things clearly and simply, Obama said, "We need to change our tax code. We can either continue to extend temporary tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires or pay for everything else. We cannot do both. The American people realize that and support what needs to be done." He called for enacting the "Buffet rule," that no one with an income of a million or more should pay less than 30% tax. At a time when average working people pay 25% to 35% while multimillionaires like Mitt Romney pay 13% to 15%, it's hard to see how an opponent beats the president by coming out against this perspective.
Infectious optimism infused the speech, along with both frequent pleas to work together and promises to fight back against senseless obstruction. "I will oppose obstruction with action and I will oppose any return to the policies that caused the problems in the first place," Obama declared. He placed himself firmly on the right side of the immigration issue, reminding congress what even George W. Bush stood for, and called for for "comprehensive immigration reform now. You are out of excuses."
The president closed with a survey of world events, pointing out his many successes in Iraq, the Middle East, in negotiating trade deals that have America on track to meet his goal of doubling exports, and in the effective diplomacy that has now isolated Iran in the world economy and will "take no option off the table" to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. "For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country," and his organization has been seriously degraded. He also pledged strong support for Israel.
President Obama has been an effective leader despite Republican opposition and obstruction, as the State of the Union Address underscores. His ideas make sense to the majority of the American people, and will present a difficult challenge for whomever his chief opponent turns out to be. There is much more in the speech I could not address in this short synopsis. To see the entire address, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)