There is no doubt the roll out for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign is one of the quickest self-immolations in U.S. political history. But what has received little comment is the extent to which the entire episode shows just how strong Barack Obama may be in 2012 and how poorly Republicans are positioning themselves to run against him.
Former Speaker Gingrich led the House from 1995 to 1999 during the Clinton era. He officially announced his candidacy for the 2012 Republican nomination for the presidency on May 11. Within four days his campaign was a shambles, reeling from self-inflicted verbal wounds and assailed by his fellow Republicans. Though Gingrich's prospects were already touch and go due to his multiple marriages, ethics lapses and policy flip flops (for instance, he was for the health care mandate before he was against it and supported intervention in Libya until Obama did it, after which he opposed it) his real problems began when he went on NBC's "Meet the Press" with David Gregory on May 15, a scant four days after jumping into the race. You can see the "Meet the Press" interview or read the transcript here.
Speaking of the budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) that defunds much of Medicare and turns it into a voucher program, Gingrich criticized it as "right wing social engineering." He was immediately excoriated by Republican media and candidates for not supporting party orthodoxy. Gingrich took so much heat from them that within days he was completely disavowing his statement, claiming a conspiracy on the part of Gregory, playing up his "great friendship" with Ryan and pledging his absolute fealty to the party line on taking Medicare apart.
The irony, of course, is that Gingrich was right in the first place. Medicare is probably the most popular federal program ever instituted. To put a cap on it and start pricing it out of the means of senior citizens would not only be unconscionable social policy, leading to the inevitable bankruptcy or early deaths of untold numbers of people, it would also make certain an overwhelming GOP defeat at the polls in 2012. If the eventual GOP nominee runs on a platform of gutting Medicare you can expect to see him or her lose by an even greater margin than John McCain did in 2008. One only has to think back to the Tea Party types who flooded town hall meetings in 2009, shouting for their congressperson not to vote for "socialized medicine" but also to "keep your hands off my Medicare."
The brouhaha indicates the extent to which the GOP is overreaching and out of touch with the public. Their only chance with the moderate center of the electorate is to disavow the Ryan budget's slashing of Medicare. Yet all but four Republican House members voted for it. They are already going to have targets on their backs for that. Any presidential nominee who wants to win is going to have to run away from that position. But as the Gingrich flap demonstrates, their base may not permit that to happen. If not, expect easy sailing for Obama's re-election and a very good chance for the Democrats to recapture the House.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Our Taxes Are Low
There is no shortage of opinion, spin, ideology and outright propaganda in discourse over the issues of our day. And then there is fact. McClatchy reporter Kevin G. Hall did a little research lately and turned up an interesting set of such facts on the subject of federal taxes. To the contrary of what most conservatives believe and say, federal taxes are at the lowest percentage of national income since at least 1950. Go to the article here.
The historical average since World War II is that 18% of gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the national economy, has gone to federal taxes. When times were prosperous, in the year 2000 after the longest expansion in U.S. history, that percentage grew to about 21%. After the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that fell to 15%. And then last year, 2010, it fell lower yet, to 14.4%.
The bottom line is that we are not overtaxed, but undertaxed, not only by world standards but even by our own historical standards. If getting a handle on the deficit is a concern, and it should be for the long term, though in the short term reviving jobs is a far more pressing matter, then there is no way to get there without increasing taxes. The simple math is that revenues are running 4% of GNP below historic norms and spending is running at about 6% of GNP ahead of the norm.
To balance the budget, if anyone is truly serious about it, would require increasing taxes about $600 billion a year and reducing spending by about $900 billion a year. To get an idea of what this would require, immediately withdrawing from both Iraq and Afghanistan would save less than $200 billion. Now, a fair amount of any deficit will take care of itself if the economy improves significantly, and that should be the first order of business. But part of any realistic solution must also include restoring revenues to their historic averages, and that will require a tax increase, particularly on those in the top income levels. As Hall points out, their effective tax rates are the lowest they've been since before World War II.
So when you hear politicians say they have a plan to balance the federal budget without raising taxes, be assured they are spouting ideological rhetoric, not talking any kind of mathematical sense.
The historical average since World War II is that 18% of gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the national economy, has gone to federal taxes. When times were prosperous, in the year 2000 after the longest expansion in U.S. history, that percentage grew to about 21%. After the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that fell to 15%. And then last year, 2010, it fell lower yet, to 14.4%.
The bottom line is that we are not overtaxed, but undertaxed, not only by world standards but even by our own historical standards. If getting a handle on the deficit is a concern, and it should be for the long term, though in the short term reviving jobs is a far more pressing matter, then there is no way to get there without increasing taxes. The simple math is that revenues are running 4% of GNP below historic norms and spending is running at about 6% of GNP ahead of the norm.
To balance the budget, if anyone is truly serious about it, would require increasing taxes about $600 billion a year and reducing spending by about $900 billion a year. To get an idea of what this would require, immediately withdrawing from both Iraq and Afghanistan would save less than $200 billion. Now, a fair amount of any deficit will take care of itself if the economy improves significantly, and that should be the first order of business. But part of any realistic solution must also include restoring revenues to their historic averages, and that will require a tax increase, particularly on those in the top income levels. As Hall points out, their effective tax rates are the lowest they've been since before World War II.
So when you hear politicians say they have a plan to balance the federal budget without raising taxes, be assured they are spouting ideological rhetoric, not talking any kind of mathematical sense.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The End of Osama Bin Laden
Osama Bin Laden died on May 1, 2011, shot twice by a U.S. Navy SEAL at his hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan. This is the way we all expected his end would come, avenged by crack American special ops forces. One thing that particularly gratifies me is the timing of Bin Laden's demise, for he lived just long enough to see proof of the failure and futility of his life's work.
Like most fanatics, the al-Qaeda founder's ideology and appeal were built on intolerance and hatred. In his case, this meant intolerance of any deviation from his medieval views on religion and society and hatred of all who failed to share those views.
If the Muslim world had problems they were the result of scapegoats and bogeymen, especially Westerners in general and Americans in particular. Just how the indiscriminate murder of these imagined enemies would in any way improve the lives of Muslim people was never fully explained or even thought through. But then it never is, any more than Hitler's hatred of Jews, Stalin's paranoia of kulaks or Ottoman antipathy to Armenians made any rational sense. It was about focusing disaffection on the other, the outsider, to create unity in fear and fellowship in service to the sinister.
This spring Bin Laden must have watched in dejection as a wave of revolution spread across the Middle East. Revolution was what he was always fomenting, but these popular upheavals for freedom, rights and democracy appealed to hope, not fear. Unlike his vision, they embraced the future, not a barbaric past of whippings, beheadings and inhuman subjugation of women.
And unlike his record of carnage and destruction, these movements were actually about building
something. Marchers throughout the Muslim world were demonstrating people power in the service of uplifting the human spirit rather than chaining it, following in the footsteps of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, rejecting Bin Laden's path of chaos and blood. He lived just long enough to see his message eclipsed, his means repudiated and his ethos supplanted.
Troopers entered his bedroom and the criminal's final scene unfolded. But by then the plot had been completed. Whether he realized it or not, time had passed him by. He had already become what men like him despise most: Osama Bin Laden had become irrelevant.
Like most fanatics, the al-Qaeda founder's ideology and appeal were built on intolerance and hatred. In his case, this meant intolerance of any deviation from his medieval views on religion and society and hatred of all who failed to share those views.
If the Muslim world had problems they were the result of scapegoats and bogeymen, especially Westerners in general and Americans in particular. Just how the indiscriminate murder of these imagined enemies would in any way improve the lives of Muslim people was never fully explained or even thought through. But then it never is, any more than Hitler's hatred of Jews, Stalin's paranoia of kulaks or Ottoman antipathy to Armenians made any rational sense. It was about focusing disaffection on the other, the outsider, to create unity in fear and fellowship in service to the sinister.
This spring Bin Laden must have watched in dejection as a wave of revolution spread across the Middle East. Revolution was what he was always fomenting, but these popular upheavals for freedom, rights and democracy appealed to hope, not fear. Unlike his vision, they embraced the future, not a barbaric past of whippings, beheadings and inhuman subjugation of women.
And unlike his record of carnage and destruction, these movements were actually about building
something. Marchers throughout the Muslim world were demonstrating people power in the service of uplifting the human spirit rather than chaining it, following in the footsteps of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, rejecting Bin Laden's path of chaos and blood. He lived just long enough to see his message eclipsed, his means repudiated and his ethos supplanted.
Troopers entered his bedroom and the criminal's final scene unfolded. But by then the plot had been completed. Whether he realized it or not, time had passed him by. He had already become what men like him despise most: Osama Bin Laden had become irrelevant.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Boehner Gets Honest for One Day
It was remarkable to see House Speaker John Boehner yesterday saying the oil companies might not need their government subsidy. With oil at $112 a barrel and profits consequently growing by leaps and bounds, their $4 billion tax windfall seemed "unwarranted," even to him. He told an ABC News reporter that to help balance the budget the government needs revenue and oil companies, "ought to be paying their fair share." How refreshing.
President Obama quickly seconded the sentiment. Seeking to capitalize on the common ground he saw in the Speaker's statements, Obama sent a letter proposing ending the corporate welfare and using the money instead to develop clean energy sources. OK, so far so good.
But all that was yesterday. Upon reconsideration, today Boehner's office began walking his statements back and "explaining" that he did not really mean what he said. Now they say the President's proposal would, "simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump." This is the typical hypocritical tap dance Republicans pull when caught in blatant inconsistency. They say they are against wasteful spending-except when it goes to wealthy interests that contribute to them. Someone must have reminded the Speaker who pays the freight for his party. Go ahead and cut education spending for poor kids and doctor visits for seniors; those are wasteful. But don't touch subsidies for profitable multi billion dollar corporations-that's essential spending we can't do without. We all get the picture.
President Obama quickly seconded the sentiment. Seeking to capitalize on the common ground he saw in the Speaker's statements, Obama sent a letter proposing ending the corporate welfare and using the money instead to develop clean energy sources. OK, so far so good.
But all that was yesterday. Upon reconsideration, today Boehner's office began walking his statements back and "explaining" that he did not really mean what he said. Now they say the President's proposal would, "simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump." This is the typical hypocritical tap dance Republicans pull when caught in blatant inconsistency. They say they are against wasteful spending-except when it goes to wealthy interests that contribute to them. Someone must have reminded the Speaker who pays the freight for his party. Go ahead and cut education spending for poor kids and doctor visits for seniors; those are wasteful. But don't touch subsidies for profitable multi billion dollar corporations-that's essential spending we can't do without. We all get the picture.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Nixon Library Visit
On Monday I went with my wife and grown daughters to the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California. It was a fascinating look at a larger than life character who unquestionably helped shape an age. You can go to Library site here. Nixon made real impacts, some negative and some positive. Ultimately, of course, his memory and place in history are tied up with the Greek-tragedy personality flaws, primarily paranoia and hubris, that led to his resignation in disgrace in 1974 to avoid certain impeachment and conviction.
The museum itself is quite attractive, as are the grounds. The entrance is nondescript but part of the overall building resembles the White House. There is a recreation of the Lincoln Bedroom and the large East Room, which seemed bigger than the actual East Room in the White House. Outdoors in the back is the small home in which Nixon was born; it came in a kit by railroad from Indiana and his father assembled it on the site. The landscaping is very attractive and includes a long reflecting pool and fountain that is reminiscent of the one at the Martin Luther King historical site in Atlanta. Among the memorable displays are the Presidential limousine he used and the Presidential helicopter that served the presidents from Kennedy through Ford. Yes, it is the famous craft Nixon rode off the White House lawn after tendering his resignation where he gave those memorable double "V" signs.
Inside you can watch the "Checkers" speech in which Nixon saved his spot on the ticket as Eisenhower's running mate in 1952 and the debate with John F. Kennedy when they ran for President in 1960. There is a huge section on his groundbreaking trips to China and Russia and an interesting room featuring life size likenesses of the 10 greatest world leaders of his time, including such people as Kruschev and Brezhnev of the Soviet Union, Mao Tse-Tung and Chou-En-Lai of China, Winston Churchill of Britain, Charles de Gaulle of France, Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Golda Meir of Israel. The collection of gifts from foreign potentates was absolutely stunning. All are considered property on loan from the National Archives.
There was certainly a tendency of the Nixon Foundation displays to place the former President in a positive light. One that stuck out to me was a display that said Nixon took office after campaigning in 1968 promising to "bring us together again" in the face of division over civil rights and Vietnam, and that his landslide re-election victory in 1972 "proved he had done so." I understand the former display on Watergate was somewhat of a whitewash.
Thanks to a new Watergate section at the end of the walk-through, that is no longer the case. The National Archives put it together, and it includes an unvarnished factual treatment of the background and misdoings of Nixon and his associates. It ends playing what amounts to Nixon's own confession in his famous interview with David Frost.
The site continues to be used for important historical and political functions. To inaugurate the new Watergate display, reporter Bob Woodward and editor Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post were on hand to host an evening forum in the replica East Room. They were just arriving in the foyer as we and the rest of the paying tourists were being cleared out of the building at 5:00 P.M. They were formerly considered personae non grata by the Nixon Foundation for their role in bringing Nixon down, but since the forum was being conducted by the National Archives they were invited and were glad to come. As I bought a biographical DVD at the guest shop on the way out, the clerk told me the Nixon Foundation has "important figures" come and explain their take on history at East Room receptions and functions too. Two he mentioned were Ann Coulter and Bill O' Reilly.
The museum itself is quite attractive, as are the grounds. The entrance is nondescript but part of the overall building resembles the White House. There is a recreation of the Lincoln Bedroom and the large East Room, which seemed bigger than the actual East Room in the White House. Outdoors in the back is the small home in which Nixon was born; it came in a kit by railroad from Indiana and his father assembled it on the site. The landscaping is very attractive and includes a long reflecting pool and fountain that is reminiscent of the one at the Martin Luther King historical site in Atlanta. Among the memorable displays are the Presidential limousine he used and the Presidential helicopter that served the presidents from Kennedy through Ford. Yes, it is the famous craft Nixon rode off the White House lawn after tendering his resignation where he gave those memorable double "V" signs.
Inside you can watch the "Checkers" speech in which Nixon saved his spot on the ticket as Eisenhower's running mate in 1952 and the debate with John F. Kennedy when they ran for President in 1960. There is a huge section on his groundbreaking trips to China and Russia and an interesting room featuring life size likenesses of the 10 greatest world leaders of his time, including such people as Kruschev and Brezhnev of the Soviet Union, Mao Tse-Tung and Chou-En-Lai of China, Winston Churchill of Britain, Charles de Gaulle of France, Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Golda Meir of Israel. The collection of gifts from foreign potentates was absolutely stunning. All are considered property on loan from the National Archives.
There was certainly a tendency of the Nixon Foundation displays to place the former President in a positive light. One that stuck out to me was a display that said Nixon took office after campaigning in 1968 promising to "bring us together again" in the face of division over civil rights and Vietnam, and that his landslide re-election victory in 1972 "proved he had done so." I understand the former display on Watergate was somewhat of a whitewash.
Thanks to a new Watergate section at the end of the walk-through, that is no longer the case. The National Archives put it together, and it includes an unvarnished factual treatment of the background and misdoings of Nixon and his associates. It ends playing what amounts to Nixon's own confession in his famous interview with David Frost.
The site continues to be used for important historical and political functions. To inaugurate the new Watergate display, reporter Bob Woodward and editor Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post were on hand to host an evening forum in the replica East Room. They were just arriving in the foyer as we and the rest of the paying tourists were being cleared out of the building at 5:00 P.M. They were formerly considered personae non grata by the Nixon Foundation for their role in bringing Nixon down, but since the forum was being conducted by the National Archives they were invited and were glad to come. As I bought a biographical DVD at the guest shop on the way out, the clerk told me the Nixon Foundation has "important figures" come and explain their take on history at East Room receptions and functions too. Two he mentioned were Ann Coulter and Bill O' Reilly.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Lifetime Achievement Award
Last Friday my wife Joan and I attended the annual Rose Ann Vuich Award Dinner. It's the main local Democratic Party social event and fundraiser, named for California's first woman state senator, a local woman who served from 1977 to 1993. I was surprised and grateful to be awarded the Tulare County Democratic Central Committee's Lifetime Achievement Award for my service to the party. There are many others here who have done much more over a longer period of time than have I. I received the Award from Central Committee Chair Carol Clarke and was greeted by Assemblyman Henry T. Perea, the event's keynote speaker.
We moved to Visalia, county seat of Tulare County, in 1999. The area is heavily Republican and we were unaware of much Democratic activity in the area for quite some time. After a few years, we heard of a group called the Visalia Democratic Club that met monthly at the China Garden Restaurant, and that was my initial introduction in the area.
I have been on the Tulare County Democratic Central Committee since 2008, when I was appointed to fill a vacancy. I was subsequently elected to one of the five Visalia committee seats in the primary election of June, 2010 for a 2-year term. On the Central Committee I have served on the Bylaws, Grievance and Inaugural committees, served as Parliamentarian for the meetings, have emceed some community events, served on panels and have done basic precinct work. I have been a delegate at the Democratic state convention in 2009 and 2010 and will be again in 2011. I am convinced the region will sooner or later return to the Democratic majority it once enjoyed. Tulare County is now more the 50% Hispanic, and Hispanics have been supporting Democrats better then two to one. Their registration and participation proportions are quite low, though. Once they are signed up and gotten to the polls (or vote by mail) in large numbers the local Republican ascendancy will be history. It is our task to hasten that day.
Probably my biggest contribution has been my tenure as faculty advisor of the College of the Sequoias Young Democrats. That group got its impetus from the Obama fervor among young people, forming in fall of 2008 that year. We have taken several students to the California Democratic Convention each year since. This year we have eleven signed up. The students register voters, issue forums, signature and petition drives, walk and call for local candidates and fund raise for worthy causes and to go to the convention. This year, for instance, the Club made a contribution to the Red Cross for earthquake and tsunami relief in Japan. They have even scheduled a debate with the campus Republican club this year. Ten Young Dems served at the dinner, checking in guests, ushering and helping with the silent auction. Current COS Young Democrats President Victoria Chung received an award as Young Democrat of the Year.
It is a pleasure to be involved in a civic cause for the betterment of the community and to help kindle interest among the young in service to others.
Friday, April 1, 2011
A Wedding Day
Joan and I are going to Jaclyn Evans' wedding tomorrow, where she will marry Russell Roben. Jaclyn's grandparents, "Boots" and Leonard Evans, came out to California from back east in that great American internal migration after World War II. They and Joan's parents Joe and Esther made the move together, plunging into the land of dreams by the blue Pacific to build their lives in the setting of the expanding opportunities of the Golden West. My parents too transplanted to sunny California in those same years. So Joan and her sisters were raised alongside the Evans children, not blood relatives but close enough that both sets of kids referred to the other's parents as aunt and uncle. They all grew up and had their own families. It seems like just a couple of years ago at Easter when our Marie and Bill and Sue's Jaclyn were both infants. We put them on a bed together and they rolled their heads toward each other, staring with rapt attention and communicating through a series of googling noises, evoking oohs and aahs from all the parents and grandparents. But it wasn't just the year before last; it was over twenty-five years ago! Is that even possible? Marie's been married a year and now it's Jaclyn's turn. Boots and Leonard have been retired for years, Joe and Esther and my parents are no longer with us and Joan and I are closer to 60 than fifty ourselves. Where could the time have gone? I guess what I'm taking away from this is to savor each moment. Each is precious and irretrievable. As we share in Jaclyn and Russell's big day and celebrate the beginning of their lives together we are also reminded of the speed with with everything changes. We are always in the process of creating new beginnings as the cavalcade of life unfolds before our eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)