His daughter was standing, looking at the decorated Christmas tree, a puzzled look on her face. With a few years yet to go before becoming a teenager, she was a child who was proud of wisdom accumulated from having survived her toddler and early school eras.
He feared what might be on her mind. The time was about right. It could only be the dreaded question that parents of young children realize is inevitable. It's too bad that this has to happen now, he thought.
"What's going on, Sweetheart?"
"Oh, nothin' much. I'm just wondering about something," she answered, obviously preoccupied with her thoughts.
Should I prompt her? he wondered to himself. Yeah, maybe just a little. Where's her mother, anyway?
"You want to tell me what you're wondering about? Maybe I can help."
"Well, okay. We saw that show this afternoon, and it got me thinking about something. I can't figure it out. Daddy, how old is Santa Claus?"
Not what I expected, he thought to himself. This should be easier than talking about whether or not Santa Claus is real. Maybe I can do this without her mother after all.
"That's a really good question! I think we can figure it out, but you've got me wondering about something, too -- what makes you ask?"
"Well," as she considered her reply carefully, "it's just that he seems pretty old right now. All the pictures show him looking old, with the long white beard and everything. And besides, you told me that he looked like that when you were a kid, too, so he must be really, really old!"
That's the sort of statement that makes an adult smile, and this time was no different. A thought crossed his mind: Did I say things like this to my parents when I was her age? Maybe so. I'll have to check with Mom and Dad. . .wonder how I can make it up to them? Anyway, I'd better get back to business here.
"Yes, that's a good point. Santa does look really old. That's because his is very, very old! But what's this got to do with the Christmas show?"
She looked up and exclaimed "That second Christmas Ghost -- he was Santa, wasn't he? Sort of, anyway, I mean. But he looked different from the way Santa Claus usually looks, and he talked about having hundreds of older brothers. That just doesn't make any sense!"
Gee whiz, her father thought to himself. This is getting complicated. I gotta get this sorted out before I make a mess of it.
"You're right. It seems like it doesn't make any sense, doesn't it? But the fellow in the show wasn't Santa Claus. He was the Spirit of Christmas Present. They're two different people. . .er, I mean, two different ghosts. . .no, wait, that's not right. You see, here's the thing: Santa Claus is a sort of magical elf, and the Spirit of Christmas you saw in the show was a type of ghost who was there to make Scrooge think about important things that he wasn't thinking about. So, you see, they're two different. . .uh, two different. . .well, let's see, how should we say this? Ah, yes, they're two different special ideas about Christmas!"
Makes sense to me, he thought to himself.
"I still don't get it," his daughter said with the look in her eyes that meant "that sure doesn't make any sense at all!"
Geez, where's her mother? I thought she'd be back by now.
"Looks like I didn't explain it very well," he said. Rubbing the back of his neck, he went on with "See now, here's what it's all about. That fellow in the show who we call the Ghost or the Spirit of Christmas Present -- well, he was there to tell us about the meaning of Christmas. He didn't bring wrapped-up gifts for anybody, he was helping Scrooge to understand all of the important inner meanings of Christmas, things like being with family and friends, and its religious meanings, and how we should use it to remember to treat all other people--especially those who are less fortunate than we are--with kindness, and charity, and respect. Do you remember those things in the story that we saw in the show?"
Slowly, "Yes, I remember. So, he wasn't Santa Claus, was he?"
"Good! You're right! He wasn't Santa Claus. Santa is different."
"I see! Santa just brings us our toys and presents. He doesn't care about all the 'inner meaning' stuff!"
"Um, that's not quite right, either," her father said. "Santa Claus cares about the meaning of Christmas, too. He wants people to be with family and friends at Christmastime, and he hopes that we always treat others with kindness, respect and charity. Remember the thing about 'good little boys and girls?'"
"Oh, that's right," she said. "So, how's he different from the Ghost?"
He thought about this for a moment. "I guess a big difference is that Santa Claus doesn't bring the religious story of Christmas, but the Ghost that we saw brought that message."
For a few moments her apparent puzzlement was bookended by tugging at her lower lip and then running her fingers through her hair a few times. Eventually, the frenzy passed, her eyes brightened and she said, "So Christmas is religious for some people, and not religious for others?"
"That's right!" he exclaimed. "It has religious beginnings, and has a lot of religious meaning for many, many people, but it's become bigger over all the years that we've had Christmas. That way even more people can enjoy it, and can use the time to be with family and friends, and to make plans for helping other people who need something. These are all things that are done by people of different faiths, and also by people who don't follow any particular organized religion at all."
"I like that," the girl said. "But you still didn't tell me how old Santa Claus is!"
"Okay," he said with a look at his daughter that he hoped would show her that he thought this was just as important to him as it apparently was to her. "I guess I don't really know how old he is. Let's go do some looking-up on the computer or in our books and find out. It'll be fun."
And that's what they did. And that's how it was.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
A scenic view from the Fiscal Cliff
Cliffs can be dangerous. If you are out hiking at the top of one of them you do not want to look too far out over the edge lest you fall off.
Sometimes they are scenic. Here, for example, is a view--from the top of a cliff--of Waimea Canyon on Kauai in Hawaii.
Those cliffs are pretty, but I sure wouldn't want to fall off any of them.
America's "Fiscal Cliff," of course, is much different, and not nearly so pretty. Is it dangerous, too? Perhaps.
Several people have asked about this thing called the Fiscal Cliff. So, I've combined all those discussions into a single conversation for presentation in this article. Read this, and then you really don't need to read any more about it until the thing is solved. Unless, of course, you want to read about it just because you enjoy the drama. Like many serial dramas, this one ends with a cliff-hanger.
Here's the conversation --
What is the "Fiscal Cliff?" It's a combination of Federal tax increases and spending cuts that will take effect on January 1 unless some other legislative action is taken to change them.
Why is this happening? These things will happen because President Obama and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives agreed to them last year as a precondition to increasing the Federal debt limit. The legislation is already baked and done.
Did they think this was a good idea when they agreed to it in 2011? Probably not, because right from the beginning they were all saying that what they really wanted would be the result of more substantive and thoughtful negotiations on Federal spending and taxation.
But that never happened? No, because this year's presidential election got in the way, and so we never got around to the "substantive and thoughtful" part.
"Tax increases" sounds bad and pretty clear-cut, but "spending cuts" sounds vague; couldn't they have come up with another name for it? They did; it's called "sequestration."
I'm sorry I asked. So am I.
What's the problem with spending cuts? Many people think that the combination of Federal spending cuts and tax increases would take so much money out of the economy that it will push us into another recession. Federal spending means jobs for some people, and direct income for others, especially those who are elderly and/or needy.
Should I head for the hills? No, not unless that's where you want to do the rest of your Christmas shopping.
How much money are we talking about here? The numbers vary, but it's a lot of money. In total, it looks like it would amount to about 3% or 4% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the year.
So, Federal spending cuts would be bad, Federal tax increases would be bad. . .why is anybody even thinking about letting this happen?!? You're forgetting that we have all become "fiscal conservatives" now. Remember that big national debt? As of last year just about all of us--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, drummers drumming, milkmaids a-milking, pipers piping, and lots of others--decided that as a nation we need to devise a way of limiting the use of the Federal credit card so that America stops adding so much debt to the big pile that is already there.
Oh, right. . .I hadn't forgotten about it, but just misplaced the idea for a moment there. So, if we go off the cliff, then the national debt goes down? Well, not necessarily, but at least it won't go up as much as it would otherwise.
Why is it called "fiscal cliff?" Because Chairman of the Fed Ben Bernanke gave it that label in a speech a few months ago. It's hard to tell now if he thinks that was one of his better moments.
Is it really a cliff? No, it's more of a slope than a cliff. Without an agreement, taxes go up effective January 1 (maybe) and spending for government programs declines during the year (maybe).
Why did you say "maybe?" Well, most of what we hear about this situation is referring to legislative enactments, but we are hearing very little about the behind-the-scenes bureaucratic levers that must be pulled by someone before many things actually happen. As an example, consider the Federal income tax: the Treasury Department and its Internal Revenue Service might not be prepared to adjust the income tax withholding tables as soon as the current tax-reduction legislation expires. That would mean that the increased taxes would not be deducted from near-term paychecks. My guess is the same set of bureaucratic circumstances occurs elsewhere, too, especially when it comes to spending.
What are the details of the possible tax increases? Good question. If no further action is taken, then starting January 1 Federal income tax rates for all earners will increase by returning to the same levels that they were during the 1990s and in 2000. Also, a few tax reductions--such as the payroll tax (Social Security tax) reduction and stimulus tax credits for low-income households--that have been effective during the last three or four years will expire. Certain other tax credits and deductions, some of which apply to businesses and some that apply to households, will also expire.
What about the spending cuts. . .oh, I mean the sequestration. . .(can't they speak plain English?) Anyway, what happens on the other side of the ledger? In general, Federal spending for defense and domestic programs will be cut by a total of about $120 billion or maybe somewhat more or maybe a little less--$50 - 60 billion or so from each of those two categories. Depending on whom you ask and how the math is done, these cuts represent approximately equal percentages of each category's total spending, or a little bigger percentage for the domestic programs than for the defense programs, or vice versa.
What is included in "defense programs" and what is in "domestic programs?" "Defense" is all the armed forces and homeland security programs, including military hardware that is in development. "Domestic" is just about everything else on which the Federal government spends money, with the exception of Social Security and interest on the national debt.
Why exclude Social Security and the national debt interest payments? Another good question. Social Security--the nation's pension program for its senior citizens--is separate in all ways that matter. The taxation is separate, the fiscal management is separate, and its governing legislation is separate. Contrary to popular belief, Social Security payments do not contribute to the national debt. For many years, Social Security took in more money that it paid out, and the surplus has been saved. At this point in time, the program is now required to pay out more than it is taking in, but the deficit is made up out of the savings from the prior years. That surplus might eventually be exhausted, so the program deserves some attention. But, unless something is deliberately changed in the ground rules of this game, the need to address Social Security is not as critical as is the need to address the fiscal issues surrounding other programs, Medicare and military spending being the most prominent because they are the biggest. In other words, time spent on modifying Social Security contributes nothing to achieving a balanced Federal budget. As for the interest payments -- either we keep those going in a normal fashion, or we lose our ability to borrow, as needed, in the future.
Do you think this will all get amicably-settled before the end of the year? It doesn't seem likely, but it's possible. My guess is that it's not likely to be amicably-settled, but there's about a 50% chance that it will be settled before the end of the year with somebody--probably the Republicans--being really miffed about the settlement. I think they'll have their feathers ruffled because the settlement will most likely include some higher taxes, and current Republican ideology is opposed to higher taxes. None of us really wants to pay higher taxes--that's just human nature, so it's understandable--but so far nobody has been able to put together a credible plan that depends on spending cuts alone.
You're being unusually non-partisan here; are you ill? No, I'm good. The election has made me more mellow.
Have most elected Republicans signed up on some kind of tax limitation pledge? Yes, you are probably thinking about the Grover Norquist thing.
Who the hell is Grover Norquist? That's what President Bush asked, too.
Which President Bush? I don't remember. Want me to look it up?
No, it doesn't matter. Does the pledge they signed have any real significance? To me it seems to be significant only to those who signed it because they think it will help them to get re-elected. At the very least, they probably believe that it gives them some protection from a Republican primary challenger who might sign the thing first and then say during the primary campaign "Look at me, I'm tougher on taxes than is your wishy-washy incumbent Republican because I signed first!"
What happens if the Fiscal Cliff isn't settled before the end of the year? Some pundits think that such an event would doom the country to another economic recession. Actually, it's probably fair to say that "most" pundits and prognosticators say that recession will happen. Naturally, that's possible, but it seems to me that the more likely outcome would be a continuation of the very mild and unexciting economic growth that we have been experiencing for the last couple of years. "Mild" would probably become even milder, and "unexciting" would probably turn into "hard to notice." Remember, this is really a "slope" and not a "cliff," so unless something changes, even if the worst happens it doesn't all happen January 1. The media chatter typically assumes that everything will happen at once, and it will happen right at the beginning of the year. That's simply inaccurate. The total cumulative downward effect on the nation's economy for the entire year will amount to about 3% - 4% of GDP.
This is complicated. Isn't there an easy way out? No, there's no easy way out. It's sort of like what the Eagles said about Hotel California -- you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
Nobody wants to fall off a cliff. Let's think about it and talk more later. Besides, maybe the damn thing will be over and done with by then. Okay? Okay. Good idea. Besides, since we're all done with the electing for the time being, the only thing that you and I can do to help out is to do some more Christmas shopping. Whatever legislation is needed to solve the problem of the Fiscal Cliff is in the hands of the people we elected. Go ahead, do some more shopping. We both know you really want to do that.
Sometimes they are scenic. Here, for example, is a view--from the top of a cliff--of Waimea Canyon on Kauai in Hawaii.
Those cliffs are pretty, but I sure wouldn't want to fall off any of them.
America's "Fiscal Cliff," of course, is much different, and not nearly so pretty. Is it dangerous, too? Perhaps.
Several people have asked about this thing called the Fiscal Cliff. So, I've combined all those discussions into a single conversation for presentation in this article. Read this, and then you really don't need to read any more about it until the thing is solved. Unless, of course, you want to read about it just because you enjoy the drama. Like many serial dramas, this one ends with a cliff-hanger.
Here's the conversation --
What is the "Fiscal Cliff?" It's a combination of Federal tax increases and spending cuts that will take effect on January 1 unless some other legislative action is taken to change them.
Why is this happening? These things will happen because President Obama and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives agreed to them last year as a precondition to increasing the Federal debt limit. The legislation is already baked and done.
Did they think this was a good idea when they agreed to it in 2011? Probably not, because right from the beginning they were all saying that what they really wanted would be the result of more substantive and thoughtful negotiations on Federal spending and taxation.
But that never happened? No, because this year's presidential election got in the way, and so we never got around to the "substantive and thoughtful" part.
"Tax increases" sounds bad and pretty clear-cut, but "spending cuts" sounds vague; couldn't they have come up with another name for it? They did; it's called "sequestration."
I'm sorry I asked. So am I.
What's the problem with spending cuts? Many people think that the combination of Federal spending cuts and tax increases would take so much money out of the economy that it will push us into another recession. Federal spending means jobs for some people, and direct income for others, especially those who are elderly and/or needy.
Should I head for the hills? No, not unless that's where you want to do the rest of your Christmas shopping.
How much money are we talking about here? The numbers vary, but it's a lot of money. In total, it looks like it would amount to about 3% or 4% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the year.
So, Federal spending cuts would be bad, Federal tax increases would be bad. . .why is anybody even thinking about letting this happen?!? You're forgetting that we have all become "fiscal conservatives" now. Remember that big national debt? As of last year just about all of us--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, drummers drumming, milkmaids a-milking, pipers piping, and lots of others--decided that as a nation we need to devise a way of limiting the use of the Federal credit card so that America stops adding so much debt to the big pile that is already there.
Oh, right. . .I hadn't forgotten about it, but just misplaced the idea for a moment there. So, if we go off the cliff, then the national debt goes down? Well, not necessarily, but at least it won't go up as much as it would otherwise.
Why is it called "fiscal cliff?" Because Chairman of the Fed Ben Bernanke gave it that label in a speech a few months ago. It's hard to tell now if he thinks that was one of his better moments.
Is it really a cliff? No, it's more of a slope than a cliff. Without an agreement, taxes go up effective January 1 (maybe) and spending for government programs declines during the year (maybe).
Why did you say "maybe?" Well, most of what we hear about this situation is referring to legislative enactments, but we are hearing very little about the behind-the-scenes bureaucratic levers that must be pulled by someone before many things actually happen. As an example, consider the Federal income tax: the Treasury Department and its Internal Revenue Service might not be prepared to adjust the income tax withholding tables as soon as the current tax-reduction legislation expires. That would mean that the increased taxes would not be deducted from near-term paychecks. My guess is the same set of bureaucratic circumstances occurs elsewhere, too, especially when it comes to spending.
What are the details of the possible tax increases? Good question. If no further action is taken, then starting January 1 Federal income tax rates for all earners will increase by returning to the same levels that they were during the 1990s and in 2000. Also, a few tax reductions--such as the payroll tax (Social Security tax) reduction and stimulus tax credits for low-income households--that have been effective during the last three or four years will expire. Certain other tax credits and deductions, some of which apply to businesses and some that apply to households, will also expire.
What about the spending cuts. . .oh, I mean the sequestration. . .(can't they speak plain English?) Anyway, what happens on the other side of the ledger? In general, Federal spending for defense and domestic programs will be cut by a total of about $120 billion or maybe somewhat more or maybe a little less--$50 - 60 billion or so from each of those two categories. Depending on whom you ask and how the math is done, these cuts represent approximately equal percentages of each category's total spending, or a little bigger percentage for the domestic programs than for the defense programs, or vice versa.
What is included in "defense programs" and what is in "domestic programs?" "Defense" is all the armed forces and homeland security programs, including military hardware that is in development. "Domestic" is just about everything else on which the Federal government spends money, with the exception of Social Security and interest on the national debt.
Why exclude Social Security and the national debt interest payments? Another good question. Social Security--the nation's pension program for its senior citizens--is separate in all ways that matter. The taxation is separate, the fiscal management is separate, and its governing legislation is separate. Contrary to popular belief, Social Security payments do not contribute to the national debt. For many years, Social Security took in more money that it paid out, and the surplus has been saved. At this point in time, the program is now required to pay out more than it is taking in, but the deficit is made up out of the savings from the prior years. That surplus might eventually be exhausted, so the program deserves some attention. But, unless something is deliberately changed in the ground rules of this game, the need to address Social Security is not as critical as is the need to address the fiscal issues surrounding other programs, Medicare and military spending being the most prominent because they are the biggest. In other words, time spent on modifying Social Security contributes nothing to achieving a balanced Federal budget. As for the interest payments -- either we keep those going in a normal fashion, or we lose our ability to borrow, as needed, in the future.
Do you think this will all get amicably-settled before the end of the year? It doesn't seem likely, but it's possible. My guess is that it's not likely to be amicably-settled, but there's about a 50% chance that it will be settled before the end of the year with somebody--probably the Republicans--being really miffed about the settlement. I think they'll have their feathers ruffled because the settlement will most likely include some higher taxes, and current Republican ideology is opposed to higher taxes. None of us really wants to pay higher taxes--that's just human nature, so it's understandable--but so far nobody has been able to put together a credible plan that depends on spending cuts alone.
You're being unusually non-partisan here; are you ill? No, I'm good. The election has made me more mellow.
Have most elected Republicans signed up on some kind of tax limitation pledge? Yes, you are probably thinking about the Grover Norquist thing.
Who the hell is Grover Norquist? That's what President Bush asked, too.
Which President Bush? I don't remember. Want me to look it up?
No, it doesn't matter. Does the pledge they signed have any real significance? To me it seems to be significant only to those who signed it because they think it will help them to get re-elected. At the very least, they probably believe that it gives them some protection from a Republican primary challenger who might sign the thing first and then say during the primary campaign "Look at me, I'm tougher on taxes than is your wishy-washy incumbent Republican because I signed first!"
What happens if the Fiscal Cliff isn't settled before the end of the year? Some pundits think that such an event would doom the country to another economic recession. Actually, it's probably fair to say that "most" pundits and prognosticators say that recession will happen. Naturally, that's possible, but it seems to me that the more likely outcome would be a continuation of the very mild and unexciting economic growth that we have been experiencing for the last couple of years. "Mild" would probably become even milder, and "unexciting" would probably turn into "hard to notice." Remember, this is really a "slope" and not a "cliff," so unless something changes, even if the worst happens it doesn't all happen January 1. The media chatter typically assumes that everything will happen at once, and it will happen right at the beginning of the year. That's simply inaccurate. The total cumulative downward effect on the nation's economy for the entire year will amount to about 3% - 4% of GDP.
This is complicated. Isn't there an easy way out? No, there's no easy way out. It's sort of like what the Eagles said about Hotel California -- you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
Nobody wants to fall off a cliff. Let's think about it and talk more later. Besides, maybe the damn thing will be over and done with by then. Okay? Okay. Good idea. Besides, since we're all done with the electing for the time being, the only thing that you and I can do to help out is to do some more Christmas shopping. Whatever legislation is needed to solve the problem of the Fiscal Cliff is in the hands of the people we elected. Go ahead, do some more shopping. We both know you really want to do that.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
History note for today -- 1941
On this day in 1941 the United States was brought fully into World War II when the Imperial Japanese Navy conducted a successful air and sea attack on the US Navy base at Pearl Harbor on the island of Oahu, Hawai'i. This event is marked by the memorial at Pearl Harbor that is named for the sunk and destroyed American battleship USS Arizona.
Numerous other American battleships were sunk on that day, but not destroyed. Instead, they were raised from the bottom of the harbor, repaired, returned to service and made great contributions during the following years.
Over three and a half years later, the conflict ended with a ceremony aboard the USS Missouri at anchor in Tokyo Bay. The now-inactive Missouri lives on as a museum located also at Pearl Harbor, and adjacent to the Arizona Memorial.
History gets a bum rap from a lot of people--not including you, of course--because it's thought of as boring and irrelevant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sometimes it helps to see history in pictures. Share these pictures with any you know--especially among the younger portion of America's population--who might gain an improved historical appreciation through visual aids.
By the way, Pearl Harbor draws the crowds. During a recent middle-of-the-week, non-holiday, non-prime vacation time visit there, the wait for the tour of the Arizona Memorial was about two and one-half hours.
It was worth the wait.
Over three and a half years later, the conflict ended with a ceremony aboard the USS Missouri at anchor in Tokyo Bay. The now-inactive Missouri lives on as a museum located also at Pearl Harbor, and adjacent to the Arizona Memorial.
By the way, Pearl Harbor draws the crowds. During a recent middle-of-the-week, non-holiday, non-prime vacation time visit there, the wait for the tour of the Arizona Memorial was about two and one-half hours.
It was worth the wait.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
November in a nutshell -- biggest ocean, tallest mountain, most expensive election
Autumn begins the time for the land to rest, and so in like manner November has been my time to take a break from writing. Nonetheless, a few ideas have formed and now push themselves out of the mind and onto this electron-empowered avatar for paper.
Much of November--after the election--has been occupied with a cruise out to the Hawaiian Islands and back again. Most people--almost certainly including you--know that the Pacific Ocean is the world's largest body of water, covering about 30% of Earth's surface. This is an interesting factoid, but here's what put it into perspective for yours truly -- for days on end, this is what the view looked like:
More than seven billion other people living on the planet, with who-knows-how-many thousands of of ships at sea at any given moment, but for day after day not a single one of them in sight!
Here's a question: what is the tallest mountain in the world? Most will guess Mt. Everest, but some will know--as we found out--that it is actually Mauna Kea, on the Big Island of Hawaii. Mt. Everest rises to the highest reaches above sea level, but when measured from the base of the mountain the award for tallest goes to Mauna Kea by several thousand feet. In the case of Everest, the base of the mountain is clearly visible on dry land; as for Mauna Kea, its base is thousands of feet beneath the surface of the ocean. So, from base to peak, the prize for tallest goes to Mauna Kea.
As for the November elections here in America, you have probably already heard stories about this contest being the most expensive one in history; at something like US$6 billions--not just for the presidential race, but for all elections across the country--this is certainly the truth. The election of 2012 goes into the record books as the most costly in all of American history.
But, that's a record that seems to be set every four years.
Any of us can probably find a better use for six billion dollars, and do so without breaking a sweat in the effort. However, it doesn't hurt to put this into perspective.
There are over 300 million Americans. Doing the simple math of dividing 300 million into six billion--let's do it here and now, out of consideration for those of us with MBAs and other such advanced degrees--yields the news that this works out to an average of $20 per person; less than that when you figure in the fact that the country's population is greater than 300 million.
Twenty dollars a year doesn't even put a dent in my annual expenditures for junk food. (And I'm one of those who tries to stay away from the stuff.) How much does one of those fancy coffee drinks cost? About $3 or $4 (or more)? So, $20 amounts to about a week's supply of those beverages for many people.
Considering the importance of electing a president and vice-president combo, thirty-three senators and 435 congressmen and congresswomen, the price tag for the year of $20 per capita looks pretty modest to me.
It seems that a few noteworthy things happened during the two week interval of paying little or no attention to the news, so there's some catching-up to be done in the near future. All of that will come in good time.
And, let's not forget that the election that truly chooses the next President of the United States hasn't even happened yet. The electoral college doesn't meet and vote for another couple of weeks or so, and according to the Constitution those are the folks who actually choose the president. Don't expect any surprises; it's just another oddity of the American political system.
It's good to be back!
Much of November--after the election--has been occupied with a cruise out to the Hawaiian Islands and back again. Most people--almost certainly including you--know that the Pacific Ocean is the world's largest body of water, covering about 30% of Earth's surface. This is an interesting factoid, but here's what put it into perspective for yours truly -- for days on end, this is what the view looked like:
More than seven billion other people living on the planet, with who-knows-how-many thousands of of ships at sea at any given moment, but for day after day not a single one of them in sight!
Here's a question: what is the tallest mountain in the world? Most will guess Mt. Everest, but some will know--as we found out--that it is actually Mauna Kea, on the Big Island of Hawaii. Mt. Everest rises to the highest reaches above sea level, but when measured from the base of the mountain the award for tallest goes to Mauna Kea by several thousand feet. In the case of Everest, the base of the mountain is clearly visible on dry land; as for Mauna Kea, its base is thousands of feet beneath the surface of the ocean. So, from base to peak, the prize for tallest goes to Mauna Kea.
As for the November elections here in America, you have probably already heard stories about this contest being the most expensive one in history; at something like US$6 billions--not just for the presidential race, but for all elections across the country--this is certainly the truth. The election of 2012 goes into the record books as the most costly in all of American history.
But, that's a record that seems to be set every four years.
Any of us can probably find a better use for six billion dollars, and do so without breaking a sweat in the effort. However, it doesn't hurt to put this into perspective.
There are over 300 million Americans. Doing the simple math of dividing 300 million into six billion--let's do it here and now, out of consideration for those of us with MBAs and other such advanced degrees--yields the news that this works out to an average of $20 per person; less than that when you figure in the fact that the country's population is greater than 300 million.
Twenty dollars a year doesn't even put a dent in my annual expenditures for junk food. (And I'm one of those who tries to stay away from the stuff.) How much does one of those fancy coffee drinks cost? About $3 or $4 (or more)? So, $20 amounts to about a week's supply of those beverages for many people.
Considering the importance of electing a president and vice-president combo, thirty-three senators and 435 congressmen and congresswomen, the price tag for the year of $20 per capita looks pretty modest to me.
It seems that a few noteworthy things happened during the two week interval of paying little or no attention to the news, so there's some catching-up to be done in the near future. All of that will come in good time.
And, let's not forget that the election that truly chooses the next President of the United States hasn't even happened yet. The electoral college doesn't meet and vote for another couple of weeks or so, and according to the Constitution those are the folks who actually choose the president. Don't expect any surprises; it's just another oddity of the American political system.
It's good to be back!
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Obama has been good for America -- we need him for another four years
There's no way that I'm going to sit here at this keyboard and tell you that President Barack Obama has been perfect. Nobody's perfect. But for an imperfect fellow, President Obama has accomplished a remarkable amount of good things for the country.
Under his leadership the bedrock financial institutions--which were plummeting into a black hole of insolvency--have been stabilized, recapitalized and set on a recovery road. The regulatory oversight that was lacking during the previous years has been revitalized and enhanced as a tool to protect us against the same--or maybe even a worse--financial collapse happening again.
Obamacare is the first nationally-successful action to strengthen consumer protection in the delivery of healthcare services in a century's time of talking about doing that. It is also the first focused and thoughtful set of requirements for healthcare reimbursements and administration that is aimed directly at reining-in the growing costs of consumer healthcare. As a nation, we have been talking about doing something like this for over twenty years now, and during that time healthcare costs have grown to a stunning 17% of national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and threatening to go higher. America's per capita spending on healthcare is about 50% to 100% greater than it is in other comparable nations, with no better overall results. Others have talked about achieving something like the Affordable Care Act; only Barack Obama has done so.
Under President Obama's leadership we have successfully extricated our armed forces from a long, costly, draining and domestically-contentious conflict in Iraq. With his leadership, we are on the right path to finally end our military presence in Afghanistan. Obama has skillfully redirected America's overall foreign policy to become one that is more collaborative with other nations, instead of confrontational. Living as we do in a global community of almost two hundred nations, these achievements are of monumental importance for our future international business, social and political relationships.
Many Presidents have struggled to achieve half this amount of successes in twice the time. With having accomplished so much, you might wonder: is there anything else left to do?
Yes, there's plenty.
All of these things must be done while addressing the issues revolving around governing deficits and the growing national debt in the only way possible: restraining and stabilizing government spending, augmented by increasing the government's intake of revenues. It's tempting to talk about simply slashing spending. The problem with that approach is that it is unrealistic in a growing country, and America is not done with growing yet. The only realistic approach is one that balances the money that goes out with the money that comes in. I have confidence that Barack Obama provides the necessary leadership to do that.
The work necessary to correct the errors of the Bush Administration is not yet done. There has not been enough time; the Republican Party made the job tougher by not admitting to the American people that its policies created those errors; and the Republican leadership has failed to cooperate in fixing the problems created by its faulty policies.
Barack Obama should be reelected President of the United States.
These are good things for America
He stepped into the job by inheriting the Great Recession from his predecessor. President Obama guided the government to help the failing domestic automobile manufacturing industry to rebuild itself and thrive. That action alone saved and eventually created hundreds of thousands of American jobs when taking into account all of the suppliers and subcontractors who would have been thrown into the fiscal junk heap that would have been created by a chaotic bankruptcy of the auto industry.Under his leadership the bedrock financial institutions--which were plummeting into a black hole of insolvency--have been stabilized, recapitalized and set on a recovery road. The regulatory oversight that was lacking during the previous years has been revitalized and enhanced as a tool to protect us against the same--or maybe even a worse--financial collapse happening again.
Obamacare is the first nationally-successful action to strengthen consumer protection in the delivery of healthcare services in a century's time of talking about doing that. It is also the first focused and thoughtful set of requirements for healthcare reimbursements and administration that is aimed directly at reining-in the growing costs of consumer healthcare. As a nation, we have been talking about doing something like this for over twenty years now, and during that time healthcare costs have grown to a stunning 17% of national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and threatening to go higher. America's per capita spending on healthcare is about 50% to 100% greater than it is in other comparable nations, with no better overall results. Others have talked about achieving something like the Affordable Care Act; only Barack Obama has done so.
Under President Obama's leadership we have successfully extricated our armed forces from a long, costly, draining and domestically-contentious conflict in Iraq. With his leadership, we are on the right path to finally end our military presence in Afghanistan. Obama has skillfully redirected America's overall foreign policy to become one that is more collaborative with other nations, instead of confrontational. Living as we do in a global community of almost two hundred nations, these achievements are of monumental importance for our future international business, social and political relationships.
Many Presidents have struggled to achieve half this amount of successes in twice the time. With having accomplished so much, you might wonder: is there anything else left to do?
Yes, there's plenty.
The next four years
A second Obama term will mean that there will be much-needed investments in major areas of national interest such as infrastructure, education, and leading-edge research and development. These are things that mean employment, both in the near-term and in the future, as well as also placing America in a leading competitive position in emerging and developing technologies. Infrastructure investment will support safe, smooth and timely transportation of people, goods and commercial transactions.All of these things must be done while addressing the issues revolving around governing deficits and the growing national debt in the only way possible: restraining and stabilizing government spending, augmented by increasing the government's intake of revenues. It's tempting to talk about simply slashing spending. The problem with that approach is that it is unrealistic in a growing country, and America is not done with growing yet. The only realistic approach is one that balances the money that goes out with the money that comes in. I have confidence that Barack Obama provides the necessary leadership to do that.
Always look for the history
The facts of history must be given their due -- Obama did not create the Great Recession, he stepped into it after it had been created by the business environment and the governing policies of the previous years. Obama did not create the multi-trillion dollar national debt; he inherited a legacy of Republican-led tax cuts, followed up by excessive Republican-led Federal spending on two overseas wars, that taken together created a multi-trillion dollar national debt.The work necessary to correct the errors of the Bush Administration is not yet done. There has not been enough time; the Republican Party made the job tougher by not admitting to the American people that its policies created those errors; and the Republican leadership has failed to cooperate in fixing the problems created by its faulty policies.
Barack Obama should be reelected President of the United States.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
How do small businesses create lots of jobs?
Small businesses create jobs, but it's a lot more complicated than all the political noise would have us believe.
And there's good reason to believe that the Obama and Democratic governing ideas will do more for small business job creation than would the Romney and Republican ideas.
Any burst of small business hiring will come largely from introducing innovative ideas to the marketplace. Innovation needs to be first stimulated with ideas and money, and then nurtured by supporting it with people possessing certain vital skills. The marketplace by itself can provide some amounts of money and skilled personnel, but under today's risk-averse business environment "money is tight" as they say. Also, skills development is lagging as fiscally austere state budgets are reducing the amount of available public education.
An energetic Federal government that has the insight and the moxey to want to make targeted efforts to compensate for the tightness of private capital and state budgets can address these needs. Doing that will help create a small business surge in job creation. These are ideas that Democrats are more comfortable with than are the Republicans. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.
Many small businesses will hire to get themselves off the ground, and then have no need for more employees.
A large number of small businesses are closely-held corporations; visible among these would be certain businesses conducted by celebrities and professional athletes. Those are likely to be very wealthy people, but mostly they have no need to employ lots of others, either at present or in the future. This is no knock on celebrities and athletes, but it just stands to reason that--once successful--a celebrity's needs tomorrow or next year will be fulfilled by about the same number of employees as it takes to do those things today. The same thing is true for numerous other of these closely-held corporations.
In any case, most--and the number is something like 97% or 98%--small business owners don't fall into the celebrity or athlete category because their annual earnings are under the current political buzz-number of $250,000. That's not celebrity or professional athlete status.
These truly small businesses include places like your local dry cleaner, jewelry store, dentist, bicycle shop, restaurant or cafe, gift store, gardener, car repair shop, and many others. Since there are millions of these, their total employment adds up and it's important.
Unfortunately, though, small businesses like these, once established, tend to grow to a certain size, stabilize, and then have little to no need to hire any further workers beyond what they already have. Often, they will contract, sometimes disappearing altogether, sloughing off employees in the process.
There's been lots of misinformation scattered about regarding the failures of businesses that received Federal stimulus monies under the Obama program of a couple of years ago. Nobody likes to have failures, but the fact is that some innovations will fail; that's normal. The incidence of failures of those companies that received Federal money is no greater than the incidence of failure in the innovation universe at large.
On the subject of skilled workers, the plan that President Obama and the Democratic Party have to move Federal funds back into the states for support of education has lots more promise to it than does the competing attitude from the Romney and Republican campaigns of merely talking about how the free market will solve educational problems. Marketplaces solve problems by taking lots of time to sift through a myriad of options, not by concerted and targeted efforts. Disbursement of Federal funds can be concerted and targeted.
And that is something that a reelected President Obama with a supportive Congress is much more comfortable with than are Mr. Romney and the Republicans.
Mr. Romney and the Republicans like to talk about weakening the regulatory environment in order to stimulate small business hiring. Sure, there are always regulations that can be viewed as the bogey-man; and, in fact, some deserve to be changed or maybe even discontinued. Obama and the Democrats understand this, too. But modifying or removing regulations does nothing to solve the problems of the availability of funding and of skilled workers.
Federal investments of this nature have been stymied for most of the last two years by a Republican-dominated House of Representatives that has consistently blocked the President's efforts to implement programs such as we are talking about here. Essentially, the marketplace has had that time available to it to act in the way that the Romney campaign says will result in monumental job creation. Well, we are still waiting for something to happen.
Small business job creation in large numbers will come about only with an expensive and well-planned commitment by the Federal government. Or, without such a commitment, it will happen only with the passage of much more time.
It is better for the country to have action and results sooner rather than later. It will take President Obama and Democrats in Congress to make that happen.
And there's good reason to believe that the Obama and Democratic governing ideas will do more for small business job creation than would the Romney and Republican ideas.
Any burst of small business hiring will come largely from introducing innovative ideas to the marketplace. Innovation needs to be first stimulated with ideas and money, and then nurtured by supporting it with people possessing certain vital skills. The marketplace by itself can provide some amounts of money and skilled personnel, but under today's risk-averse business environment "money is tight" as they say. Also, skills development is lagging as fiscally austere state budgets are reducing the amount of available public education.
An energetic Federal government that has the insight and the moxey to want to make targeted efforts to compensate for the tightness of private capital and state budgets can address these needs. Doing that will help create a small business surge in job creation. These are ideas that Democrats are more comfortable with than are the Republicans. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.
What's a small business look like?
There are multiple definitions of "small business." For the most part, they focus on the number of employees and/or the amount of annual sales. The numbers vary, depending on who is doing the talking about "small business." We can appreciate that a business that employs 10 or fewer is "small," but is it still seen as "small" if it employs 500 people? In some cases it deserves to be called small, but not always. Getting a handle on what makes a business small is not an easy task.Many small businesses will hire to get themselves off the ground, and then have no need for more employees.
A large number of small businesses are closely-held corporations; visible among these would be certain businesses conducted by celebrities and professional athletes. Those are likely to be very wealthy people, but mostly they have no need to employ lots of others, either at present or in the future. This is no knock on celebrities and athletes, but it just stands to reason that--once successful--a celebrity's needs tomorrow or next year will be fulfilled by about the same number of employees as it takes to do those things today. The same thing is true for numerous other of these closely-held corporations.
In any case, most--and the number is something like 97% or 98%--small business owners don't fall into the celebrity or athlete category because their annual earnings are under the current political buzz-number of $250,000. That's not celebrity or professional athlete status.
These truly small businesses include places like your local dry cleaner, jewelry store, dentist, bicycle shop, restaurant or cafe, gift store, gardener, car repair shop, and many others. Since there are millions of these, their total employment adds up and it's important.
Unfortunately, though, small businesses like these, once established, tend to grow to a certain size, stabilize, and then have little to no need to hire any further workers beyond what they already have. Often, they will contract, sometimes disappearing altogether, sloughing off employees in the process.
This is how small businesses create lots of jobs
Small businesses can contribute to overall employment growth, but the biggest contributors are those that are start-ups or in early growth stages. To start up and get growing, these companies need to attract some significant amounts of venture funding, seed capital or other subsidy. Banks and private sources tend to be more risk-averse these days than in prior years. As a result, the growth of innovative firms is being stifled.There's been lots of misinformation scattered about regarding the failures of businesses that received Federal stimulus monies under the Obama program of a couple of years ago. Nobody likes to have failures, but the fact is that some innovations will fail; that's normal. The incidence of failures of those companies that received Federal money is no greater than the incidence of failure in the innovation universe at large.
On the subject of skilled workers, the plan that President Obama and the Democratic Party have to move Federal funds back into the states for support of education has lots more promise to it than does the competing attitude from the Romney and Republican campaigns of merely talking about how the free market will solve educational problems. Marketplaces solve problems by taking lots of time to sift through a myriad of options, not by concerted and targeted efforts. Disbursement of Federal funds can be concerted and targeted.
Time is money
There's a value in timeliness. The sooner that the public education systems can be improved, the better for all of us. It will take more than money, of course, because there are some significant other issues of quality to be resolved, too, but the positive results will come sooner with an infusion of Federal funding than they will without it.And that is something that a reelected President Obama with a supportive Congress is much more comfortable with than are Mr. Romney and the Republicans.
Mr. Romney and the Republicans like to talk about weakening the regulatory environment in order to stimulate small business hiring. Sure, there are always regulations that can be viewed as the bogey-man; and, in fact, some deserve to be changed or maybe even discontinued. Obama and the Democrats understand this, too. But modifying or removing regulations does nothing to solve the problems of the availability of funding and of skilled workers.
Federal investments of this nature have been stymied for most of the last two years by a Republican-dominated House of Representatives that has consistently blocked the President's efforts to implement programs such as we are talking about here. Essentially, the marketplace has had that time available to it to act in the way that the Romney campaign says will result in monumental job creation. Well, we are still waiting for something to happen.
Small business job creation in large numbers will come about only with an expensive and well-planned commitment by the Federal government. Or, without such a commitment, it will happen only with the passage of much more time.
It is better for the country to have action and results sooner rather than later. It will take President Obama and Democrats in Congress to make that happen.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Some debates are more fun than others
Three things were notable about last night's final presidential debate:
On the second point: the foreign policy of the Obama Administration is well-known and has been much-criticized by the Republicans and by the Romney campaign, but Mr. Romney surprisingly failed to articulate that criticism during the debate. Instead, he seemed comfortably agreeable about all of it.
Now, for that third point (you knew the best would be last, didn't you?). Odd as it may seem, Mr. Romney as President will apparently push for enlarging the Federal debt by indulging in deficit stimulus spending. He clearly wants to significantly increase defense and military spending, and when pressed by the moderator to explain the sources of funding for such an undertaking, Mr. Romney offered no convincing answer to the question.
Please don't misunderstand me on this; I'm all in favor of Federal stimulus spending. It's just that some stimulus spending is better than others. Defense and military spending does not have the downstream economic yield that can be achieved through other types of stimulus spending.
Think about it this way: let's say we spend an extra billion dollars on bullets; it doesn't matter what kind of bullets, or what size, they are just bullets of any type, or of some mixture of types. The economic result is a billion dollars of one-time economic activity. Those bullets are stored and they do nothing else until they are fired.
On the other hand, let's say that we spend that extra billion dollars on fixing some American highway bridges. As before, it doesn't make any difference what the bridges look like; we're just doing highway bridge repairs and building. That also has an economic result of one billion dollars of economic activity.
So far, that sounds about the same as buying the billion dollars' worth of bullets (aside from any ethical or practical concerns). But here's where there's a big difference -- while the bullets sit around doing nothing else, the highway bridges perform important and long-term follow-on services for the nation's people and its economy by improving the transportation system. This bridge work helps people and businesses by enhancing transportation safety and transportation timeliness.
There's value in safety, and there's value in timeliness. That means that there's more than a single billion dollars worth of additional economic activity created by that billion dollar expenditure on bridge work.
This needs to be said to any voters who still maintain an "undecided" status: It's clear that our choice for President is between two different styles and two different substances.
Isn't that what the debates and the whole extended political drama--or would it be better to say "trauma"?-- of the presidential campaign cycle is all about -- choosing from among the various combinations of style and substance that are on offer?
Last week's debate provided a different piece of evidence on the choice.
Mr. Romney--trying to look like he was displaying an understanding of the interrelated economics of energy and pollution--complained that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made it too hard to build a new coal-fired power plant.
Mr. Obama correctly pointed out that the EPA is doing exactly what people want it to do when it clamps down on coal-burning because coal is the dirtiest fuel that we have. And, by the way, the price of natural gas as a power plant fuel has fallen so low in the last few years that energy companies prefer the economic advantages of natural gas as a fuel over the higher costs of coal.
Coal is dirty. Most people--myself included--don't want any more pollution in our living environments. Mr. Obama doesn't like coal. Mr. Romney likes coal. Mr. Obama has the high ground here.
More to come.
- It didn't have anywhere near the entertainment value of the prior week's debate #2.
- Romney endorsed Obama's foreign policy.
- Federal deficit stimulus spending is in our future (if Romney wins).
On the second point: the foreign policy of the Obama Administration is well-known and has been much-criticized by the Republicans and by the Romney campaign, but Mr. Romney surprisingly failed to articulate that criticism during the debate. Instead, he seemed comfortably agreeable about all of it.
Now, for that third point (you knew the best would be last, didn't you?). Odd as it may seem, Mr. Romney as President will apparently push for enlarging the Federal debt by indulging in deficit stimulus spending. He clearly wants to significantly increase defense and military spending, and when pressed by the moderator to explain the sources of funding for such an undertaking, Mr. Romney offered no convincing answer to the question.
Please don't misunderstand me on this; I'm all in favor of Federal stimulus spending. It's just that some stimulus spending is better than others. Defense and military spending does not have the downstream economic yield that can be achieved through other types of stimulus spending.
Think about it this way: let's say we spend an extra billion dollars on bullets; it doesn't matter what kind of bullets, or what size, they are just bullets of any type, or of some mixture of types. The economic result is a billion dollars of one-time economic activity. Those bullets are stored and they do nothing else until they are fired.
On the other hand, let's say that we spend that extra billion dollars on fixing some American highway bridges. As before, it doesn't make any difference what the bridges look like; we're just doing highway bridge repairs and building. That also has an economic result of one billion dollars of economic activity.
So far, that sounds about the same as buying the billion dollars' worth of bullets (aside from any ethical or practical concerns). But here's where there's a big difference -- while the bullets sit around doing nothing else, the highway bridges perform important and long-term follow-on services for the nation's people and its economy by improving the transportation system. This bridge work helps people and businesses by enhancing transportation safety and transportation timeliness.
There's value in safety, and there's value in timeliness. That means that there's more than a single billion dollars worth of additional economic activity created by that billion dollar expenditure on bridge work.
This needs to be said to any voters who still maintain an "undecided" status: It's clear that our choice for President is between two different styles and two different substances.
Isn't that what the debates and the whole extended political drama--or would it be better to say "trauma"?-- of the presidential campaign cycle is all about -- choosing from among the various combinations of style and substance that are on offer?
Last week's debate provided a different piece of evidence on the choice.
Mr. Romney--trying to look like he was displaying an understanding of the interrelated economics of energy and pollution--complained that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made it too hard to build a new coal-fired power plant.
Mr. Obama correctly pointed out that the EPA is doing exactly what people want it to do when it clamps down on coal-burning because coal is the dirtiest fuel that we have. And, by the way, the price of natural gas as a power plant fuel has fallen so low in the last few years that energy companies prefer the economic advantages of natural gas as a fuel over the higher costs of coal.
Coal is dirty. Most people--myself included--don't want any more pollution in our living environments. Mr. Obama doesn't like coal. Mr. Romney likes coal. Mr. Obama has the high ground here.
More to come.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Voting on California's propositions
There are eleven state-wide propositions on the California ballot this November.
For some authoritative help, check out the excellent Los Angeles Times voter guide. This is a comprehensive and non-partisan resource. The guide includes the newspaper's voting recommendations, but only as another piece of information. If you haven't already visited it and you are looking for facts as well as opinion on these things, then click here to see it.
Here are my thoughts on these propositions, sequentially by proposition number as shown on the ballot.
Why it's on the ballot: the Governor made it happen.
LWC votes "YES."
Reason for LWC vote: The current budget is balanced because it assumes that this measure will pass. If the measure does not pass, the budget will be out of balance, which will cause automatic spending cuts in the amount of about $6 billion, and so it's still a balanced budget. Slightly more than 98% of those cuts would be to the various California public education systems: K - 12 schools, community colleges, California State University and University of California. California ranks 47th among the states in its per-pupil funding of public schools. Support for higher education has been cut to the point that some elements in UC are attempting to remove themselves from being considered as "public higher education." Both UC and CSU tuition charges have increased dramatically. This condition is not new, the budget cutting has been going on for the last decade, and that's already too long. It's time to face the fact that either some taxes must increase so that public education can be properly funded, or we accept the reality of a declining educational system that will fail to produce the quality student product in the numbers needed by the State and its businesses for the future. If anybody opposed to this measure can truthfully stand up and say that California's public education system is adequately-funded given the current and future needs of the state's students and businesses, then they are keeping mum on the subject, because that's not the opposition's spin. Instead, their campaign is full of misleading statements and other innuendos. Long-term tax reform that includes bifurcation of the Proposition 13 property tax law so that commercial property ceases to benefit at the homeowner's and individual taxpayer's expense would be better, but that's not what is on the ballot this time.
Why it's on the ballot: a really rich fellow named Nicolas Berggruen has made it happen.
LWC votes "NO."
Reason for LWC vote: state budgeting is getting better, but only in the last year or two, and that's a process that is baked-in for a one-year budget cycle; does anybody really think that all of a sudden now is time to try to plan ahead for a two year budget? Not me. Maybe someday, but let's have the new and improved budgeting process settle down for a bit before making a big change to it. Besides, if it's real tough to balance the budget as things are now, does it make sense to make it tougher by pulling a pot load of money away from the balancing act? No, there's no sense in that one, either. Finally, this is way complicated, and it's not clear why life would be better if all of the many pieces of this proposition were enacted. When things like this confuse me, I tend to vote against them; this time is no exception.
Why it's on the ballot: a really rich fellow named Charles Thomas Munger, Jr.--and some other really rich people--made it happen.
LWC votes "NO."
Reason for LWC vote: aw, c'mon folks, this one is so blatantly anti-union and asymmetrical that this is one of the really easy votes. Here's the reality: the only way that unions get funding for anything is via member contributions, which are the result of voluntary member decisions. Corporations do not depend on deductions from employee paychecks for the money that they need to play these games. Corporate funding for anything that they do ultimately comes from the revenues that they generate from their customers. If deductions from employee paychecks for union political activities are to be banned, then the only way to treat corporations symmetrically would be to ban them using whatever money they collect from their customers, and that's not happening here.
Why it's on the ballot: a really rich fellow named George Joseph--the founder and chief mucky-muck of auto insurer Mercury General Insurance--made it happen.
LWC votes "NO."
Reason for LWC vote: voted "no" on almost the exact same thing in 2010, as did most other voters, and the reasons are still the same -- this is on the ballot by Mercury Insurance to benefit Mercury Insurance; it includes no true or measurable benefits for California drivers. Here's another reason to vote "no:" this is an example of how the ballot gets cluttered up with self-serving ideas with little or no general benefit to the State. Take a look at your auto insurance policy and notice all the discounts for which you have qualified; there are lots of them. If Mr. Joseph wants to increase his company's business--which he does, and that's only natural--then let him do it just like all the other insurance companies do within the existing structure of today's auto insurance industry in California. It's an industry that is both regulated and highly-competitive, and it works well for California drivers, and has done so for a lot of years, ever since Proposition 103 was enacted. There's no compelling reason to change things in the way that this initiative does.
Why it's on the ballot: a really rich guy named Nicholas Pritzker--and some pals--made it happen.
LWC votes "YES."
Reason for LWC vote: moral and ethical opposition to the death penalty. The proponents make the argument that the death penalty is too expensive for the state, or--at the very least--the state can save big bucks by repealing this penalty. Their numbers seem to add up--I remember using the same logic during high school debates many years ago; the financial argument was valid then, and it's probably even more valid now. But that's just a fiscal sideshow for me. If even one convicted individual is erroneously executed--it's happened--then the death penalty is a failure. In addition, nobody has ever produced any convincing evidence that the death penalty is actually a deterrent to future crime. Do we really want to share a truly significant social characteristic with nations such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and China?
Why it's on the ballot: a fellow named Chris M. Kelly who's apparently rich enough to contribute over $1.5 million (according to the Times) to get this thing to qualify.
LWC votes "NO."
Reason for LWC vote: we already have lots of laws against human trafficking, and there's no apparent reason for having any more.
Why it's on the ballot: more rich-guy support, but also because of all the news over the last few years about how over-crowded the state's prisons are, and how much of the state's budget is spent on incarceration.
LWC votes "YES."
Reason for LWC vote: as currently enacted, the three strikes law forbids a judge from using judgment (isn't that why we have them?). Consequently, California has an unusually high percentage of its population behind bars, even as the incidence of violent crime has decreased. That's whacky, and the existing three strikes law is a big cause of that whackiness.
Why it's on the ballot: lots of people have lots of concerns about genetically-modified organisms, including (and especially) food for human consumption.
LWC votes "???"
Reason for LWC vote: this is an issue that's going to come up again, irrespective of the outcome of this proposition, and when that happens it ought to be with more general public information that has been the case so far. On the other hand, there's no reason why the public shouldn't be informed of the nature of what they are eating at the earliest possible moment. This one's up in the air until further notice.
Why it's on the ballot: a really rich lady named Molly Munger, and at least some of the California PTA, prefers this approach to increase school funding over the approach set forth in Proposition 30.
LWC votes "NO."
Reason for LWC vote: in the short run, enacting this one would provide less funding to schools than would Prop 30--but in the long run it would provide more. However, for both the short term and the long term, Prop 38 would also blow a bigger hole in the state's general fund budgeting. It's become clear that ballot initiatives such as this one that siphon tax money into iron-clad special funding buckets is one of the major reasons for the state's perennial budgeting problems. This would exacerbate those problems.
Why it's on the ballot: this is interesting -- several years ago the Legislature and the Terminator Governor worked too late one night on a budget bill--admittedly a complex thing--and they did something that was not intended; this proposition will undo what was done at that time.
LWC votes "YES."
Reason for LWC vote: the mistake mentioned above gives preferential tax treatment to certain businesses that take their jobs outside of California; yes, odd as it sounds, that was the mistake that was made a few years ago. This proposition would correct that error.
Why it's on the ballot: the state's Republican Party didn't like the newly-drawn Senate districts, so they managed to confuse enough people that this thing qualified for the ballot.
LWC votes "YES."
Reason for LWC vote: first of all, this is a referendum and not a proposition like the other items on the ballot, and the people who put referendums on the ballot want the winning vote to be the "no" vote, because that's how the intent of the referendum is achieved. In this case, the people who put the referendum on this year's ballot--mostly the California Republican Party--have announced that they no longer want to achieve the intent of the referendum. . .in other words, they now think that the Citizens Redistricting Commission has done a good job. So, this is one case where whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or something else entirely, you can vote "YES" and in good conscience feel that you are contributing to bipartisanship, non-partisanship, or whatever floats your boat. What a waste of time and money it was to put this one on the ballot.
For some authoritative help, check out the excellent Los Angeles Times voter guide. This is a comprehensive and non-partisan resource. The guide includes the newspaper's voting recommendations, but only as another piece of information. If you haven't already visited it and you are looking for facts as well as opinion on these things, then click here to see it.
Here are my thoughts on these propositions, sequentially by proposition number as shown on the ballot.
30 - Gov. Brown's temporary tax increases
Summary: increases state sales tax by 1/4% for four years; and, increases for a period of seven years income taxes on individual annual incomes greater than $250,000, and on joint filer incomes of greater than $500,000.Why it's on the ballot: the Governor made it happen.
LWC votes "YES."
Reason for LWC vote: The current budget is balanced because it assumes that this measure will pass. If the measure does not pass, the budget will be out of balance, which will cause automatic spending cuts in the amount of about $6 billion, and so it's still a balanced budget. Slightly more than 98% of those cuts would be to the various California public education systems: K - 12 schools, community colleges, California State University and University of California. California ranks 47th among the states in its per-pupil funding of public schools. Support for higher education has been cut to the point that some elements in UC are attempting to remove themselves from being considered as "public higher education." Both UC and CSU tuition charges have increased dramatically. This condition is not new, the budget cutting has been going on for the last decade, and that's already too long. It's time to face the fact that either some taxes must increase so that public education can be properly funded, or we accept the reality of a declining educational system that will fail to produce the quality student product in the numbers needed by the State and its businesses for the future. If anybody opposed to this measure can truthfully stand up and say that California's public education system is adequately-funded given the current and future needs of the state's students and businesses, then they are keeping mum on the subject, because that's not the opposition's spin. Instead, their campaign is full of misleading statements and other innuendos. Long-term tax reform that includes bifurcation of the Proposition 13 property tax law so that commercial property ceases to benefit at the homeowner's and individual taxpayer's expense would be better, but that's not what is on the ballot this time.
31 - Changes to state budgeting, and moving state monies to localities
Summary: makes the state budget a two-year affair; enables Governor to make somewhat arbitrary budget cuts during "fiscal emergencies;" transfers about $200 million annually of state budget monies to localities if they establish differing statutes on how to handle certain state-funded programs.Why it's on the ballot: a really rich fellow named Nicolas Berggruen has made it happen.
LWC votes "NO."
Reason for LWC vote: state budgeting is getting better, but only in the last year or two, and that's a process that is baked-in for a one-year budget cycle; does anybody really think that all of a sudden now is time to try to plan ahead for a two year budget? Not me. Maybe someday, but let's have the new and improved budgeting process settle down for a bit before making a big change to it. Besides, if it's real tough to balance the budget as things are now, does it make sense to make it tougher by pulling a pot load of money away from the balancing act? No, there's no sense in that one, either. Finally, this is way complicated, and it's not clear why life would be better if all of the many pieces of this proposition were enacted. When things like this confuse me, I tend to vote against them; this time is no exception.
32 - Limitations on union and corporate political contributions
Summary: prohibits labor unions, corporations, government contractors, and state/local governments from spending money deducted from employee paychecks for political purposes.Why it's on the ballot: a really rich fellow named Charles Thomas Munger, Jr.--and some other really rich people--made it happen.
LWC votes "NO."
Reason for LWC vote: aw, c'mon folks, this one is so blatantly anti-union and asymmetrical that this is one of the really easy votes. Here's the reality: the only way that unions get funding for anything is via member contributions, which are the result of voluntary member decisions. Corporations do not depend on deductions from employee paychecks for the money that they need to play these games. Corporate funding for anything that they do ultimately comes from the revenues that they generate from their customers. If deductions from employee paychecks for union political activities are to be banned, then the only way to treat corporations symmetrically would be to ban them using whatever money they collect from their customers, and that's not happening here.
33 - "Portability" of loyalty discounts for automobile insurance
Summary: would create new auto insurance discounting capabilities within California's Proposition 103 structure.Why it's on the ballot: a really rich fellow named George Joseph--the founder and chief mucky-muck of auto insurer Mercury General Insurance--made it happen.
LWC votes "NO."
Reason for LWC vote: voted "no" on almost the exact same thing in 2010, as did most other voters, and the reasons are still the same -- this is on the ballot by Mercury Insurance to benefit Mercury Insurance; it includes no true or measurable benefits for California drivers. Here's another reason to vote "no:" this is an example of how the ballot gets cluttered up with self-serving ideas with little or no general benefit to the State. Take a look at your auto insurance policy and notice all the discounts for which you have qualified; there are lots of them. If Mr. Joseph wants to increase his company's business--which he does, and that's only natural--then let him do it just like all the other insurance companies do within the existing structure of today's auto insurance industry in California. It's an industry that is both regulated and highly-competitive, and it works well for California drivers, and has done so for a lot of years, ever since Proposition 103 was enacted. There's no compelling reason to change things in the way that this initiative does.
34 - Death penalty repeal
Summary: repeals the death penalty and replaces it with lifetime imprisonment without possibility of parole.Why it's on the ballot: a really rich guy named Nicholas Pritzker--and some pals--made it happen.
LWC votes "YES."
Reason for LWC vote: moral and ethical opposition to the death penalty. The proponents make the argument that the death penalty is too expensive for the state, or--at the very least--the state can save big bucks by repealing this penalty. Their numbers seem to add up--I remember using the same logic during high school debates many years ago; the financial argument was valid then, and it's probably even more valid now. But that's just a fiscal sideshow for me. If even one convicted individual is erroneously executed--it's happened--then the death penalty is a failure. In addition, nobody has ever produced any convincing evidence that the death penalty is actually a deterrent to future crime. Do we really want to share a truly significant social characteristic with nations such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and China?
35 - Expands definition of human trafficking
Summary: expands the definition of human trafficking, increases some penalties, and adds related law enforcement responsibilities.Why it's on the ballot: a fellow named Chris M. Kelly who's apparently rich enough to contribute over $1.5 million (according to the Times) to get this thing to qualify.
LWC votes "NO."
Reason for LWC vote: we already have lots of laws against human trafficking, and there's no apparent reason for having any more.
36 - Adding some leniency to the state's "Three Strikes Law"
Summary: would modify the current "Three Strikes Law" by letting it be applied differently depending on whether the third conviction is a serious/violent felony, or if it is something less.Why it's on the ballot: more rich-guy support, but also because of all the news over the last few years about how over-crowded the state's prisons are, and how much of the state's budget is spent on incarceration.
LWC votes "YES."
Reason for LWC vote: as currently enacted, the three strikes law forbids a judge from using judgment (isn't that why we have them?). Consequently, California has an unusually high percentage of its population behind bars, even as the incidence of violent crime has decreased. That's whacky, and the existing three strikes law is a big cause of that whackiness.
37 - Labeling of genetically-modified food
Summary: would require the labeling--in certain cases--of food for sale that is the result of genetic engineering.Why it's on the ballot: lots of people have lots of concerns about genetically-modified organisms, including (and especially) food for human consumption.
LWC votes "???"
Reason for LWC vote: this is an issue that's going to come up again, irrespective of the outcome of this proposition, and when that happens it ought to be with more general public information that has been the case so far. On the other hand, there's no reason why the public shouldn't be informed of the nature of what they are eating at the earliest possible moment. This one's up in the air until further notice.
38 - Tax to fund education
Summary: increases personal income tax rates on almost everybody (all earnings above $7316/year) using a sliding scale (i.e., lower percentage increase for lower incomes, higher percentage increase for larger incomes) for a period of twelve years, with most of the resulting revenues going to public school funding.Why it's on the ballot: a really rich lady named Molly Munger, and at least some of the California PTA, prefers this approach to increase school funding over the approach set forth in Proposition 30.
LWC votes "NO."
Reason for LWC vote: in the short run, enacting this one would provide less funding to schools than would Prop 30--but in the long run it would provide more. However, for both the short term and the long term, Prop 38 would also blow a bigger hole in the state's general fund budgeting. It's become clear that ballot initiatives such as this one that siphon tax money into iron-clad special funding buckets is one of the major reasons for the state's perennial budgeting problems. This would exacerbate those problems.
39 - Modifying tax treatment for multistate businesses
Summary: requires multistate businesses to calculate their income tax liability solely on the business they do within California; simplifies other aspects of the business tax code; provides some related funding for clean energy jobs.Why it's on the ballot: this is interesting -- several years ago the Legislature and the Terminator Governor worked too late one night on a budget bill--admittedly a complex thing--and they did something that was not intended; this proposition will undo what was done at that time.
LWC votes "YES."
Reason for LWC vote: the mistake mentioned above gives preferential tax treatment to certain businesses that take their jobs outside of California; yes, odd as it sounds, that was the mistake that was made a few years ago. This proposition would correct that error.
40 - Senate redistricting referendum
Summary: passage of this referendum is needed to approve the California State Senate redistricting that has been done by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.Why it's on the ballot: the state's Republican Party didn't like the newly-drawn Senate districts, so they managed to confuse enough people that this thing qualified for the ballot.
LWC votes "YES."
Reason for LWC vote: first of all, this is a referendum and not a proposition like the other items on the ballot, and the people who put referendums on the ballot want the winning vote to be the "no" vote, because that's how the intent of the referendum is achieved. In this case, the people who put the referendum on this year's ballot--mostly the California Republican Party--have announced that they no longer want to achieve the intent of the referendum. . .in other words, they now think that the Citizens Redistricting Commission has done a good job. So, this is one case where whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or something else entirely, you can vote "YES" and in good conscience feel that you are contributing to bipartisanship, non-partisanship, or whatever floats your boat. What a waste of time and money it was to put this one on the ballot.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Some ideas for a less polite Barack Obama in the next debate, and why the election is about fruits and vegetables
Mitt Romney scored in last week's debate with President Obama. In my posting prior to the debate, I commented that Barack Obama is imperfect; I just didn't expect the imperfections to show up the way they did in the debate.
Obama was too polite. There's no reason for anybody to be rude in these things, but his polite and collaborative style doesn't play well when the challenger is doing what challengers naturally do -- he's trying to tear you down. Speaking in culinary terms, Romney is throwing lots of red meat on the grill, and Obama is distracted by all the details involved in getting the fruits and vegetables ready for the table.
So, with the benefit of time and of 20-20 hindsight, and with the hope of a more pro-Obama outcome in the upcoming debates, here are some ideas for things that the President might have said differently and more effectively.
(Now turning towards the audience and the cameras with a sincere and earnest aspect) -- "On the other hand, the fundamentals of our free-market economy tell us that two big things create growth and more jobs: investment and consumer demand. Especially investment in things like infrastructure -- transportation stuff" (he uses the s-word easily; let's not try to change everything!) "like bridges so that people and goods can move more quickly, safely and economically. That means employment, which means wages, which means more consumer demand, and the consumer is 70% of our economy. That's the big lever right there!" (While firmly but quietly thumping the podium for emphasis.)
(Again with the skeptical look at Mr. Romney) -- "Mitt, you just don't seem to understand the simple math of taxes and spending. If you decrease tax rates, and don't bother to explain how other things like tax exemptions will be changed, then the Federal deficit will increase unless you cut lots and lots of spending, too. And you cannot cut the Federal spending enough by eliminating the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting while increasing what goes to defense and the military, because every year we put out 1400 times as much money on defense as we do on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting!" (This last part delivered with a wide-eyed and yet steely gaze into the cameras.)
"However," (while maintaining that steely gaze) "folks, here's the simple truth about the Federal debt: we can deal with it only by cutting down on all spending, raising more tax revenues from those who can afford to pay while not depressing their consumption, and adjusting corporate taxation and regulatory policies in such a way as to motivate businesses to do things that will cause the economy to grow, because ultimately the Federal debt is managed downward only through economic growth and balanced Federal taxation and spending policies."
(LWC note: speaking the truth can have undesirable consequences.)
None of us is responsible for what other people say. However, if we intend to let our vote be influenced because of what another says, then we have a responsibility to do some fact-checking on what we hear.
Both presidential campaigns are guilty of misstatements, omissions, deceptions and distortions. That's not telling you anything new. American politics have been full of such things since before there was a United States of America. Possibly the only American elections that have not been so afflicted were when George Washington was elected President, and those were uncontested elections. That's not going to happen again.
So, my plan is to accept the unpleasant realities of politics and deal with them by recognizing the misstatements, omissions, deceptions and distortions and learning about what's behind them.
Ultimately, though, voters want to elect a President who has a well thought-out and clearly-articulated vision for the future. It's just natural that it feels better to be moving ahead and towards something, rather than to be voting against something or someone. The President and his campaign need to work on this and improve the message, both in content and in delivery.
They can do this. If the economy is the most important thing in this election, then consumer behavior is key to the whole thing, since the American consumer is generally considered to be responsible for about 70% of the nation's economic activity. Consumer behavior is the result of a fortunate combination of need, cash on hand, and confidence in financial security. The nation is sitting on a compressed spring of pent-up demand caused by four years and more of paying down debt and consequently avoiding some consumer spending; there's loads of cash squirreled away in savings and money market accounts, and employment has improved and is improving. Confidence is lacking, in large part because so much of the consumer's wealth is tied up in a housing market that is healing its wounds at too slow a pace. Devise a way to address that last piece, and the yield from it would be a convincing economic program, as discussed in an earlier posting.
There's really not much mystery to the goals of a second Obama term as President, except in the minds of the right-wing punditocracy and any others who have been living under a rock for the last few years. Obama's commitments to using governmental leadership and activism to bring about social justice and equity, as well as economic innovation and prosperity, are already established and well-known. A second Obama Administration--in its domestic economic actions--will build further on the foundations that have already been established. These encompass his legislative achievements in healthcare and consumer financial protection, as well as targeting investments in promising national infrastructure opportunities where the risks are too great for the timid leadership that is endemic in contemporary American business. A second-term President Obama will probably find a more diplomatic way to say that last statement; by contrast, Romney as President wouldn't even want to think about it.
My advice to candidate Barack Obama is, of course, unsolicited and will probably never be seen by him or his campaign. That's OK with me. They are very busy--while probably not having as much fun with this as I am--and though they are guilty of faulty campaigning, it just seems to me that the Romney campaign's distortions amount to much bigger whoppers than anything being told by the Obama campaign. And yet those whoppers make for effective election tactics because busy voters find them easily-digestable since they are served up without a lot of facts and details.
Whoppers are full of red meat and some tasty condiments, so they show well (if you like red meat). Facts and details, by contrast, are like fruits and vegetables, and for that reason people find it easy to overlook them.
Reelecting Barack Obama as President of the United States can be done if the voters will consume the fruits and vegetables as well as the red meat. It's up to Campaign Obama to enhance the culinary experience beyond where it is now. I happen to think that the performance necessary to achieve this result will require offering fruit that is ripe and sweet, as well as vegetables that are highly-seasoned.
Obama was too polite. There's no reason for anybody to be rude in these things, but his polite and collaborative style doesn't play well when the challenger is doing what challengers naturally do -- he's trying to tear you down. Speaking in culinary terms, Romney is throwing lots of red meat on the grill, and Obama is distracted by all the details involved in getting the fruits and vegetables ready for the table.
So, with the benefit of time and of 20-20 hindsight, and with the hope of a more pro-Obama outcome in the upcoming debates, here are some ideas for things that the President might have said differently and more effectively.
On the economy
(With a skeptical look at Mr. Romney) -- "Well, Mitt, it's pretty obvious that even after all this time campaigning you still don't have a clue on how to create jobs because all you do is talk this trickle-down stuff about how lowering tax rates for the wealthy will cause those people to create jobs and boost the economy, but that's never happened before and it looks like you have no idea on why it would work out differently now!"(Now turning towards the audience and the cameras with a sincere and earnest aspect) -- "On the other hand, the fundamentals of our free-market economy tell us that two big things create growth and more jobs: investment and consumer demand. Especially investment in things like infrastructure -- transportation stuff" (he uses the s-word easily; let's not try to change everything!) "like bridges so that people and goods can move more quickly, safely and economically. That means employment, which means wages, which means more consumer demand, and the consumer is 70% of our economy. That's the big lever right there!" (While firmly but quietly thumping the podium for emphasis.)
On the Federal debt
(Again with the skeptical look at Mr. Romney) -- "Mitt, you just don't seem to understand the simple math of taxes and spending. If you decrease tax rates, and don't bother to explain how other things like tax exemptions will be changed, then the Federal deficit will increase unless you cut lots and lots of spending, too. And you cannot cut the Federal spending enough by eliminating the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting while increasing what goes to defense and the military, because every year we put out 1400 times as much money on defense as we do on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting!" (This last part delivered with a wide-eyed and yet steely gaze into the cameras.)
"However," (while maintaining that steely gaze) "folks, here's the simple truth about the Federal debt: we can deal with it only by cutting down on all spending, raising more tax revenues from those who can afford to pay while not depressing their consumption, and adjusting corporate taxation and regulatory policies in such a way as to motivate businesses to do things that will cause the economy to grow, because ultimately the Federal debt is managed downward only through economic growth and balanced Federal taxation and spending policies."
(LWC note: speaking the truth can have undesirable consequences.)
On healthcare
"Mitt," (no finger-pointing here, because that's rude, but with a look of pride bordering on strutting, if that's even possible in these staged settings) "Mitt, you and our Republican colleagues have simply made no progress in understanding America's healthcare needs and solutions. Maybe you had some appreciation for this several years ago when you were governor of Massachusetts" (speaking now with a playful and friendly grin) "and you and your State Legislature put together a similar healthcare program. But I think that you have forgotten about those days. Our healthcare reforms are fully based on the same marketplace and the same businesses and organizations that Americans have used for decades. The changes make it better because now" (voice modulating to communicate triumph) "most of that marketplace's failings that have cheated Americans out of needed and affordable healthcare have been fixed, and they've been fixed by my team working with those same healthcare organizations. Why, even that $700 billion being removed from Medicare--this is the thing that you keep harping about--is being removed because the healthcare providers agreed that it is not needed as payment for services since they will no longer have to deal with huge numbers of uninsured patients!" (Cue to firmly gesturing with a slightly opened and upraised hand. . .) "Now that's how you make government and business work together for the benefit of the people!" (Say it with a look of great pleasure and success.)Finished with role-playing now; what's this all about?
None of us is responsible for what other people say. However, if we intend to let our vote be influenced because of what another says, then we have a responsibility to do some fact-checking on what we hear.
Both presidential campaigns are guilty of misstatements, omissions, deceptions and distortions. That's not telling you anything new. American politics have been full of such things since before there was a United States of America. Possibly the only American elections that have not been so afflicted were when George Washington was elected President, and those were uncontested elections. That's not going to happen again.
So, my plan is to accept the unpleasant realities of politics and deal with them by recognizing the misstatements, omissions, deceptions and distortions and learning about what's behind them.
It feels better to be running towards something rather than away from something
Much has been made about campaign "attack ads" and "negativity" in general. Both sides have indulged in this; I wish this weren't so for my side. Nonetheless, if the Obama campaign is guilty of "demonizing" Mitt Romney--as some have said--for his past attitudes and practices, then it is worth noting that none of this sinks to the depths that the right-hand side of the political spectrum has occupied for the last four years by similarly-demonizing Barack Obama on the subjects of his birth certificate, his patriotism, and a conservative-defined penchant for "class warfare."Ultimately, though, voters want to elect a President who has a well thought-out and clearly-articulated vision for the future. It's just natural that it feels better to be moving ahead and towards something, rather than to be voting against something or someone. The President and his campaign need to work on this and improve the message, both in content and in delivery.
They can do this. If the economy is the most important thing in this election, then consumer behavior is key to the whole thing, since the American consumer is generally considered to be responsible for about 70% of the nation's economic activity. Consumer behavior is the result of a fortunate combination of need, cash on hand, and confidence in financial security. The nation is sitting on a compressed spring of pent-up demand caused by four years and more of paying down debt and consequently avoiding some consumer spending; there's loads of cash squirreled away in savings and money market accounts, and employment has improved and is improving. Confidence is lacking, in large part because so much of the consumer's wealth is tied up in a housing market that is healing its wounds at too slow a pace. Devise a way to address that last piece, and the yield from it would be a convincing economic program, as discussed in an earlier posting.
Perhaps some honestly don't know where Obama is going. . .but not many
There's really not much mystery to the goals of a second Obama term as President, except in the minds of the right-wing punditocracy and any others who have been living under a rock for the last few years. Obama's commitments to using governmental leadership and activism to bring about social justice and equity, as well as economic innovation and prosperity, are already established and well-known. A second Obama Administration--in its domestic economic actions--will build further on the foundations that have already been established. These encompass his legislative achievements in healthcare and consumer financial protection, as well as targeting investments in promising national infrastructure opportunities where the risks are too great for the timid leadership that is endemic in contemporary American business. A second-term President Obama will probably find a more diplomatic way to say that last statement; by contrast, Romney as President wouldn't even want to think about it.
My advice to candidate Barack Obama is, of course, unsolicited and will probably never be seen by him or his campaign. That's OK with me. They are very busy--while probably not having as much fun with this as I am--and though they are guilty of faulty campaigning, it just seems to me that the Romney campaign's distortions amount to much bigger whoppers than anything being told by the Obama campaign. And yet those whoppers make for effective election tactics because busy voters find them easily-digestable since they are served up without a lot of facts and details.
Whoppers are full of red meat and some tasty condiments, so they show well (if you like red meat). Facts and details, by contrast, are like fruits and vegetables, and for that reason people find it easy to overlook them.
Reelecting Barack Obama as President of the United States can be done if the voters will consume the fruits and vegetables as well as the red meat. It's up to Campaign Obama to enhance the culinary experience beyond where it is now. I happen to think that the performance necessary to achieve this result will require offering fruit that is ripe and sweet, as well as vegetables that are highly-seasoned.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Why the highly imperfect Barack Obama deserves to be--and will be--re-elected
President Barack Obama has succeeded in doing some of what he said he would do during his campaign four years ago, and he has failed to accomplish other goals he set forth at that time. Oddly, there is a single common thread running through both successes and failures -- political compromise. This is why he deserves to be reelected, and it is why he will be reelected.
Americans, for the most part, are in favor of political compromise. In a prior posting you can read about the polling results showing that big majorities of those who identify themselves as Democrats and as Independents favor compromise. This is how the middle of the political road is found. Unfortunately, the leader who works through compromise is usually a disappointment to some, and perhaps even a villain to others. Nowhere near a perfect outcome, is it?
The Federal stimulus program of 2009 was a compromise. Liberals--those of us, anyway, who describe ourselves as economic Keynesians--wanted a program that would have been at least twice its eventual size. Conservatives--Republicans, in this case--apparently wanted nothing. That's another compromise and another middle of the road.
New regulations for the financial system and continuation of the "Bush tax cut" income tax rates are the results of Obama's apparent proclivity to seek consensus since neither side in the debates came away in the end with all that was desired. Political consensus is achieved only through political compromise.
The voters recognize that the Republicans have blockaded these proposals, and they know this not because it is somebody's opinion, but they know this because elected Republicans and the GOP have boasted of having done so. And that helps to build the case for Obama as a compromiser and middle-roader. Extraordinary, perhaps, but true.
The swinging political door isn't new, and it doesn't help all that much in winning elections. It doesn't help because it sends a mostly negative message. Both campaigns have indulged in negative advertising, but the Romney Republican campaign has mired itself in that environment. As a result, any message promoting the specifics of what to expect in a Romney presidency is muted.
On the contrary, the specifics of the Romney campaign include such things as signing the Norquist "no new taxes" pledge, and publicly stating during the Republican primaries that a hypothetical offer of $10 in Federal spending cuts in return for $1 for new taxes would be unacceptable because that would amount to a compromise. People want compromise. That's the way the American government has succeeded for over two hundred years. (What could be more "conservative" than continuing to do things the way that they have been done for two centuries and more?)
When confronted with the choice between the imperfections of the compromiser that is Obama, and the likely poor governance that will result from the lack of well-thought and carefully presented details that have so far been the hallmark that is Romney, the American voters will choose Barack Obama.
Americans, for the most part, are in favor of political compromise. In a prior posting you can read about the polling results showing that big majorities of those who identify themselves as Democrats and as Independents favor compromise. This is how the middle of the political road is found. Unfortunately, the leader who works through compromise is usually a disappointment to some, and perhaps even a villain to others. Nowhere near a perfect outcome, is it?
The successes
Obamacare, as enacted, is a compromise. It's based on the long-standing, market-based fee-for-service healthcare model that the country has always used. Liberals would have preferred moving towards a single-payer system; conservatives would have preferred less, rather than more, regulation. As President, Barack Obama succeeded with a compromise that found the middle of the road.The Federal stimulus program of 2009 was a compromise. Liberals--those of us, anyway, who describe ourselves as economic Keynesians--wanted a program that would have been at least twice its eventual size. Conservatives--Republicans, in this case--apparently wanted nothing. That's another compromise and another middle of the road.
New regulations for the financial system and continuation of the "Bush tax cut" income tax rates are the results of Obama's apparent proclivity to seek consensus since neither side in the debates came away in the end with all that was desired. Political consensus is achieved only through political compromise.
The failures
He has failed to plan for the proper management of the Federal debt; for the closing of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay; for increased effectiveness of environmental protection in the face of an onslaught of global warming consequences; and there's no doubt that the rates of joblessness and underemployment are too high. But for each of these, Barack Obama has proposed worthy, if imperfect, programs; and all of them have been stymied by a Republican-led House of Representatives.The voters recognize that the Republicans have blockaded these proposals, and they know this not because it is somebody's opinion, but they know this because elected Republicans and the GOP have boasted of having done so. And that helps to build the case for Obama as a compromiser and middle-roader. Extraordinary, perhaps, but true.
The swinging door
The campaign for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has primarily been one of looking for votes from people who don't like Barack Obama, his policies and his successes. In this case, the successes are presented as failures, but such a presentation is political posturing. If the man said he would do something and he made it happen, then it's a success, even if you don't agree with it. This is a door that swings both ways in politics; sometimes the Republicans push harder to swing it in their direction, and other times it's the Democrats who do that.The swinging political door isn't new, and it doesn't help all that much in winning elections. It doesn't help because it sends a mostly negative message. Both campaigns have indulged in negative advertising, but the Romney Republican campaign has mired itself in that environment. As a result, any message promoting the specifics of what to expect in a Romney presidency is muted.
The election
In other words, where Barack Obama as President has succeeded, there is no specific evidence from the Republican campaign on how Mitt Romney as President would succeed further. And, where Barack Obama has failed, there are likewise no specific proposals on how a Romney presidency would yield better results. The Republican campaign spouts dogma--such as, decrease tax rates for the rich because they create jobs--but there are no specific proposals regarding how to make such a thing happen when it has never happened before.On the contrary, the specifics of the Romney campaign include such things as signing the Norquist "no new taxes" pledge, and publicly stating during the Republican primaries that a hypothetical offer of $10 in Federal spending cuts in return for $1 for new taxes would be unacceptable because that would amount to a compromise. People want compromise. That's the way the American government has succeeded for over two hundred years. (What could be more "conservative" than continuing to do things the way that they have been done for two centuries and more?)
When confronted with the choice between the imperfections of the compromiser that is Obama, and the likely poor governance that will result from the lack of well-thought and carefully presented details that have so far been the hallmark that is Romney, the American voters will choose Barack Obama.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Writing a voter ID law? Better check the Constitution--and the history books--first
Should we do a better job of identifying voters in this country? Perhaps, but if so, then we would have to deal with all of those nitty-gritty details about how to do it, and how to do it right.
First of all, this seems like a solution looking for a problem. Cries of "voter fraud!" are dramatic and appealing, but they don't seem to be accompanied by proof of meaningful amounts of fraudulent behavior. If such proof exists, it's apparently mighty hard to find.
There's an organization called True the Vote that has been active on this subject in some controversial ways. So, I browsed on over to their web site, thinking that if anybody would be trumpeting some statistics on illegal voting or registration that it would be them. Evidently, they either don't have anything like that, or they want to make it oddly difficult to find.
Delving further into True the Vote's web site--quite the intrepid investigator, aren't I?--enabled me to discover a section called "Latest News for Voter Fraud" which began by asking me if I was aware that there are "voter fraud convictions and investigations in 46 states?" Well, no, I didn't know that, but with that enlightenment under my belt and thinking to myself "this must be where the meat is" I pursued the subject further.
One of the states listed was California, the most populous state in the country, and maybe it's chock full of illegal aliens all of whom are just itchin' to cast illegal ballots. So, mumbling to myself "this is gonna hurt because they've gotta have a bunch of something from California that they want to go on and on about" I clicked on the entry for California.
On opening my eyes I found myself confronted with a single news article from a local web publication covering Escondido. It turns out that an illegal Mexican immigrant in that municipality has recently admitted that he in fact cast a fraudulent vote in the 2008 election. There was no mention of why he didn't trouble himself to vote in the 2010 election.
The 2010 Census counted something like 37 million people in California, and in the 2008 election the state counted more than 13 million votes. Congratulations to True the Vote -- you've managed to find somebody's news article about one out of 13 million votes.
Their evidence about naughty voting is no more impressive for Ohio--less so, in fact--but they are still looking.
See, for example, the recent article by the Los Angeles Times on related efforts in Ohio which have largely backfired. Towards the end of the article is this statement by the Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted: "When you cry wolf, and there's no wolf," he said, "you undermine your credibility, and you have unjustly inconvenienced a legally registered voter, and that can border on voter intimidation." Nicely said, Mr. Husted, although it might also be true that such a border was crossed.
Where's the evidence of widespread voter fraud in this country? Beats me.
So far, though, any legislation and actions that states have taken in this regard have been very flawed. It's all been based on photo identification -- what it is, how to get it if you don't already have it, and how it is used.
There are a couple of obvious problems with photo identification for voters, not that the flurry of legislation this year has given any thought to them. To begin with, how do you keep photo ID's current with a person's changing appearance? Appearances can change for a variety of reasons; age comes to mind as one, or am I the only person who has noticed my changing visage due to a receding hairline? And it also seems like there would have to be ways of mediating disputes about the validity of photo identification, whether it is in-person or in some way connected with the ever more popular practice of vote-by-mail.
Anyway, instead of confronting practical issues that are presented by helpful citizens such as yours truly, some state legislatures are burdening us with faulty new laws on the subject.
Texas, for example, with a Republican-dominated Legislature, passed legislation that required voters to obtain their ID's by making a personal visit to a state office, branches of which are spread around that geographically-expansive domain. However, about a third of the counties don't have any of those offices, and where there are offices they keep them open for--at best--normal business hours. Whatever that might be in a state that prides itself on frugal state business operations.
Fortunately, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and a Federal Court have put the kibosh on the legislation.
In Pennsylvania, the Republican-majority Legislature enacted voter ID legislation that would require a person to present four forms of other identification first, one of which would have to be the individual's birth certificate. And there would be a charge of about $20 or so for obtaining the birth certificate. That's equivalent to a poll tax, and so another kibosh is applied.
It seems as if there might be job openings for constitutional lawyers in a couple of state legislatures.
By the way, this is the Pennsylvania legislation which, when passed, caused the leader of the legislature's Republican representatives to gleefully exclaim that they had just passed a law that would ensure the state's electoral votes go to the Republican presidential candidate this election year. Judge for yourself what that man's motivation might have been in supporting the legislation.
The states cannot be trusted on this subject. The Fifteenth (1870) and Nineteenth (1920) Amendments to the Constitution are there for this reason, as is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. They couldn't be trusted in the 19th Century; they couldn't be trusted in the 20th Century; and they cannot be trusted now in the 21st Century. Some of them are regressing.
Which isn't to say that improving voter identification is a bad idea. There's no obvious reason to fret about it and rush into it by enacting faulty legislation. But if it is found to be a good idea, then it needs to be done at a Federal level, because there's a whole lot of history telling us that it cannot be done in the right way at the state level.
First of all, this seems like a solution looking for a problem. Cries of "voter fraud!" are dramatic and appealing, but they don't seem to be accompanied by proof of meaningful amounts of fraudulent behavior. If such proof exists, it's apparently mighty hard to find.
There's an organization called True the Vote that has been active on this subject in some controversial ways. So, I browsed on over to their web site, thinking that if anybody would be trumpeting some statistics on illegal voting or registration that it would be them. Evidently, they either don't have anything like that, or they want to make it oddly difficult to find.
We dare you to learn more about voter fraud!
The web site offers a chance to "learn more" about how "True the Vote corrects the vote fraud deniers." Making that choice presented me with a copy of a letter from their lawyer addressed to some other organization that has been criticizing them. Well, you've probably guessed by now -- there wasn't much to be learned by reading that letter.Delving further into True the Vote's web site--quite the intrepid investigator, aren't I?--enabled me to discover a section called "Latest News for Voter Fraud" which began by asking me if I was aware that there are "voter fraud convictions and investigations in 46 states?" Well, no, I didn't know that, but with that enlightenment under my belt and thinking to myself "this must be where the meat is" I pursued the subject further.
Okay, now we double-dog dare you!
Sure enough, there's a list of states right there in front of me, all neatly arranged in alphabetical order and numbered from 1 to 46. Yes, I counted them; and came up with 46.One of the states listed was California, the most populous state in the country, and maybe it's chock full of illegal aliens all of whom are just itchin' to cast illegal ballots. So, mumbling to myself "this is gonna hurt because they've gotta have a bunch of something from California that they want to go on and on about" I clicked on the entry for California.
On opening my eyes I found myself confronted with a single news article from a local web publication covering Escondido. It turns out that an illegal Mexican immigrant in that municipality has recently admitted that he in fact cast a fraudulent vote in the 2008 election. There was no mention of why he didn't trouble himself to vote in the 2010 election.
The 2010 Census counted something like 37 million people in California, and in the 2008 election the state counted more than 13 million votes. Congratulations to True the Vote -- you've managed to find somebody's news article about one out of 13 million votes.
Their evidence about naughty voting is no more impressive for Ohio--less so, in fact--but they are still looking.
See, for example, the recent article by the Los Angeles Times on related efforts in Ohio which have largely backfired. Towards the end of the article is this statement by the Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted: "When you cry wolf, and there's no wolf," he said, "you undermine your credibility, and you have unjustly inconvenienced a legally registered voter, and that can border on voter intimidation." Nicely said, Mr. Husted, although it might also be true that such a border was crossed.
Where's the evidence of widespread voter fraud in this country? Beats me.
If it's a good idea, it deserves to be well-handled
Which isn't to say that having a better and more positive way of identifying voters is a bad idea. Maybe it's a good idea. Seems like it's worth thinking about.So far, though, any legislation and actions that states have taken in this regard have been very flawed. It's all been based on photo identification -- what it is, how to get it if you don't already have it, and how it is used.
There are a couple of obvious problems with photo identification for voters, not that the flurry of legislation this year has given any thought to them. To begin with, how do you keep photo ID's current with a person's changing appearance? Appearances can change for a variety of reasons; age comes to mind as one, or am I the only person who has noticed my changing visage due to a receding hairline? And it also seems like there would have to be ways of mediating disputes about the validity of photo identification, whether it is in-person or in some way connected with the ever more popular practice of vote-by-mail.
Anyway, instead of confronting practical issues that are presented by helpful citizens such as yours truly, some state legislatures are burdening us with faulty new laws on the subject.
Texas, for example, with a Republican-dominated Legislature, passed legislation that required voters to obtain their ID's by making a personal visit to a state office, branches of which are spread around that geographically-expansive domain. However, about a third of the counties don't have any of those offices, and where there are offices they keep them open for--at best--normal business hours. Whatever that might be in a state that prides itself on frugal state business operations.
Fortunately, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and a Federal Court have put the kibosh on the legislation.
 |
| 6 August, 1965 - Pres. Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King, Jr. at signing of Voting Rights Act |
In Pennsylvania, the Republican-majority Legislature enacted voter ID legislation that would require a person to present four forms of other identification first, one of which would have to be the individual's birth certificate. And there would be a charge of about $20 or so for obtaining the birth certificate. That's equivalent to a poll tax, and so another kibosh is applied.
It seems as if there might be job openings for constitutional lawyers in a couple of state legislatures.
By the way, this is the Pennsylvania legislation which, when passed, caused the leader of the legislature's Republican representatives to gleefully exclaim that they had just passed a law that would ensure the state's electoral votes go to the Republican presidential candidate this election year. Judge for yourself what that man's motivation might have been in supporting the legislation.
Get trusted the old-fashioned way -- earn it
The states cannot be trusted on this subject. The Fifteenth (1870) and Nineteenth (1920) Amendments to the Constitution are there for this reason, as is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. They couldn't be trusted in the 19th Century; they couldn't be trusted in the 20th Century; and they cannot be trusted now in the 21st Century. Some of them are regressing.
Which isn't to say that improving voter identification is a bad idea. There's no obvious reason to fret about it and rush into it by enacting faulty legislation. But if it is found to be a good idea, then it needs to be done at a Federal level, because there's a whole lot of history telling us that it cannot be done in the right way at the state level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)