When Mr. Obama was running for President I told my brother we needed someone who was bright enough to deal with all of the problems and insane enough to want to do it. The economy was in a shambles. We were also engaged in two wars. One of the wars was unnecessary, and it was causing us to neglect the necessary war. The most damning thing we can accurately say about the administration of George W. Bush is that it was the administration of neglect. Regulations that would have helped to prevent the economic meltdown were done away with or ignored. The same thing holds true of regulations that would have helped to prevent the gulf oil spill. Whether we are talking about foreign or domestic issues, there was a total lack of direction and no sense of priorities.
Mr. Bush’s failure to pursue a rebuilding program in Afghanistan and vigorously conduct the war there has made the situation much more difficult than it should have been. Like everything else inherited from the Bush administration the situation was out of hand, and none of the options left to Mr. Obama were very appealing. The frustration General McCrystal expressed is understandable, but his public criticism of his superiors is wrong under any circumstances. The first thing all military officers are taught is to defend their men from criticism and to defend their superiors from criticism. A field commander can and should be critical of strategy and tactics, but his criticism must not travel beyond the hearing of his superiors. His role is to advise his superiors and to carry out their directives to the best of his ability. If he feels that those orders are too foolish, his only recourse is to resign and then make his case in public. Every general knows there are very good reasons for those rules and why they must be followed. General McCrystal's irresponsible statements have undermined the command structure. At a time when we must carefully weigh our options, he has made himself a distracting side issue. In doing this, he has added one more problem to the many crises situations our President must now handle.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Tea Parties and Whisky Rebels
In an earlier post I took issue with Chris Mathews because he made the right wing lunatics sound like something new. Much to Mr. Mathew’s credit he showed a brief history of this right wing hysteria. He also showed a campaign advertisement by some tea party nimrod running for congress. In the advertisement this nimrod was having an imaginary conversation with George Washington. Nimrod was complaining about big government and taxes. His advertisement made it appear as though he had something in common with George Washington and the folks who participated in the original tea party. Like most right wingers, Nimrod demonstrated his ignorance of history. The members of the modern tea party have little or nothing in common with folks who participated in the Boston tea party, and George Washington would undoubtedly reject their cause.
Participants in the Boston Tea Party were rebelling against a tax levied at a time when they were being deprived of the hard currency they needed to pay for the most basic goods and services. The deprivation suffered by the colonists was so severe that they had to resort to the barter system. In fact Spanish currency derived from smuggling was actually as common if not more common than English currency, which is why we now have the dollar rather than the pound. Saying that the modern tea party is following the legacy of our founding fathers is a major brain fart. If our modern tax protesters resemble anyone of that era it is the people who participated in the Whisky Rebellion.
It quickly became apparent to George Washington and our other founding fathers that the government had to collect revenue if it was going to provide for the common defense and do the other things a government needs to do. They, therefore, levied a tax on whisky. When the whisky producers rebelled, President Washington vigorously quelled that rebellion. The tax on alcohol financed our government clear up until Prohibition. The income tax replaced the taxes on alcohol when alcohol was made illegal. The modern day right wing is not really against the income tax; it is against any and all taxes. Like the whisky rebels, they do not want any government they have to pay for regardless of how necessary or beneficial that government may be.
Those right wing idiots will undoubtedly object to my analogy if they ever figure it out. No one wants to be told they are supporting a cause that resembles one that was on the wrong side of history and failed. This, however, is what today’s right wing is doing. They have already had their man in office. Their man was George W. Bush, and the failure of his philosophy is apparent to anyone with more than a beer soaked peanut for a brain. Under his administration the wealthy became even wealthier, and everyone else became poorer. What is needed is not less government interference. What is needed is a government that tries to level the playing field and enforces regulations that keep the powerful from exploited the rest of us. It is not taxes that are hurting the middle class; rather it is high unemployment and the precipitous drop in real wages. It does not take a genius to realize that we are getting screwed by the insurance companies, the financial institutions, and the huge corporations that are chasing cheep labor overseas. A government that works to correct those things is a good government.
Participants in the Boston Tea Party were rebelling against a tax levied at a time when they were being deprived of the hard currency they needed to pay for the most basic goods and services. The deprivation suffered by the colonists was so severe that they had to resort to the barter system. In fact Spanish currency derived from smuggling was actually as common if not more common than English currency, which is why we now have the dollar rather than the pound. Saying that the modern tea party is following the legacy of our founding fathers is a major brain fart. If our modern tax protesters resemble anyone of that era it is the people who participated in the Whisky Rebellion.
It quickly became apparent to George Washington and our other founding fathers that the government had to collect revenue if it was going to provide for the common defense and do the other things a government needs to do. They, therefore, levied a tax on whisky. When the whisky producers rebelled, President Washington vigorously quelled that rebellion. The tax on alcohol financed our government clear up until Prohibition. The income tax replaced the taxes on alcohol when alcohol was made illegal. The modern day right wing is not really against the income tax; it is against any and all taxes. Like the whisky rebels, they do not want any government they have to pay for regardless of how necessary or beneficial that government may be.
Those right wing idiots will undoubtedly object to my analogy if they ever figure it out. No one wants to be told they are supporting a cause that resembles one that was on the wrong side of history and failed. This, however, is what today’s right wing is doing. They have already had their man in office. Their man was George W. Bush, and the failure of his philosophy is apparent to anyone with more than a beer soaked peanut for a brain. Under his administration the wealthy became even wealthier, and everyone else became poorer. What is needed is not less government interference. What is needed is a government that tries to level the playing field and enforces regulations that keep the powerful from exploited the rest of us. It is not taxes that are hurting the middle class; rather it is high unemployment and the precipitous drop in real wages. It does not take a genius to realize that we are getting screwed by the insurance companies, the financial institutions, and the huge corporations that are chasing cheep labor overseas. A government that works to correct those things is a good government.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Primaries 2010
The first small section of the political IQ test has been taken. It is the primaries, which means it groups voters by party. California not withstanding, this is as it should be in what is essentially a two party system. My assessments here are rather limited and superficial due to time constraints and my sources of information. Because of this I am concentrating mainly on California, which is my home state.
Arkansas: At first blush it appears that members of the Democratic Party in Arkansas demonstrated a low political IQ by nominating Blanch Lincoln who betrayed her party and her constituents by threatening to join the Republicans in a filibuster to thwart health care reform. She is often described as a Corporate Democrat, which means that she represents greedy business interests rather than the working men and women of her state and this nation. In all fairness to the Democrats in Arkansas, however, I should point out that there were some extenuating circumstances. A piece of unethical pig shit went to great lengths to stack the deck in Ms. Lincoln’s favor by eliminating polling places in the districts where her opponent, Mr. Halter, had the greatest support. The wait to vote at the polling places that remained open was as long as four hours. Hopefully, voters will remember this unconscionable tactic when they vote in the general election. A Republican will not be any better than Ms. Lincoln but could not be any worse. Voting Ms. Lincoln out of office will at least send a powerful message. The voters in Arkansas should also try to find a political shovel they can use to remove the pig shit!
California: Democrats in California showed a low political IQ by not turning out to vote. Granted that none of the prominent Democrats were in danger of losing the primary, but there were also important propositions on the ballet. By staying at home the Democrats let the Republicans decide measures put on the ballet by greedy insurance companies, Pacific Gas & Electric, and other special interests. This was an incredibly stupid thing to do.
Proposition 13 eliminates the tax penalty for retrofitting buildings. It passed and raises the voters’ political IQ score.
Poposition 14: In this blue state the Republicans favored Proposition 14, which all but eliminates Party primaries by allowing voters to vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. The candidates in the primary do not even have to declare a party. Thus Republicans and others can mask their party affiliation. Furthermore, since only the top two vote getters run off in the general election third parties will be excluded from the general election. In 1959 California did away with cross filing, which allowed a candidate to run in both the Democratic primary and the Republican primary at the same time. There were very good reasons why cross filing was abolished. It gave incumbents and candidates with name recognition too much of an advantage, and it increased the role money plays in our elections, which meant that special interests exerted a greater influence on our politicians. Proposition 14 should have been rejected for the same reasons. It gives politicians a greater ability to mask their agendas and increases the ability of special interests to influence the outcome of the primary elections as well as the general elections. Passing this measure lowers the IQ score of California voters.
Proposition 15: This proposition would have permitted public funding for candidates running for Secretary of State. The Secretary of State enforces many of the regulations governing the activities of lobbyists. It was a measure that should have been passed and its defeat lowers the voters’ political IQ score.
Proposition 16 would have required voter approval by a two-thirds majority before local governments could start or expand electric services. The voters correctly defeated it, and raised their political IQ score.
Proposition 17 would have allowed insurance companies to base their prices in part on a drivers’ history of insurance coverage. The voters correctly defeated it, and raised their political IQ score.
The California Republicans demonstrated a slightly higher political IQ than I expected by narrowly defeating Orly Taitz’ bid to become Secretary of State. This woman is insane even by tea party standards, and most pundits were saying she would have taken down the entire Republican ticket.
As for the nomination of Ms. Whitman and Ms. Fiorina, all I can say is that it is too difficult to predict trends from those nominations. The one thing I can say is that those two corporate Republicans were able to get nominated. Both are female but so are Senators Boxer and Feinstein. Whether the corporate backgrounds of Ms. Whitman and Ms. Fiorina will be an advantage or disadvantage in the general election remains to be seen. Both have political views that could be problematical in a blue state and both are packing some serious baggage.
California voters scored in the low part of the average range, which is a much like getting a C- on a social studies test. Hopefully, they will do better in the general election. I think they will if Democrats get off their lazy butts and vote.
Nevada: The Republicans demonstrated a low political IQ by nominating tea party favorite Sharron Angles for U.S. Senate. Her extreme right wing views give Senator Harry Reid a fighting chance in the general election. She is, in fact, the candidate Senator Reid wanted to run against.
Kentucky: The Republicans’ nomination of Rand Paul demonstrates a very low political IQ. Much of what can be said of Orly Taitz can be said of Rand Paul. If the overall political IQ in Kentucky is higher than ninety, he will be defeated easily in the general election.
How high of a political IQ will America demonstrate in the general election? Stay tuned in to find out. Voters who want to cure our economic malaise and wrest the control of our government from the special interests who are largely responsible for this recession must become active and involved. It takes a virtual ground swell of reformers to counter the influence of money in our political system. I am not naïve enough to think we will ever negate the influence of money, but I do think we can set some limits on it. We can and must support progressives who will give the people of this nation a more level playing field by passing effective reforms and regulations. While I do not begrudge a reasonable return on investments or a reasonable profit for innovation and hard work, I do begrudge the excessive greed that results in exploitation and poses a threat to our economy. Unions have been emasculated by globalization, and the government is our only option for controlling the excessive greed of those who put profits ahead of the welfare of our citizens and our country.
Arkansas: At first blush it appears that members of the Democratic Party in Arkansas demonstrated a low political IQ by nominating Blanch Lincoln who betrayed her party and her constituents by threatening to join the Republicans in a filibuster to thwart health care reform. She is often described as a Corporate Democrat, which means that she represents greedy business interests rather than the working men and women of her state and this nation. In all fairness to the Democrats in Arkansas, however, I should point out that there were some extenuating circumstances. A piece of unethical pig shit went to great lengths to stack the deck in Ms. Lincoln’s favor by eliminating polling places in the districts where her opponent, Mr. Halter, had the greatest support. The wait to vote at the polling places that remained open was as long as four hours. Hopefully, voters will remember this unconscionable tactic when they vote in the general election. A Republican will not be any better than Ms. Lincoln but could not be any worse. Voting Ms. Lincoln out of office will at least send a powerful message. The voters in Arkansas should also try to find a political shovel they can use to remove the pig shit!
California: Democrats in California showed a low political IQ by not turning out to vote. Granted that none of the prominent Democrats were in danger of losing the primary, but there were also important propositions on the ballet. By staying at home the Democrats let the Republicans decide measures put on the ballet by greedy insurance companies, Pacific Gas & Electric, and other special interests. This was an incredibly stupid thing to do.
Proposition 13 eliminates the tax penalty for retrofitting buildings. It passed and raises the voters’ political IQ score.
Poposition 14: In this blue state the Republicans favored Proposition 14, which all but eliminates Party primaries by allowing voters to vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. The candidates in the primary do not even have to declare a party. Thus Republicans and others can mask their party affiliation. Furthermore, since only the top two vote getters run off in the general election third parties will be excluded from the general election. In 1959 California did away with cross filing, which allowed a candidate to run in both the Democratic primary and the Republican primary at the same time. There were very good reasons why cross filing was abolished. It gave incumbents and candidates with name recognition too much of an advantage, and it increased the role money plays in our elections, which meant that special interests exerted a greater influence on our politicians. Proposition 14 should have been rejected for the same reasons. It gives politicians a greater ability to mask their agendas and increases the ability of special interests to influence the outcome of the primary elections as well as the general elections. Passing this measure lowers the IQ score of California voters.
Proposition 15: This proposition would have permitted public funding for candidates running for Secretary of State. The Secretary of State enforces many of the regulations governing the activities of lobbyists. It was a measure that should have been passed and its defeat lowers the voters’ political IQ score.
Proposition 16 would have required voter approval by a two-thirds majority before local governments could start or expand electric services. The voters correctly defeated it, and raised their political IQ score.
Proposition 17 would have allowed insurance companies to base their prices in part on a drivers’ history of insurance coverage. The voters correctly defeated it, and raised their political IQ score.
The California Republicans demonstrated a slightly higher political IQ than I expected by narrowly defeating Orly Taitz’ bid to become Secretary of State. This woman is insane even by tea party standards, and most pundits were saying she would have taken down the entire Republican ticket.
As for the nomination of Ms. Whitman and Ms. Fiorina, all I can say is that it is too difficult to predict trends from those nominations. The one thing I can say is that those two corporate Republicans were able to get nominated. Both are female but so are Senators Boxer and Feinstein. Whether the corporate backgrounds of Ms. Whitman and Ms. Fiorina will be an advantage or disadvantage in the general election remains to be seen. Both have political views that could be problematical in a blue state and both are packing some serious baggage.
California voters scored in the low part of the average range, which is a much like getting a C- on a social studies test. Hopefully, they will do better in the general election. I think they will if Democrats get off their lazy butts and vote.
Nevada: The Republicans demonstrated a low political IQ by nominating tea party favorite Sharron Angles for U.S. Senate. Her extreme right wing views give Senator Harry Reid a fighting chance in the general election. She is, in fact, the candidate Senator Reid wanted to run against.
Kentucky: The Republicans’ nomination of Rand Paul demonstrates a very low political IQ. Much of what can be said of Orly Taitz can be said of Rand Paul. If the overall political IQ in Kentucky is higher than ninety, he will be defeated easily in the general election.
How high of a political IQ will America demonstrate in the general election? Stay tuned in to find out. Voters who want to cure our economic malaise and wrest the control of our government from the special interests who are largely responsible for this recession must become active and involved. It takes a virtual ground swell of reformers to counter the influence of money in our political system. I am not naïve enough to think we will ever negate the influence of money, but I do think we can set some limits on it. We can and must support progressives who will give the people of this nation a more level playing field by passing effective reforms and regulations. While I do not begrudge a reasonable return on investments or a reasonable profit for innovation and hard work, I do begrudge the excessive greed that results in exploitation and poses a threat to our economy. Unions have been emasculated by globalization, and the government is our only option for controlling the excessive greed of those who put profits ahead of the welfare of our citizens and our country.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Rise of the Right Wing?
The news media has embraced the tea party movement. It is about the ratings; the tea party folks are outrageous enough to make good copy. In rational times the antics of the right wing are considered comical, but do not get me started on that. Let me just say that the news media is taking this bad joke far too seriously. Chris Mathews of MSNBC is even airing a series on the rise of the right wing. What strikes me is that everyone seems to be treating the right wing's paranoid, reactionary expressions of anger as though they were something we have not seen before. Could our collective memory really be that short?
The right wing has always been with us. We do not have to look very far back in our history to find examples of when the right wing set the political agenda. It was the right wing that supported and encouraged the witch hunts of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Those witch hunts were a national disgrace and were soon seen as such. When McCarthy was discredited, the right wing faded into the background. They were resurrected when Barry Goldwater ran for President against Lyndon Johnson. The John Birch Society and other paranoid right wingers did not merely campaign for Mr. Goldwater they crusaded for him. In fairness to Mr. Goldwater, I do not think he intentionally fed their paranoia. His problem was that he espoused the same laissez faire government policies that resulted in the great depression. He did so at a time when there were too many voters who had worked far too hard to build prosperity after World War II, and those voters quite correctly rejected his failed philosophy. Mr. Goldwater’s crushing defeat was strong evidence that the vast majority of the people viewed the Birchers and such as being ludicrous. They were a bad joke, and they were dangerous.
Lyndon Johnson’s administration took place at a time of unprecedented prosperity. With so many people earning so much money, poverty had become intolerable. This was particularly true of poverty caused by racial discrimination. They who had been trickled down on were now fighting back. Much to our nation’s credit the majority of the people saw the injustices and supported measures designed to build a more equitable society. The cost of the programs Mr. Johnson put forth to address this issue were well within the means of the middle class, which comprised the largest part of our tax base. Buying a Ford rather than a Cadillac as your second car was no great sacrifice. Unfortunately, nineteen sixty-eight was the high water mark of real wages. Real wages have been slipping ever since, and it was not long before the middle class was feeling the burden of paying for the social programs of the Johnson administration.
Ronald Reagan was a reaction to Mr. Johnson’s great society. Mr. Reagan proclaimed that government was the problem rather than the solution. If Mr. Reagan had simply scaled back those social programs, he might have been the great President the Republicans say he was. Unfortunately, he went much farther than that. One of the things our founding fathers frequently expressed was their fear of the passions of the masses. That seems quaint now, but they had a point. The pendulum frequently swings too far in either direction. Mr. Reagan was not merely a conservative; he was a reactionary. He gave a large tax break to the rich, and this resulted in the largest deficit we had ever had. Furthermore, his anti-government rhetoric emboldened and empowered the same sort of people who were Birchers when Mr. Goldwater ran for President.
What Mr. Reagan ushered in was a strong slide to the right rather than an avalanche. The avalanche would take place under George W. Bush. One would still have to be in diapers in order to deny the destructive power of this avalanche. It resulted in the economic malaise we are dealing with today! An earlier generation rejected the failed philosophy of the Republican Party's laissez faire government when it elected Franklin Roosevelt. The current generation rejected that philosophy again when it elected Barak Obama. I hope I am correct in my belief that what we are witnessing in regard to the tea party movement is simply the right wing throwing a fit about this rejection.
The caveat is that the right wing will always be with us. If the voters give in to their frustration over the slow progress of the economic recovery and they vote against incumbents simply because they are incumbents, the right wing will win. If the voters stay home on election day, the right wing will also win. As I have said before, the upcoming elections are a political IQ test. If the middle class of this nation is going to recover and survive, it must push the right wing to the sidelines again. The middle class must actively support the changes it voted for when it elected Barak Obama. It must get out and vote for progressive candidates who know that British Petroleum, Goldman Sachs, AIG, et al have to be regulated and that the government must take an active role in rebuilding our economy!
The right wing has always been with us. We do not have to look very far back in our history to find examples of when the right wing set the political agenda. It was the right wing that supported and encouraged the witch hunts of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Those witch hunts were a national disgrace and were soon seen as such. When McCarthy was discredited, the right wing faded into the background. They were resurrected when Barry Goldwater ran for President against Lyndon Johnson. The John Birch Society and other paranoid right wingers did not merely campaign for Mr. Goldwater they crusaded for him. In fairness to Mr. Goldwater, I do not think he intentionally fed their paranoia. His problem was that he espoused the same laissez faire government policies that resulted in the great depression. He did so at a time when there were too many voters who had worked far too hard to build prosperity after World War II, and those voters quite correctly rejected his failed philosophy. Mr. Goldwater’s crushing defeat was strong evidence that the vast majority of the people viewed the Birchers and such as being ludicrous. They were a bad joke, and they were dangerous.
Lyndon Johnson’s administration took place at a time of unprecedented prosperity. With so many people earning so much money, poverty had become intolerable. This was particularly true of poverty caused by racial discrimination. They who had been trickled down on were now fighting back. Much to our nation’s credit the majority of the people saw the injustices and supported measures designed to build a more equitable society. The cost of the programs Mr. Johnson put forth to address this issue were well within the means of the middle class, which comprised the largest part of our tax base. Buying a Ford rather than a Cadillac as your second car was no great sacrifice. Unfortunately, nineteen sixty-eight was the high water mark of real wages. Real wages have been slipping ever since, and it was not long before the middle class was feeling the burden of paying for the social programs of the Johnson administration.
Ronald Reagan was a reaction to Mr. Johnson’s great society. Mr. Reagan proclaimed that government was the problem rather than the solution. If Mr. Reagan had simply scaled back those social programs, he might have been the great President the Republicans say he was. Unfortunately, he went much farther than that. One of the things our founding fathers frequently expressed was their fear of the passions of the masses. That seems quaint now, but they had a point. The pendulum frequently swings too far in either direction. Mr. Reagan was not merely a conservative; he was a reactionary. He gave a large tax break to the rich, and this resulted in the largest deficit we had ever had. Furthermore, his anti-government rhetoric emboldened and empowered the same sort of people who were Birchers when Mr. Goldwater ran for President.
What Mr. Reagan ushered in was a strong slide to the right rather than an avalanche. The avalanche would take place under George W. Bush. One would still have to be in diapers in order to deny the destructive power of this avalanche. It resulted in the economic malaise we are dealing with today! An earlier generation rejected the failed philosophy of the Republican Party's laissez faire government when it elected Franklin Roosevelt. The current generation rejected that philosophy again when it elected Barak Obama. I hope I am correct in my belief that what we are witnessing in regard to the tea party movement is simply the right wing throwing a fit about this rejection.
The caveat is that the right wing will always be with us. If the voters give in to their frustration over the slow progress of the economic recovery and they vote against incumbents simply because they are incumbents, the right wing will win. If the voters stay home on election day, the right wing will also win. As I have said before, the upcoming elections are a political IQ test. If the middle class of this nation is going to recover and survive, it must push the right wing to the sidelines again. The middle class must actively support the changes it voted for when it elected Barak Obama. It must get out and vote for progressive candidates who know that British Petroleum, Goldman Sachs, AIG, et al have to be regulated and that the government must take an active role in rebuilding our economy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)