The New RNC Chair Needs to study Recent History

Politics, like Economics, is very cyclical. Ideology falls into and out of favor over time--some of it is due to ideas whose time have come and gone (ie, fighting Communism), perhaps the practice of implementing the principles are just not practical (prohibition), or the underlying inequality is just too much for the people to bear (slavery/civil rights).

But not all political changes are as drastic as the ones I have mentioned here, and sometimes tactics and strategy can provide the difference between a winning party and a party out of power. During the mid 90's all the way to 2004, the Republican Party made consistent gains in the American electorate. While they twice lost the Presidency (due in part to Ross Perot, some economic bad luck, and a brilliant individual political campaign performance by Bill Clinton in 1992), Republicans consistently won, and held power, at the Federal and State levels, and put a string of ideological judges and justices on the court benches across the country.

Then the wheels fell off. We can all speculate as to the reasons why (Iraq, Katrina, a tired machine of Republican leaders losing the will to fight each day, etc.), but in the end, Brand R has now been trounced in two elections in a row, and come January 20, 2009, they will be out of power in all of the Federal Branches of government, as well as the majority of State Houses and Governorships.

How did this happen?

Again, many can point to George Bush, and claim that his leadership is to blame for this mess. That is certainly a big part of it.

Another lesson to be learned is the organization efforts that DNC Chair Howard Dean put into place. During his 2004 Presidential run, Dean was seen as angry, liberal, and after Iowa, a little scream-happy. Then the Republicans made a terrible mistake--they dismissed him as a looney.

Much as Democrats dismissed Reagan as a not-too-bright actor, the Republicans saw this man, who had been lampooned with his "YEE-AHHHHH" scream, as a joke. Someone who couldn't possibly lead a parade, much less a national party.

But as DNC Chair, Dean recognized that the Democratic party had become the party of the Liberal Establishment, the Secular Progressives, the Coastal states only (with Chicago thrown in for good measure).

Dean started to put money into his "50 state strategy", and with the help of folks like Chris Van Hollen, and Chuck Schumer, began to recruit viable candidates in all 50 states, to run on the local campaign issues and values. To represent, and demand a stage in all parts of the country. Dean knew that he wasn't going to win South Carolina, Utah, or Oklahoma in the upcoming elections. But to provide people with a platform of ideas, and make the Democratic case to people in all parts of the country, was the only way tilt to the Left could ever happen. And Dean knew it. So he sunk money into the 50 state strategy. Van Hollen and Schumer found the candidates, and the rest, as they say, is history.

So, let's fast forward to today. Democrats have now re-established their presence in most, if not all parts of the country, and are vying actively for the hearts and minds of even those in the reddest of red states (notably, the South, Plains, and Mountain-West). And it shows.

In contrast, Brand R is in major trouble in parts of the country. New England has been referred to by Republicans as "the killing fields" for their candidates. New York has 3 GOP Congressmen left out of 29. Pennsylvania didn't even come close to electing John McCain, even after the all out blitz to try to win there. The Pacific Coast is the cultural Conservative's nightmare of liberalism, perceived culture rot, environmentalism, and hedonism.

But now Colorado and New Mexico have joined them. The upper mid-west has gone blue. Florida has started to waiver. Virginia is becoming a Democratic Mid-Atlantic State. North Carolina? Really? What next?

It's time for the GOP Chairman to make it his first priority to copy the efforts of Dean, Schumer, Van Hollen, Emmanuel, and the rest of the Brand D group. Time to start getting the message out to New England, California, New York, Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest, that the Republicans are the party of ideas.

Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell are two fine candidates for such a message. Both are from states that went for Obama. Both have served in State Houses (Blackwell as Secretary of State for Ohio, Steele as Lt. Gov. of Maryland). Chip Saltzman may give the GOP a sense of comfort, but this role is not necessarily one of ideology. Haley Barbour may have been ideological, but also knew how to run a party. Gingrich may have been a back bencher for years, but he figured out how to recruit, and sell the party agenda to his fellow candidates, and Congressmen.

The recent flap about Saltzman and his CD disparaging Obama and other Democrats, is disappointing, and it is troubling that Charlie Crist is the only prominent Republican to come out and condemn it. But I think it shows that if the Party wants him to run the Committee, it could find itself in another election wondering why it can't make gains in any part of the country. Unlike Steele or Blackwell, I have heard nothing about getting the Republican message out from Saltzman. Being Mike Huckabee and Bill Frist's guy doesn't seem to be much of a qual. Neither does being the victim of a perceived unfair media bashing.

Time to stop putting the Liddy Doles in charge of things like candidate recruitment. Time to start taking a page out of your own past playbooks. OR, start to study how your opponents have cleaned your clocks the past two elections. Time for Brand R to get serious about growing up, and fighting back with ideas, real candidates, and real leadership.

Blagojevich--Time to Get this Guy OUT!

Watching this whole charade take place, with Governor Rod Blagojevich appointing Roland Burris to the open US Senate seat, I have moved through different reaction "stages"--from shock to amusement to sorrow to outrage.

Shocked that the Governor would actually think he has the credibility to appoint someone to the seat.

Amused that the whole press conference reminded me of a cross between a Don King fight promotion press conference, and a Dr. Evil scheme to take over the world. The attempts to prove to the country that he is not a discredited, absurd cartoon character at this point is actually funny.

But then I think about the fact that I am not watching a James Bond spoof. This is not a heavyweight boxing match. This is an elected official, trying to pretend to the world that he is justified and credible in his appointment of a US Senator. I start to feel sorry for the Governor, and his appointee, trying to justify an unjustifiable act.

Finally, it dawns on me. This isn't something to pity. This is OUTRAGEOUS! It is something to flat out reject. Wholeheartedly. Unabashedly. Unmistakeably.

I flat out reject the notion that protesting Roland Burris as an African American, or even a qualified candidate is somehow racist, or even the point here. This is a situation where the intent of Rod Blagojevich to sell the US Senate Seat to the highest bidder is not in doubt. Whether he is eventually found guilty of the crime is relatively inconsequential. He is in the process of being impeached, and his credibility on this topic is tainted. The US Senate will not seat any appointment from this Governor, the Secretary of State has refused to execute the order, and frankly, any cnadidate who would accept the appointment in the first place is either desperate for power, or delusional if they think their appointment has any legitimacy.

Roland Burris may have the qualifications to be appointed, and he may very well end up a Senate appointment at some point in the near future. However, that consideration should be left to the Lieutenant Governor, or a special election runoff.

By the way, if I were Roland Burris, going out on news shows like Rachael Maddow, and making your case to be seated in the US Senate is NOT a good idea. If you aren't getting a favorable reception from an Air America host, and noted Liberal commentator, who would you expect to receive one from? Sean Hannity?

For all of our sakes, this issue needs to be dealt with. Harshly, swiftly, and completely. Here's what should happen in this matter:

1. Federal Indictment--Time for Patrick Fitzgerald to fish or cut bait. Indict this guy, or release the tapes. The US Attorney has a month from his Dec. 9 announcement to do something on this matter, and that time is coming up (9 more days as of this writing). It's time to get something moving already. Every day you wait creates a debasement of the Governors office, and a mockery of the whole appointment process. Not to mention we have to look at this Governor's mug each day, and endure his delusions of grandeur.

2. Impeachment--The Illinois House and Senate need to get moving NOW to get this guy impeached. And then thrown out of office. Some of it may have to wait until the indictment or the tapes are made available. But a short and pointed debate in the house is a must. No "Present" votes, please!

3. Promotion of Lieutenant Governor--get Pat Quinn in the role, already.

4. Special Election--at this point, the whole appointment process is so tainted, that Pat Quinn wouldn't stand a chance putting anyone in the seat. The whole concept of a Governor's appointment is as antiquated as the Electoral College, and the sooner we make the process more representative of the people, the better. Democrats hate this idea, and as I have blogged about here recently, they know that a special election could result in a Republican Senator. Mark Kirk is the name that I hear most often. All I can say to Democrats on this is "so what?" Any objective look at this situation makes it clear that a runoff election is the only way to make this process fair.

5. A Giamatti moment--Finally, there needs to be a Bart Giamatti moment here. For those of you unfamiliar with the reference, there was a time in 1989 where Pete Rose, the baseball legend, was being investigated, and indicted for betting on baseball games. Giamatti was the baseball commissioner, and had been under tremendous pressure from the Rose camp and Rose apologists, to exonerate, or not ban Rose from baseball as a result. That Rose had committed the crime somehow seemed trivial to his followers, and he pressed on with his delusions of grandeur, thinking that he was somehow bigger than the game that he had sullied.

Blago is currently doing something similar to his office. By his actions, he is flaunting the delays in the due process of justice, to try to take advantage of his power, and prove that he is bigger than the allegations against him. It's outrageous.

In Giamatti's case, he took about 9 months of abuse, before coming out, announcing the banishment of Rose from the game, and made one of the great all time speeches, chastising the hubiris of Rose, and making he point that no one is bigger than the game, no one has the right to break the rules, and the sanctity of the the game (or in Blago's case, the Governorship).

It was a speech that vindicated Giamatti's decision in the public's eyes, and humbled Rose at the same time. (as an obscure twist to the story, Giamatti was the father of the current Hollywood actor Paul Giamatti, who could be the greatest actor in recent memory. Loved him in the John Adams docu-drama. Seriously, name a better pure actor...)

It's time for Patrick Fitzgerald, Dick Durbin, or perhaps even Barack Obama, to not just "reject" Blagojevich's actions, or express disappointment. It's time to flat out REFUSE to accept such an appointment, and make it clear that such behavior cannot continue. PERIOD. Make the point that no one is bigger than the US Constitution, and the rule of law. For all of our sakes.

Before yesterday, Blago was just another big scandal. Now it's getting to the point where this guy can do damage to the political process. Time to get this guy out of office.

Gaza--What can be done?

This is the age-old question, and will probably still be burning for years to come. Can a two-state solution really exist in the Middle East? And what should we do currently, to help resolve the imminent war in Gaza? I'll try to break this down as objectively as I can:

Background:

I won't go into the history of the formation of Israel, post-WWII, and the subsequent wars with its neighbors in 1948, '56, '67, '73, and beyond. But the discussion here will center around three pieces of land--The West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights.

a. Golan Heights--A strip of land in the north-eastern extreme of today's Israel, Golan was annexed during previous wars with Lebanon and Syria, as a "buffer" of sorts, to prevent future attacks, and has been bitterly disputed by Lebanon and Syria ever since. Groups like Hezbollah have been based in Lebanon and backed by Syria, and have been plotting and scheming ways to force Israel out of the Golan Heights, and eventually "into the Mediterranean Sea". Any Peace Settlement that could hold will have to deal with this land.

b. West Bank--This is the largest of the three land disputes, and is the territory on the "West Bank" of the Jordan River. Notably, this is where Jerusalem is located. The holy city is home to some of the most sacred landmarks for both the Jewish and Islamic faiths. Hence the struggle, and battle for the right to call this city, and this surrounding land, "Ours". During the 1993 Oslo Accords, Rabin and Arafat agreed to a land-for-peace deal (one which cost Rabin his life in 1995). Currently, this area is governed relatively autonomously by the Fatah government by Abu Abbas (Abu Mazin), and has shown signs of recognizing Israel's sovereignty, and reducing the violence between the two peoples.

c. Gaza Strip--recent elections (pushed heavily by the Bush Administration's dogmatic approach to spreading democracy) resulted in the election of Hamas to most leadership positions. Emboldened by the election results, a "semi-coup" more recently took place in the Gaza Strip, where Fatah leadership was basically ousted. A tentative cease-fire was put in place with Israel, which was flouted on both sides. The Israelis have made it virtually impossible to enter or exit the country, and hard to generate any economic viability. The Palestinians have consistently ignored the calls to cease firing rockets into Israel, causing great angst. In general, this has been a cease fire that has been practically ignored on both sides, and not enforced by any type of international body or force. At this point, the cease fire agreement has lapsed, and no one has made any real attempt to renegotiate the deal. As the Palestinians continued to fire rockets, the Israels have decided to use this as an opportunity to retaliate using a shot gun on an ant. Their mission is to take out Hamas.

So, What to DO?

This is, as usual, the impossible question concerning the Middle East. The only mitigating factor this time around, has been the reluctance of many of the Sunni-backed governments to immediately jump to the defense of Hamas's actions. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have decried Israel's response, but have not been particularly supportive of Hamas in this conflict. These governments are loathe to see Hamas succeed, since it could spawn similar movements in their countries.

Still, none of the surrounding Sunni countries, or the other middle eastern countries for that matter, want to see an all out war. So what can really be done?

Here's a course of action that may be a little premature, but I think ought to be pursued.

1. Send Condoleeza Rice AND Hillary Clinton to the Middle East, to try to negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas (give it 6 months to start).

2. Continue to work with Fatah, and the surrounding countries, to come up with a mutual recognition of Palestinian authority and sovereignty, in exchange for recognition of Israeli sovereignty BY ALL PARTIES.

3. Require that any subsequent terrorist actions taken by groups on Israel be dealt with by the Arab countries in the form of public condemnation, and prosecution. Any failure to do so could result in economic sanctions.

4. Install a multi-national peace-keeping force to protect the rights of both nations to co-exist.

5. Provide economic aid to the Gaza, West Bank, and Golan areas, and resist attempts to embargo the areas.

6. Insist that Israel curtail it's push for increased settlements in disputed areas.

7. Give the Golan back, under the auspices of recognition of Israel by Lebanon, Syria, and Hezbollah. Back up any deal with 10,000 peacekeepers at the border. Hezbollah may feel emboldened based on the last dust up with Israel, but I wouldn't put my money on them if the two were ever to have a rematch.

It is the classic land-for-peace deal. It needs to be backed up with rhetoric, and peace-keeping forces. Even then, I wouldn't give it better than a 50-50 chance of success.

There is a reason I don't like to address this issue much, and that is that there is no GOOD solution here. Both sides have too many good arguments for being the side of justice, and being oppressed. Israel DOES have a right to exist. The Palestinian Authority DOES have the right to a Holy Land, their homes, self-rule, and the ability to prosper. Both have viable claims on the disputed territories. It's a mess. But it isn't like you can wipe one group off the map. Like Aladdin, you can't put the genie back in the bottle at this point. So let's try to make the best of some bad options, and see if there are enough cool heads in the middle east to allow for each side to play for the tie, rather than push for victory.

Unreasonable 2009 Predictions

So, like most of you, I am through the Christmas Crush of gift openings at this point. I still have boxes everywhere, and cuts all over my hands from opening the Fort-Knox-like packaging on my son's new Geotrax playland, or my daughter's My Little Pony Merry-go-round.

I took a few days off from writing, and I thought about what was happening in the world these days. This morning, I took all of my ideas for blogs, and put them off for a day. I just couldn't bring myself to write about Bernie Madoff, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Rick Warren, or anything else.

I thought about where we would be as a country at this time, next year, if I could single-handedly make it happen. Here's what I came up with...

1. Obama gets sworn in, and has a stimulus package waiting at his office, as he arrives from the Invocation. He signs into law the package includes the following:

• A $1,000/family average Tax cut for the middle class. ($20/week is a nice start).
• Funding for state and local governments for Medicaid and SChip programs.
• A public works program to rebuild roads, bridges, tunnels, sewage, and water treatment plants
• A $5,000 tax credit for purchasing a car or truck that either get 40 MPG, or are electric/hybrid
• A $5,000 tax credit for individuals who put solar panels on their homes to generate at least a certain percentage of electricity (20% or more)
• A doubling of dollars spent on education, along with a set of accountability measures along the guidelines of No Child Left Behind.
• A $1/gal tax on gasoline, coupled with a $1,000 tax credit for all drivers of electric cars.

2. Obama signs a second fiscal package including the following:

• CAFE Standards raised by 20% for 2010, and 20% on top of that by 2012.
• A minimum standard of 50% sales of cars AND TRUCKS must be hybrid or electric by 2016
• Commissioning of a program to develop 20 Nuclear Power Plants in the next 10 years. Additionally, A goal of 1 million wind turbines in the wind corridors of this country in the same period.
• Construction of the electricity grid to handle the power generation from the new plants.

3. Mortgage rates dropping to 4% for 30 year fixed rates. For people with good credit, and those who have saved, and do not have debt outside their mortgage, what could be a better reward than to be able to refinance your mortgage and save a couple of hundred dollars a month? Investors who have been financially responsible are now rewarded with opportunities to buy good property cheap, and with low mortgage rates. This starts to stem the tide in the battle to fight the real-estate collapse.

4. Obama and Bob Gates work out a withdrawal plan for Iraq, which is to begin in February, and last 18 months (I threw in an extra 2 months, for good measure...). The plan is fortified by the Islamic world, and includes economic incentives for Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and yes, IRAN.

5. Oil starts to scrape $25/barrel. Saudi Arabia and Iran start to look for ways to deal with this mess, and decide, rather than incite violence in Israel, to take an economic deal with the USA, including recognition of Iranian Sovereignty by the US, and attempts to normalize relations with Iran.

6. Obama and the Congress work out a deal with GM to bring the Chevy Volt on line by the end of 2009, and gives the company, and individuals tax incentives to bring the price of the car down to $18,000 in 2010. The savings on gasoline each year (at $2.50/gal) is about $1,200 per vehicle. Each vehicle takes 480 gallons of oil off the market each year, or over 11 barrels of oil off our tab each year.

Interestingly, Toyota and Honda figure out a way to stay competitive here, and come up with an electric Camry and Accord. The same tax incentives apply, and the volume of new cars purchased starts to rev up. 3 million new electrics are purchased in 2010, but the volume ramp up starts in 2009.

7. The Stock Market starts to see what is happening in mortgage rates (crashing), autos (heating up), and public funding, and begins to build faith in American economic viability. The Dow crosses 10,000, and stays above that mark by the end of the year. Banks start to lend money, and, more importantly, companies and individuals, start to want to borrow, to build business. As mortgages start being taken over by people with good credit, and cheap mortgages at depressed prices, foreclosures start to stall out, and the government also gets repaid for its investments in Fannie Mae, and the banks. This all starts in 2009.

8. Gay Marriage is UPHELD in Connecticut, and Prop 8 is overturned by the courts in California. An attempt to put a similar proposition is put on the California ballot for referendum in 2009, and this time, it goes down to defeat.

(On an ideological aside, Let's call this what it is...there is NO excuse for denying homosexuals the right to marry, be afforded the same rights, and have to have the same yearly argument about taxes and spending that me and my wife have. This notion that protection of straight-only marriage is some sort of honorable defense of traditional values, is just silly. No one is suggesting that the Churches and Religious institutions change their ways. The marriages would only be in the eyes of the state, and the law. I am not on a religious crusade here. But there is no means by which the rights of individuals in this country should be superseded by the Biblical scripture. This idea that somehow certain citizens cannot marry really equates to telling them that they are second-class citizens. I can't advocate for that position, no matter what justification there may be to deny homosexuals the right to be married.)

9. One Supreme Court Justice is replaced, and Deval Patrick becomes the third African American Justice ever confirmed to the seat. He is debated by the Senate, but is confirmed by 80 Senators in the end. By the end of the year, two other Justices announce their plans to step down, and Obama has to choose two more Justices in 2010. Liberals finally have the victory they have been yearning for for years. The ability to protect the rulings they hold most dear (notably Roe v. Wade). Social Conservatives howl in protest, and the Republican party starts to find their voice again, around this issue.

10. NAFTA is expanded, and Free Trade Tariffs come down for the Western Hemisphere. We can now get cheap Sugar Cane fuel for our cars from Brazil! Excellent.

That's a start to the Pragmatic Pundit's unreasonable 2009 predictions. This is my own personal rose-colored glasses, world-according-to-me, scenario. I may revisit this in a month, and see if anything even close has come to pass. Let's hope we are not talking about some further economic, or geo-political disaster by then. On the other hand, folks, just think about the fact that in 23 days, there won't be any more political "shoe-throwing" to be had at the current administration. Let's see how things play out...

2009--Time to take Advantage

In many ways, 2008 was the year of reckoning for Americans living on credit and home equity. We would see ads for years about "keeping up with the Joneses", by taking out a new credit card, or a Home Equity Loan, or some other financing scheme to just run up debt.

For many Americans, 2009 will be the year that Americans try to bring some fiscal stability to their family balance sheets. But for those who have already been fiscally responsible, 2009 could be THE year where the world was on sale, and we got to take advantage. How?

1. Debt/Cash Flow Reduction--Refinance the Mortgage--According to Yahoo, 30 year mortgages are at 5.36%. For anyone sitting on good credit, an ARM, or even a Fixed Mortgage with a rate over 6.5%, this is found money each month. For the average person with a $200,000 mortgage at 6.5%, a refinance to 5.33% will save them $150/month.

2. Debt/Cash Flow Reduction--Refinance the Car Payment/Buying a new car--you heard that right. I have spent a number of articles here, telling people to think about better fuel efficiency. In fact, a new (hopefully fuel efficient) car, bought in cash, or even with good credit, could well be worth it. Even Toyota lost money last year, due to slumping demand. And Car companies are more willing than ever to move their inventory. It's time to ask for lower prices, or lower financing. There could be thousands of dollars saved on the purchase this year--IF you have been good with your money, and saved for a cash purchase or down payment.

3. Long Term Liability Reduction--Make home improvements at a discount--Have you thought about remodeling the bathroom, or kitchen? Putting up a fence, or replacing the roof? Go back to those contractors you talked to about a year ago. I think you'd be surprised at the difference in their prices. Again, if you have saved up, ask them about a discount for putting more up front.

4. Investments--Pick up commodities and equities cheap--Anyone out there think Oil is staying at $34/barrel? Want to bet on it? Now could be a great time to get in on a commodities fund. They have been beaten to hell in the past 6 months, and unlike companies that may not be able to outlast a downturn, things like Oil, Gold, Sugar and Hogs are not going away. They aren't making more gold these days. In uncertain times, investors usually flock to precious metals, yet we haven't seen a rise in these prices--yet. I am by no means an investment analyst, but if your time horizon isn't the next 6 months, having a backstop of a commodities fund, or something of that nature, could prove to be very fortunate in 2009. Look into it.

5. Post Holiday Bargains--Did you get any gifts from friends and family that you just have to get rid of? Wait a couple of weeks, and see if any stores are getting a little desperate to exchange them for something on sale. You may be pleasantly surprised.

6. Out of Business Sales--If you keep a close eye out, look for companies in your area going out of business. There is nothing better than getting what you want at 70% off.

7. Ebay--Need to clean house? Think about Ebay. It does feel good to get rid of "Guitar Hero" after your Aunt Ethel got you "Rock Band 2" . And to make $7.50 doing it? Fantastic.

In the end, 2009 could be the year that a driven consumer can find that the world is his oyster--if he's in a cash position to take advantage of it.

Medicare--The 800lb Gorilla in the room

From a federal budget standpoint, there is an 800 lb gorilla in the room. It isn't earmarks, it isn't defense spending, or even social security. It's Medicare. Anyone looking at the pure mechanics of the Medicare problem know that this is the tidal wave that has been sitting off our shores for years, it is coming in. And our judgement cometh right soon...

Let's break it down, and figure out what we can do to solve this growing issue.

What is Medicare?
According to Wikipedia, Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system (administered by the Federal Government only) It was originally signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

How is Medicare Paid For?
Medicare is partially financed by payroll taxes imposed by the FICA and the Self-employment contributions act of 1954. In the case of employees, the tax is equal to 2.9% (1.45% withheld from the worker and a matching 1.45% paid by the employer) of the wages, salaries and other compensation in connection with employment.

Who is eligible?
In general, individuals are eligible for Medicare if:

• they are a U.S. citizen or have been a permanent legal resident for 5 continuous years, and
• they are 65 years or older, or
• they are under 65, disabled and have been receiving either Social Security or the Railroad retirement board disability benefits for at least 24 months, or
• they get continuing dialysis for end stage renal disease or need a kidney transplant, or
• they are eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance and have Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS-Lou Gehrig's disease).

How many people are on Medicare?
In 2007, Medicare provided health care coverage for 43 million Americans. Enrollment is expected to reach 77 million by 2031, when the baby boom generation is fully enrolled

What are the Primary "Parts" of Medicare?
The Medicare program primarily provides for the following:

• Part A (Hospital Insurance)
• Part B (Medical Insurance)
• Part D (comprehensive drug coverage). All Medicare benefits are subject to medical necessity.

How Big is Medicare?
Medicare contracts with regional insurance companies who process over one billion fee-for-service claims per year. As of 2003:

• Medicare accounted for almost 13% of the entire federal budget.
• Based on the CMS projections, 33 cents of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. is paid by Medicare and Medicaid (including State funding).
• 61 cents of every dollar spent on nursing homes, 47 cents of every dollar received by U.S. hospitals, and 27 cents of every dollar spent on physician services is funded by Medicare or Medicaid

Why should I be concerned about Medicare?
Here's a few reasons:

• Medicare spending is growing steadily in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the federal budget. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007, or 16 percent of all federal spending. The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense.
• According to the 2008 report by the board of trustees for Medicare and Social Security, Medicare will spend more than it brings in from taxes this year (2008).
• The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019
• Spending on Medicare and Medicaid is projected to grow dramatically in coming decades. Rapidly rising medical prices appear a more important cause of projected spending increases.
• The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has indicated that: "...total federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 12 percent in 2050 and 19 percent in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today. The bulk of that projected increase in health care spending reflects higher costs per beneficiary rather than an increase in the number of beneficiaries associated with an aging population."

Now here's the Ugly Truth:

1. We DON'T Have the Plan Funded--Richard W. Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has remarked that in order to "cover the unfunded liability" for the Medicare program today over an infinite time horizon, "you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill" which is "more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy", and noted that "Medicare was a pay-as-you-go program from the very beginning."[27]
The present value of unfunded obligations under all parts of Medicare during FY 2007 over a 75-year forecast horizon is approximately $34.0 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the shortfall over the next 75 years.[28]

2. The Population is Aging--The fundamental problem is that the ratio of workers paying Medicare taxes to retirees drawing benefits is shrinking at the same time that the price of health care services per person is increasing.[29][30] Currently there are 3.9 workers paying taxes into Medicare for every older American receiving services. By 2030, as the baby boom generation retires, that is projected to drop to 2.4 workers for each beneficiary. Medicare spending is expected to grow by about 7 percent per year for the next 10 years.[31] As a result, the financing of the program is out of actuarial balance, presenting serious challenges in both the short-term and long-term.[24][21]

3. Medicare Fraud and waste--Part of the cost of Medicare is attributable to fraud, which government auditors estimate costs Medicare billions of dollars a year.[32][33] The Government Accountability Office lists Medicare as a "high-risk" government program in need of reform, in part because of its vulnerability to fraud and partly because of its long-term financial problems.[34] A Washington Post story from June of 2008 reported that Medicare fraud is a growing problem. Limited resources mean that fewer than 5% of Medicare claims are audited. The annual cost to taxpayers of Medicare fraud is estimated to be over $60 billion.[35]

4. People paid in will get more than they paid/People paying in today will not--In 2004, Urban Institute economists C. Eugene Steuerle and Adam Carasso created a Web-based Medicare benefits calculator.[36] Using this calculator it is possible to estimate net Medicare benefits (i.e., estimated lifetime Medicare benefits received minus estimated lifetime Medicare taxes paid, expressed in today's dollars) for different types of recipients. In the book, Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality, Joseph Fried used the calculator to create graphical depictions of the estimated net benefits of men and women who were at different wage levels, single and married (with stay-at-home spouses), and retiring in different years. No matter what the wage level, marital status, or retirement date, a man or woman can expect to receive benefits that will cost the system far more than the taxes he or she paid into the system.

5. Medicare is not at the top of the priority list...YET--This could be the biggest problem of all. Popular opinion surveys show that the public views Medicare’s problems as serious, but not as urgent as other concerns. In January 2006, the Pew Research Center found 62 percent of the public said addressing Medicare’s financial problems should be a high priority for the government, but that still put it behind other priorities.[41] Surveys suggest that there’s no public consensus behind any specific strategy to keep the program solvent.[42].

WOW. That's enough to spoil my Christmas dinner. So what to do about it?

Possible Solutions

1. Start to work on Medicare Fraud and Waste--This is a $60B issue. A GAO or Audit Firm investigation, and set of controls to prevent further frauds would be a start. It won't solve the problem, but even preventing $10-20B of fraud and waste each year would be a start.

2. Means testing--no one likes this as a possibility. However, a solvent Medicare solution, to start eating away at the potential $34 Trillion liability over the next 75 years will probably mean that some people at the top of the tax brackets will have to look at their current payroll taxes as a sunk cost. It's not a pretty sight, and I don't think it's ideal, but it will probably be part of the solution. The question will be where the line is drawn. Will it be $1 million households, or $150k households?

3. Up the Payroll Tax--this is a realistic solution, but political suicide. On the other hand, come 2012, this may be more of a realistic solution than previously thought. People bemoan Medicare and entitlement programs, until they themselves draw from them. AARP and other similar organizations will become the most powerful lobbies in the nation, and solutions such as a 4-6% payroll tax may not be out of the question.

4. Universal Health Care/Socialized Medicine--If the mountain won't come to Mohammed, let Mohammed go to the Mountain. If we can't fix Medicare for Seniors, perhaps a Universal health plan for all Americans, with a more appropriate tax rate for all, could be better served. The dirty little secret about Medicare is that it is actually more efficiently run than most Private Health plans, since it doesn't have to spend $.15 on the dollar in advertising costs. Can the Medicare Framework handle the larger US population? I am not sure, and it may not be politically viable. On the other hand, by 2012, it could be the only viable solution left.

5. Scrap the entire system--Going in the entirely opposite direction, we could scrap the whole system, and try to figure out a way to provide health care for seniors that doesn't include payroll taxes. This would be entirely unfair to the people who have paid into the system all these years, and the Government doesn't have the dollars to refund the taxpayers for their payments over the past 33 years. But like option #4, there may not be a lot of good choices over the next 10-20 years.

Postscript

In the end, this article is really more of a wake up call. This issue is THE domestic issue for the next 10 years. I am not suggesting it would supersede a terrorist attack, or something of that magnitude. But from a domestic economic standpoint, this is the immovable object. Fix Medicare, and everything else becomes achievable. I am putting this article out there, primarily because I would LOVE to hear people's viewpoints on this, and figure out how we all can get smarter on this issue, and come up with a solution.

Note: It was surprisingly hard to get a good background, and analysis of Medicare. In the end, Wikipedia had to supply most of the baseline background, and all facts that I cite here come from that source (hence the bracketed numbered facts. It's been a while since I had to write a footnote sourcing set of references, so just note here that all facts cited with brackets can be linked back to Wikipedia).

The Great Bush Legacy-Shaping Tour

The one word that kept coming to my mind, as I watched the Sunday morning talk shows, was "Transparency". I hear that a lot from Right Wing Shout Radio, as they criticized Obama's responses to his connections with Rob Blagojevich. Unfortunately, in this case, the only thing transparent was how obvious, and pathetic the attempts by the Bush Administration were to "Shape his legacy". I saw all of Bush's messangers (Cheney, Rice, George Will, etc) trying to echo the legacy message this Sunday, point by point. It was transparent, only in it's cravenness and shallowness. Let's go through the Bush talking points:

"He has liberated 50 million people..."

This was something I have heard, and I keep hearing about from Condi, and Dick Cheney and others recently. This is pathetic. If the American media is so biased in not covering this fact, why don't we hear about the great appreciation from these liberated people on BBC, or TF1, or any of the other "objective sources"? The truth is, we haven't done good for these countries. As for a legacy, here's my take on the Bush Legacy-- what's better about foreign policy today, than it was 8 years ago?

• Afghanistan--It's not really better. The Taliban is still there, making trouble. This winter is projected to be a frigid mess, where humanitarian aid can't even get there. The drug trafficking is as bad as it has ever been. We have basically installed Hamid Karzai as the Mayor of Kabul. Other than that, we haven't really accomplished much. "Liberated 25 million people?" Don't insult my intelligence. Ask anyone outside of the Kabul city limits how much better they feel now than they did 8 years ago. Don't insult my intelligence by pretending that this "war" has been "won", and that anyone is glad we came.
• Iraq--I jut couldn't take Condi's characterization of the situation. Yes, Saddam was a brutal dictator. Yes, he gassed his own people. But we have probably been responsible for more death, destruction, and mass exodus of Iraqi population in 6 years than Saddam was in over 20 years. And we lost over 4,000 soldiers, spent hundreds of billions of dollars to create a country that is at best, somewhat democratic, sympathetic to Iran, and doing nothing to enhance our interest, or profile in the Arab, and Islamic world. Enough of the rose colored glasses already. The Bush legacy is set in stone here.
• Israel/Palestine/Lebanon--It is unfair of me to group these three together, since they are two separate conflicts. However, the status of Israel, and it's neighbors 8 years later, is NOT better than it was in 2000. The Bush policy towards this part of the world has been a miserable failure, and it doesn't seem like they even care to try to get it right. That's the legacy I walk away from the Bush Administration with.
• India/Pakistan--We supported a dictator in Pakistan, who eventually was dethroned, despite our support of him, and then the new government couldn't control their radicals, who ended up bombing and terrorizing the largest city in India, moving the two countries to the brink of war. Not exactly helping much, are we?

"He Kept us Safe for 7 years/We have not been attacked since 9/11"

On Meet the Press, we had to endure 30 minutes of Condoleeza Rice telling us all about how George Bush has kept America safe for 7 1/2 years since 9/11. Usually, I find her interviews to be interesting, but this time, I was so put off by her take on the world, that I could barely get through the interview before having to take some alka seltzer. These attempts to justify, and shape their own legacy. They are so transparent, it's past being upsetting. It's just sad.

First, I find it insulting that anyone can say "since 9/11, we've not been attacked". After all, we know that the administration basically ignored the intelligence briefings during August of 2001, while Bush was on vacation, riding his bike, and making the "defining decision of his presidency--Stem Cell research". Great job. Glad you finally got serious about homeland security on 9/12/2001, Mr. President.

In reality, why would the terrorists need to attack America within our borders? They can take shots at our men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq every day? Those attacks don't count? London, Spain, Indonesia, Mumbai? Those places don't count either, apparently. By the way, how are we doing catching Osama Bin Laden anyway? I am so glad we made that a priority for about 2 months in 2001, while we were preparing to take out Saddam Hussein, the man who tried to kill W's daddy...

"He upheld honor and dignity in his office..."

Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales, Heckuva job, Brownie, justifying Torture, Guantanamo, European Gulags, no firing of anyone responsible for Abu Gharib, "bring em on"...The list goes on and on. To think that this office is more honorable and dignified than it was 8 years ago is pathetic. My question is, "When Dick Cheney talks about all they have done right on Fox News Sunday, who's listening to this, and actually believing it?"

"He responded to the economic downturn with bold measures to prevent an economic meltdown"

Great job so far. Let me get this straight. Bush responded to the economic recession by not even acknowledging it for a year, giving a blank check to his Treasury Secretary to bail out the banks, so they could NOT loan any money to companies that need it, refused to use TARP funds until the Republican Congress filibustered the bailout of GM and Chrysler, gave Citigroup a $306B aid package, and AIG a $143B aid package with no strings attached, and still has time for a "farewell tour?"

Here's a news flash for the President. Leaders with good approval ratings go on farewell tours. Dr. J went on a farewell tour during his last year playing basketball. The Rolling Stones go on a Farewell tour. Presidents with a legacy like yours retire, and try not to make any noise on the way out.

If I were you, I'd get out quietly, quickly, and gracefully. That would be a start. Even the Legacy tour is looking like a complete dud. Let me know if you need a driver to get you back to Crawford. I have a few days of vacation coming my way...

On Pastor Rick--Time for the Left to take a Deep Breath

So, Pastor Rick Warren is going to give the Invocation at the Presidential Inauguration of Barack Obama on January 20th? For many on the political left, this is beyond the pale. After all, they have been waiting patiently for some Liberals to be appointed to Cabinet positions, and have been hoping for some Liberal policy initiatives to be brought front and center during the "transition" period here. So far, they have been a little disappointed.

Now, to have to endure the Invocation ceremony, being led by someone who is vocally, and pro-actively anti-Gay Marriage, and Pro-Life? The Left is asking, "Why choose this topic, this time to do such a thing?" and more importantly, "Why give this guy 5 minutes of publicity, when he is such a symbol of this Evangelical movement has been so anathema to all that the Left holds dear?"

Each point is well taken, but here are a few reasons that everyone should take a step back, and take a deep breath:

1. Liberals, take comfort

• Inviting a Conservative, Evangelical Pastor to give an invocation isn't the same as having Rick Warren make policy, or run a Cabinet position. This is a man who will be off the Washington stage on January 21, and back to Saddleback Church in California, working on the next Sunday Seminar.
• This is a man who has twice invited Candidate Barack Obama into his church, and had sincere dialogue on topics that run the gamut. In many ways, his August 16, 2008 Q&A sessions with Obama and McCain were more substantive than the debates we saw in October.
• This is also a man who is deeply committed to issues that most Liberals also support--notably Environmental issues, AIDS and Poverty. This Pastor that is painted with only an intolerant brush is NOT Jerry Falwell. He is NOT Pat Robertson, nor is he James Dobson. He is opinionated, but he is more supportive of debate amongst his followers.
• Your President, Barack Obama, has decisions to make on Economics, Education, Foreign Policy, Supreme Court Justices, and countless other topics, that are more in line with your way of thinking than John McCain, Sarah Palin, or George W. Bush. Victories in American Politics are seldom as complete as those of Ronald Reagan in 1984. George W. Bush tried to impose his will in government, and he has probably set back his party for a generation. If you want to see a two year reign over Washington, followed by a Republican Majority in 2010 of Congress, just keep pushing for a totally Liberal agenda. Remember, Liberals do NOT make up a majority of this country either. Learn something from the overreach of the Conservative base in 2004.
• Gay rights supporters should still take comfort that this is an administration that will leave them in a better position in 2012 then they are in right now. Prop 8, while supported by Pastor Rick, is just not going to stand the test of time. Civil Rights continue to march to the left. Rick Warren is not going to single-handedly change that. Liberals may feel that they need to take more drastic actions to improve Gay rights, but in fact, continuing to push for legal status has been more effective than anything else. Don't let an Invocation speech knock you off your course.

2. Moderates, take comfort

• The battles of the Left and Right Extremes may be over. It looks like we have a President who is interested in listening to people (including Pastors) who have a point to be made. Pastor Rick looks like an olive branch to the Right in this country, that we are all have a seat at the table in THIS administration, even if we don't get everything we want.
• We have a President who has met with someone, found them to have a powerful voice, and has invited him to contribute to the overall conversation on a number of moral topics. Notice I said contribute, not dominate the discussion, but contribute. It is high time we had another leader in this country who was confident enough in his own convictions to listen to points of view he isn't always comfortable with.

3. Conservatives, take notice

• The Pastor giving the Invocation? Rick Warren. The Pastor NOT anywhere on the stage? Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Can we knock off the fear-mongering already?
• Your voices will be heard. We have learned that isolating a portion of the population is an extremely dangerous game. If it is to be played, it better be played PERFECTLY, or the minority will use mistakes to beat you over the head. Obama seems to have learned this lesson. Most Conservatives I know have commented that Obama has handled the transition practically flawlessly. Only the most partisan of my Conservative friends has complained about even the Blagojevich handling. This should be another reason to feel good about your new President.
• Liberals are not going to give up their battles for Abortion choice, just because Rick Warren is giving the Invocation. But Obama has been true to his word thus far, and he has spoken about the need to improve options for unwanted pregnancies, including adoption, better pre-natal care, and funding for Planned Parenthoods. Abortions went down under Clinton, and if Obama has his way, they will continue to drop during his term. Let's achieve results, rather than partisan victories, shall we?

In the end, Rick Warren is going to be a part of the American Moral Discourse for the foreseeable future. Like him or not, he has a tremendous following, with his church, organization, and books. As a country, we may not all agree with his positions, but he is the most representative face of a movement that started with a far more caustic, and exclusionary message presented by the leaders of yesterday (Falwell, Robertson). Obama recognizes this, and my hope is that he and Pastor Rick can use this moment to find a way to work together on the issues that bind us together as a nation. It would be the first time I have seen such a consensus.

Could Texas ever REALLY turn Blue?

Over the course of about 2 weeks after the elections, I continued to check some polling sites, to find out what the final breakdown of votes, states, etc were from the 2004 election. I wasn't sure what I was looking for, except that I figured I would know it when I saw it.

There were some interesting anomalies

• The NY Times map showing that the only part of the country that went increasingly Republican was the Ozarks through the lower Appalachian range areas. Everywhere else moved to the left, in an almost stunning sea of blue.
• The swath of states in the heart of the South--Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia had been Democratic states, and had become the deepest red in the nation (Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia had all gone for Clinton at some point, not too long ago).

But to me, the more interesting point was Texas. This has been the bastion of Conservatism, the home of the Bushes, ground zero of the Republican machine. Tom Delay was from here. Much of W's famous advisers, and cabinet selections have roots in Texas (Rove, Gonzales, Miers, Leavitt, McClellan, etc).

McCain won the state, but only 55-45%. And by less than 1 million votes. Why was this? Most of the more conservative states had McCain winning by more, supposedly bolstered by the Sarah Palin excitement. Why not Texas? Here's a few things I to think about, as we watch some of the upcoming Texas elections.

1. Katrina--how many people who have left New Orleans as a result of Hurricane Katrina, have stayed in the Houston area? I probably need to try to get some stats on whether there is a significant portion of Democrat-leaning people who have now settled across the Texas border. It may explain some of the trending towards the Republican party in Louisiana in the recent elections.

2. Immigration--As primarily Mexican immigrants come into Texas, it is no coincidence that the Democratically elected congressmen and women are all along the Mexican border, is it? The Republican party had made some tremendous inroads into the Hispanic population, until the GOP fought off the Comprehensive Immigration Reform efforts in 2007. In doing so, they looked like they were very anti-Hispanic in the process. Whether such a perception is warranted or not, it is there, and was obvious in the 2008 general election, where John McCain (who actually SUPPORTED the bill!) lost support in the Hispanic community, and lost 2/3rds of the Hispanic popular vote to Barack Obama. Can the Republicans afford to lose this block of voters, if it is the growing minority demographic in Texas?

For kicks, I looked at the names of the Texas Congressmen that were Democrats (Rodriguez, Cuellar, Ortiz, Reyes), and I looked at the names of the Congressmen that were Republicans (Paul, Olson, Barton, Conaway, etc). I am not suggesting that the GOP is solely the party of JR Ewing. But Texas is no longer solely the land of rich oilmen. It is a multi-ethnic population, that is becoming increasingly Hispanic. If the Republicans continue to look anti-immigrant, and in turn, anti-Hispanic, they are going to lose in the long term.

3. Austin/Hi-tech--It is interesting that the high-tech and university area of Texas has become such a hot bed of liberalism. Let's see if that population increases next time.

4. Oil--Does Texas still produce oil? I know we import a lot these days. But even T. Boone Pickens is looking at wind, LNG, and other sources. And with oil dropping down to $40/barrel, I wonder if Exxon is thinking about their profit margins, and their workforce reduction possibilities. Let's see how dealing with a Democrat, who is interested in working on alternative energy sources, leaves the people who were Republicans simply because of the power it wielded them in Washington on this topic.

5. Democratic Primary--perhaps the biggest influence on the Democratic party in Texas was the primary/caucus last year. Before 2008, when was the last time we even talked about Democrats in Texas? 1988? Nothing rallies the party like a primary, and some national attention. It will be interesting to see if it translates into some party interest statewide.

So, let's see how Texas does in the upcoming elections. A blue Texas could equate to the death of the Republican party in its current state and ideology. Similar to the effects of the Reagan landslides of 1980 and 1984 on Democrats, if Texas were to turn blue, it could mean a LONG walk in the wilderness for the Republican party in the years to come.

How Will Obama Shape the Courts? Like his Cabinet--Move it to the Middle

We always hear the phrase "Elections have consequences". In this case, one of the ancillary consequences of the election of Barack Obama is a "hold" or even a shift of the Supreme Court, for the first time in many years. Here is the quick breakdown of positions:

On the Right (4):

1. Antonin Scalia--Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia is considered the champion of the Right, or the self-proclaimed "strict constructionists". He has made a career of bringing Conservative ideology to the court, and is a personal friend to folks such as VP Dick Cheney. At 72 years old, though Scalia is getting older, but he is not going anywhere. He would never voluntarily leave during a Democratic administration.

2. Clarence Thomas--Appointed by George HW Bush in 1991, Thomas is considered with Scalia, as the Conservative darling. He has endured scorn from the left on the controversy surrounding his appointment in the Senate Confirmation hearings, but has been a Conservative Stalwart. Most Supreme Court biographers tout Thomas as the Conservative point of view, even more than Scalia. At just 60 years old, Thomas is a "spring chicken" on the court, and should continue to influence decisions for years to come.

3. John Roberts--Chief Justice--Appointed by George W. Bush in 2005--at just 53 years old, Roberts has the opportunity to be one of the longest serving Chief Justices of all time. He has talked about trying to foment a more consensus-based court, and has taken care not to allow his decisions to be too broadly applied (perhaps a "minimalist"-type of approach). But he is decidedly on the Conservative end of the spectrum, and despite some health scares a few years ago, should be a Champion of the Right's causes for years more.

4. Samuel Alito--Appointed by George W. Bush in 2006--like Roberts, Alito is relatively young (58 years old), Conservative, and not going anywhere for a while.

On the Left (4)

1. John Paul Stevens--Appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975--At 88, Stevens is probably going to retire over the next 4 years. As a sign of how the court has shifted, Stevens was considered a Centrist during his early years on the court, but has become part of the left block in more recent years.

2. David Souter--Appointed by George HW Bush in 1989--At 69, Souter is not considered old by Supreme Court Standards, but there are rumors he is interested in retiring from the Court. The Souter appointment is widely seen in Conservative circles, as the mistake of a generation. Souter was appointed by a Republican President, but immediately reflected positions much more to the left of the overall court makeup. He is still the rallying cry from the Right as the example of who NOT to choose for any future Conservative Presidents.

3. Ruth Bader Ginsburg--Appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993--At 75, Ginsburg is considered the most liberal of the Court members. She is also in poor health, and would like very much to retire under a Democratic Presidency. It looks like she will get her wish.

4. Stephen Breyer--Appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994--At 70, Breyer has been a solid liberal on the court, and has been considered very collegial. His viewpoints are very reasoned, and will take principled stances for more conservative viewpoints, if they fit his reasoning patterns. There is no sign he is interested in retiring, but at 70, he may decide he's had enough.

In the Center(1)

1. Anthony Kennedy--Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988--At 72, Kennedy has been a centrist. He has been Conservative leaning at times, but for the most part, he has been considered a "swing vote" on most issues, especially since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor in 2005.


The Three Justices most likely to be replaced during the next four years are Stevens (age), Ginsburg (health), and Souter (wants to leave). The reason that Obama's potential replacements wouldn't change the court, per se, is that most of the Justices considering retirement are Left-leaning, and Obama's choices would be replacements of a "Lefty" with a "Lefty". That could all change if any of the other 5 Justices were to leave the court during the next 4 years.

If there is a fourth retirement, other than Breyer (and that could well happen, given the age of most of the Justices), there could be a real shift in the court to the left. I don't anticipate that happening, but if anyone like Scalia or Kennedy need to be replaced, it would represent a real opportunity for Obama to shape the court for years to come, in his own image. The battle in the Senate Confirmation hearings would be fierce.

Top considerations for Justice appointments? Names like Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (52), Elana Kagan (48), who has served in the Clinton administration, and is close with Obama, Ruben Castillo, who is also the US District Judge for Northern Illinois, and even folks like Jennifer Granholm, Governor of MI, or a dark horse like Joe Lieberman, Senator from CT have been thrown around.

In the end, the next Supreme Court appointments will most likely reflect a stabilization of the court, providing the Left with a block of votes that should endure, and prevent the court from shifting right. The Conservatives must hope that Obama chooses Justices like he has chosen a Cabinet, much more from the center than the left. While the changes in the court shouldn't necessarily shift the position of the Supreme Court, it will solidify both voting blocks, and probably keep the court in the middle for the forseeable future. Roe v Wade should stay the law of tha land for a while, for all the Liberals out there. Nothing gets decided this go round. Conservatives will have to soldier on for this cause. Looks like Obama will end up getting the Court right where he wants to get the country--in the middle.

2008--The Campaign Year that Was--Highlights, Month by Month

Presidential Election years are the best for political junkies like myself. This year was perhaps the best one I have ever seen, with the endless drama on all sides of the political spectrum. Here's a recap of my favorites. Feel free to share yours at the bottom:

January:
On the Democratic side, it was astonishing to see Barack Obama win the Iowa Caucus. We assumed he would just sweep through the remaining elections, but then the tide turned, and Hillary Clinton took New Hampshire, Nevada, and Michigan & Florida (to be disputed later)

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee won Iowa, and it looked for a little while like it would be a Huckabee/Romney battle. Then McCain won New Hampshire, South Carolina and most importantly, Florida, and really knocked Romney back on his heels. By the end of the month, you could see McCain really had the inside track, but Romney and Huckabee still had life. Rudy, Fred Thompson, and the others were fading fast.

February:
Super Tuesday was like the Super Bowl (although I enjoyed the actual Super Bowl very much--Sorry Pats fans!). Again, the huge surprise was the fact that Obama had played the Clinton Machine to a virtual tie, and seemed to have the momentum back. By the end of the month, the Obama mobile seemed to be close to unstoppable.

Romney won a lot of states, as did Huckabee, but McCain really came out of Super Tuesday the big winner on the GOP side. Romney quit the race, and once the mid-Atlantic states voted, it was all but over. Huckabee stuck around, just 'cuz...

March:
Like a Phoenix rising from the ashes, Hillary Clinton had found her path to victory--as the representative of the working class stiff. She took the Ohio and Texas (well, kind of...) primaries, and started to lay the ground work for arguing that she should be the Democratic nominee.

McCain went to Iraq, and got Sunnis and Shia confused. A few times. Then he came home, and hung out with Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, shooting pool, I guess.

April:
Hillary Clinton started to really amp up the campaign, and some nasty comments that Obama's Pastor had made about America, the government, etc, started to get out in the public domain. And Obama had his own issues relating to working class Americans. The tide had turned, Clinton won Pennsylvania by 10 points, and it really seemed as if she could make the case for the nomination.

But Obama had done one important thing during that time. He gave a speech on race, and showed what kind of leader he would be, handling problems, and revealed some of his views on race. It was a moment that may have saved his campaign, and allowed him to fight on.

McCain went on his "Service to America" tour through his old stomping grounds, from Annapolis to Virginia, to Florida, back to Arizona.

May:
The Democratic elections seemed to be just endless. Obama won NC, and fought Clinton to a standstill in Indiana, which put him up for good in the delegate count. But Clinton was making a case for Michigan and Florida to be counted too, and that technically, she had won the popular vote. It was getting a little nasty.

McCain gave some speeches, I think?

June:
The Democrats finally settled the nomination issue, kinda. Obama won the delegates, and was the presumptive nominee. Hillary Clinton gave a very gracious concession speech, and John McCain also gave a speech, intending it to be the first shot across the bow of the General Election. It turned out to be a "learning moment" for the McCain campaign. Don't try to go toe-to-toe with Obama on speeches. McCain's speech was brutal to watch, and it almost immediately put him in a hole going into the Summer. McCain would have better moments...

July:
McCain's campaign was scoring some points on Obama's lack of experience. They dared him to travel abroad, in the hopes he would look naive. In many respects, Obama looked very Presidential, but the Berlin speech was seen by some as over the top, and presumptuous. Still, Obama led in most polls, going into the Olympics and the Conventions in August.

August:
The Democratic Convention was a typical love-in, with a grand ending at Obama's speech at Invesco Field in Denver. The bounce from that speech should have been enormous. But McCain's announcement of Sarah Palin as his VP candidate threw a wet blanket on the whole matter. It was one of the truly brilliant moves of the campaign, or so it seemed.

September: This was really the tale of two months:
The first half saw the rise of Sarah Palin. She gave a tremendous speech at the convention, and had Republicans buzzing at the thought of a new, attractive, female version of their hero, Ronald Reagan. McCain had taken a small lead in the polls, and all seemed well.

Then the bottom fell out. The stock market crashed, McCain started to react in anything but a calm, rational manner, and Sarah Palin's interviews with the major networks started to reveal a high gloss facsimile of a real candidate, without any real substance behind it. By the end of the month, Obama was up by close to double digits, and would never really be challenged again.

October:
This was really the month of the debates, where most observers got to see how the candidates could handle questions, the "big stage" and each other. It seemed the majority of the country was upset about the economy, and all of the drama of the current administration, and wanted Obama, but really wanted to see him in this setting first. While most talking heads thought McCain did well in all three debates, Obama won the polling for each debate, primarily because of his demeanor, and his message of change.

We were introduced to some new terminology as well: Joe the Plumber, Bill Ayres, Joe Sixpack, Maverick, and the rest of the catchy, kitchy phrases were all used, in an attempt by the Republicans to narrow the gap. Palin continued to hammer away at the President, but it didn't seem to make a difference. Her credibility seemed shot with everyone but the party faithful. And McCain seemed to get increasingly bitter and nasty, as he started to see the reality of November 4 coming.

Still, it just didn't seem possible that this country could elect Barack Obama. Had he really beaten Hillary Clinton months earlier? The Republicans hadn't beaten a Clinton in over 25 years! Yet this skinny, former community organizer from the south side of Chicago had managed it. And to beat the Maverick? The Republican campaign machine? Seemed impossible. Yet here we were, on the eve of the election, and there were NO signs that the McCain campaign could pull this off...

November:
The election was almost a letdown, considering that the previous two had gone well into the night, the next week, and in 2000, all the way to the Supreme Court. The world knew, by 11pm EST, that Obama had won.

The rest of the month was a fast shift to pocket book issues. People saw their savings continue to vanish, and jobless rates skyrocket. Obama received high marks for putting together a cabinet that was smart, pragmatic, and centrist in ideology. But issues still abounded. Where was the current President, anyway?

December:
So far, the two major highlights have been the Auto bailout, which could be something we point back to as the beginning of the slide into Depression. We shall see what happens here. Also, we have been watching as an Illinois Democratic Governor put money and greed ahead of the public good, in trying to sell the Illinois US Senate seat. This seems to be a ball of string, about to be unwound. While Obama seems to be coming up clean in the investigation so far, it remains to be seen whether his team was totally above board on this.

So there you have it. A year of highlights for an election of the ages. I am almost disappointed that I have to face 2009 with no promise of a caucus or primary on the near horizon. But there are plenty of other issues to come. The inauguration is only 5 weeks away...

2009--Optimism WILL RETURN!!! Here's Why

I have spent the past 2 months watching the economic picture get worse, and people start to really fear the future of the American Economy. I even wrote a blog not long ago declaring the current economy "dead", and using terms like "game over". I have asked questions like "who is making any money out there?", and the like.

Over the past few days, I am starting to get some answers that lead me to believe that we WILL rebound from the recent economic meltdown, and I am hopeful, for the first time in a while, that things will start to get better in 2009.

1. Humility--I am seeing, for the first time I can remember, a humility in my neighbors, my co-workers, and our politicians. This notion that America is so great that we can continue to live beyond our means, borrow and spend, and never have to pay, has met a dose of reality. But like most things, a dose of reality, a dose of humility, and some medicine for what ails us are all good signs that we have started down the road to recovery. We still have a ways to go, but seeing companies take a sober look at expenses, admit that they need help, and try to sacrifice to survive, all show that people from all parts of our society recognize the gravity of the situation.

With this humility comes the ability to take advantage of the next signs I am seeing...

2. Proposed Tax Refunds for the Middle Class--I am hopeful that even a $1,000 tax cut will help people start to feel some relief. $20/week helps a lot of people...

3. Real conversations about real economic change--We have been more serious about things like getting off the oil standard, changing the transportation industry, funding infrastructure projects, or education, than we have been in years. Budget responsibility is important, but let's see what actually funding programs does for our tax base.

4. Investment plays starting to emerge--we are starting to see winners and losers shake out of this downturn. All the sellers have been wrung out of the stock market. The low cost providers have been winning (Walmart, McDonalds, etc). Also, commodities have taken a beating. They may continue to do so, but a lot of the froth is off the price of these positions. Taking a bet on some of these companies could pay off tremendously going forward. I make no promises, but it is something I am thinking about in 09.

5. Mortgage Rates--30 year mortgages are down to 5.6% If this drop continues, by early next year, if we can get rates down to the mid 4% range, what an opportunity to refinance! Those with jobs (92% of you!) would find tremendous cash savings with a refi. This could even represent the end of the mortgage meltdown.

6. Dollar will stay strong/Oil could stay low--Europe and Asia are still a few months behind our collapse. The dollar could continue to be the stable worldwide currency for a while to come. This will keep oil prices low, and provide a cost benefit to all drivers out there in the USA (which is practically all of you out there over 16 years old).

7. Personally, every light bulb I change to an energy efficient bulb, puts a few shekels in my pocket. I will continue to do my part to help this country get off the oil standard (it ain't much, but every little bit helps).

8. Think about a home improvement effort this year--I'll bet if you call all those people who quoted you a price on central air, or roofing, or landscaping a year ago, will cite you a cost that's significantly less. If you can afford it, you can definitely save some dough.

Stay Positive!!!--some of this is a natural depression cycle. People have been right to be concerned, pessimistic, and the reaction to the economic news has been appropriate. But at some point, this country will stop feeling worried and depressed, and start to make some sound decisions as to how to take advantage of low interest rates, low prices, low gas costs, and positive policy changes. I think that time could be 2009.

Bailout of the Big 3--Hold your nose, and lend the money

It looks like the Big 3 bailout is dead for now. The Senate couldn't override a filibuster brought on by the Republican minority, and without some other intervention, no other activity looks likely before the next Congress takes shape in January.

For background sake, this delay of federal loans and funding puts Chrysler in the most serious jeopardy, with GM a hair behind. Ford is still okay, if we are to believe their bailout plan details. So why would a Senator vote AGAINST such a bill? Is spending $14 Billion really such a bad idea, considering the $150 Billion, AND GROWING tab that is being spent to save AIG, and the up to $300B pledged to save Citigroup? Obviously, we don't want to throw the taxpayer money away, but what are we talking about here? The complaints coming out of the Senate Republicans is laughable, and transparent. Here's the justification, and counter argument:

1. The Company should go through Chapter 11--This idea isn't a bad one, but the structure of the message is all wrong. Sending Republican Senators out to the talk shows to say that Chapter 11 will solve it all, is silly. This gets back to a point I have made on previous blogs. Republicans get in trouble because they don't explain what impacts their actions have on real people. In truth, Chapter 11 IS an option, but only if the Government will pledge to step in and secure the company with cash through the reorganization. This will give the company the leverage it needs to reduce the Pension Benefit Obligations that are crippling the company. And the courts are the place to come up with a reasonable solution that doesn't leave retirees with NOTHING. These are the points Republicans SHOULD be making, but they aren't. Therefore, a pure Chapter 11 Bankruptcy reorganization without guarantees would pretty much end the company's viability, and the move to Chapter 7-Liquidation, would be swift, and devastating to the US Economy.

2. The UAW should cut workers salaries and benefits to non-Union levels--This is the most laughable of all the arguments, and should be stopped before the Republican Senators make fools of themselves. The average UAW worker does NOT get $70/hour in salary and benefits. That is the average of all working, AND retired worker. Since the sins of the past are haunting GM and Chrysler, let's look purely at the workers of today. In fact, their salary and benefits are within $2-3 of the Non-Union workers at Honda, Nissan, Toyota, and Hyundai. Senator Bob Corker's idea of reducing the Union's salaries to non-Union levels is wrong on two levels. It destroys the purpose of a Union, which is to protect the workers, and give them a voice in the company. It also is a fait accompli, since these workers wouldn't be reducing their salaries, once people actually look at the numbers. This action would do nothing to solve the problem. It may score him some points back home in Tennessee, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory if GM and Chrysler go under, and take 2-3 million jobs with them.

3. The Companies need new leadership--I had a good debate about this with my father the other day. He thinks you need new folks in at the top. He's probably right, but I personally don't see how that really helps much, since the plans are already being drawn up, and put in motion. What would a non-car person know about running a car company? It would take a year (minimum) for a non-car executive to figure out how to get the company to turn around. On the other hand, perhaps someone without the baggage of the car company culture, and personal bias, could step in and actually come up with the winning plan. Either way, I don't see how this should be a sticking point in giving these companies a chance to survive.

4. Other companies will just pick up the workers for their plants--There is no rule that says that once GM goes under, Toyota must hire those workers to make Camrys. In fact, there is nothing stopping Toyota, Honda, or Nissan from just pumping out more cars and trucks in their Japanese plants. Somehow, not trying to save 3 million workers, on the off chance that 600,000 of those folks might be hired back, doesn't sound like a good game to play with the American economy.


Here is one reason I have FOR bailing out the automotive industry. Let's look at recent history. When was the last time we saw an inactive Congress fail to pass a bailout package? September? What was the stock market at that Monday? It was over 11,000. While Congress futzed around, demanding additional concessions, the market was dropping--18% that week. I have a feeling that if we leave these car companies for dead, we could be seeing a repeat of that, but from a starting point of 8,600 on the Dow. Anyone up for Dow 6,800? Not me. I know exactly who I will hold accountable for inaction on this matter.

There are a couple of things that can still be done, here. Warren Buffett could make a deal to provide a bridge loan. President Bush could step up, and carve off a piece of the TARP funds for GM and Chrysler. I think the TARP solution will probably end up being the answer, because I can't see President Bush wanting the failure of GM and Chrysler on his resume as his crowning achievement, above Iraq, Katrina, WMD, etc.

As I have said before, I want a Government that is pragmatic, and WORKS. The Pragmatic analysis here stinks, and the idea of bailing out these companies is tragic. It is also the best of a number of terrible options. We have already played around enough. Make the deal, give these companies a chance to save themselves.

It's a Scandal--What did Obama know about Blagojevich? When did he know it!?

I love this quote. Everything always comes back to Watergate somehow. Even my question here is one I have heard on talk radio for the past 3 days, and it's kinda silly. It actually meant something when Howard Baker asked it of Richard Nixon in the Senate during the Watergate Hearings times. Now it's just a line that people on talk radio use to make themselves think they are smart.

Since this is a "Pragmatic" thought site, I don't really have much to add here, since it is irrelevant to policy, finding solutions for the country, or building consensus. I hate these kinds of distractions, on both sides. But that doesn't mean I haven't been watching this whole thing with a sadistic kind of interest. I think my friend said it best. "...as long as he was selling the Senate Seat, why not put it up on eBay...?"

Here are the best observations outside of the standard media points I could find:

1. Right Wing Reaction--I believe that with this issue, we may be watching Right Wing radio "jump the shark". After all, it is impossible to pin any of the Governor's corruption on the President Elect, when he was caught, ON TAPE, cursing out the President-elect for his refusal to "Pay for Play". The worst crime is that Obama's responses to the questions about his contacts with the Illinois Governor have been less than crisp. Contact between the two parties seems to be a given, since Obama had to tender his resignation, and almost assuredly lobbied the Governor at some point for certain candidates. The attempts to paint Obama as a "liar", and being less than transparent are kinda lame. I can usually listen to Rush and Jay Severin for hours at a time. Today, I wasn't indignant, but I was just bored with their analyses. It's boring guys. It's just not sellable to anyone outside of dittohead land.

2. Obama's Reaction--Time for Obama to end the Professorial answers. Mr. President-Elect, it's time to remember that people now parse your every word. You may have meant that you had no conversations with the Governor about "pay to play". But you said you had no contact. That wasn't precise enough. Time to come out, discuss exactly what the contact was. You are making it harder to gain momentum for any of your initiatives.

3. Next steps--Governor stability--Time to get this guy out of office. NOW. The Senate should have an impeachment hearing. TOMORROW. Get the Lieutenant Governor in, and either have him make an appointment, or have a special election to place a US Senator in Washington.

4. Next steps--Choosing a Senator--this is an interesting one. If the Illinois Senate wants to do the right thing, they will call for a special election. But the Democratic legislature is terrified of this option. There is a real possibility that Congressman Mark Kirk (R) could win. Jesse Jackson has been tainted, even if just a little. It's enough to cause him to avoid a run for the seat in a special election. Other Democratic candidates are either too close to Rod Blagojevich, or don't have the kind of cache to win.

The special election could hurt Obama. The election of a Mark Kirk would certainly give Republicans hope that the tide has already turned in their favor. On the other hand, I think it's the only objective and fair solution. Any appointment, by Blagojevich, or anyone else, would be terribly tainted, and cause commotion. In the end, the election of someone like Mark Kirk could be good for the Illinois political scene, and could put a period at the end of this issue for Barack Obama. Who would think that the election of a Republican Senator could help a Democratic President get onto his agenda faster?

5. Who dropped more f-bombs? Gov Blagojevich or his wife? HA!

The whole thing is just disgraceful. US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald will have his hands full over the next couple of months. If he wants to have any impact, Obama had better do whatever he can to make this go away. FAST. No one looks good in this, the more it drags out. I think this ends up being a tempest in a teapot, but I never thought Valerie Plame would turn out to be much either...

Let's get back to the issues tomorrow. I am tired of this already.