I am just so tired of this drivel. Enough already. If I have to hear one more person in the Republican Party discuss Ronald Reagan as some sort of Saint, I think I am going to scream.
It reminds me of the scene towards the end of Blazing Saddles, when Sheriff Bart is trying to convince the town to stand up to the cretins of the Governor's Assistant, Hedley Lamarr. The townspeople, unconvinced to stay and defend their town, are moved only by the Sheriff's line, "you'd do it for Randolf Scott..." Suddenly, the town gasps, the heavens sing his name, and Howard Johnson says to the Sheriff, "okay, you have 24 hours..."
The reverence for this man in the movie (a master stroke on the part of Mel Brooks, since Randolf Scott was not a legend of the old west, but in fact, an early actor in Western films, once again playing on the absurdity of the situation of a film about the filming of a Western) is one of the people who would do just about anything for the memory of a man who wasn't even one of them, and were willing to put their lives in jeopardy for someone as obscure as a forgotten Hollywood Western actor.
The irony is ripe here, considering that Reagan himself was a "b-list" Hollywood actor, who had also starred in Westerns.
But unlike Randolf Scott, who is revered in a spoof on the film genre, Reagan is held in reverence by people who cannot communicate new ideas, fresh thinking, or any way of relating to the people or problems of today. Why they do this is puzzling to me.
After all, Reagan was first elected in 1980, which was 29 years ago, for those of you keeping score at home. People of voting age have never been alive during his Presidency. People below the age of 43 were not even of voting age the last time he ran for the office. We have had two Republican Presidents in the interim, and a Legislative branch dominated by Republicans for the better part of 12 years since Reagan left office. Yet this man is still held up by any serious Republican contender as the only model (perhaps there are a few who would consider themselves "Goldwater Republicans", but that's their way of saying, "I'm not as Conservative as all THAT") with which they want the public to think of them.
But what is it that people who unfailingly speak of Reagan in reverence, point to as his crowning achievements? Making the Supreme Court a bastion of Conservative Reactionary policy? Being fiscally irresponsible, as he cuts taxes on the wealthy? "Beating the Commies?" I may even concede the point that Reagan did a lot to hasten the demise of the Soviet Union--in part by TALKING to the enemy. Certainly, Dick Cheney wasn't running around in 1984, trying to convince people that if we talk to the Soviets, we will all be less safe (or was he? I don't seem to have much Youtube video from that point in time...)
Enough with the endless references, and deference to the altar of Reagan. It's been over 20 years since he left office. 25 years since he won an election. Half this country's population have little to no recollection of him, his policies, or understood them well enough to even have formulated an opinion on them.
All of the reverence for this man seems to be just the fact that he was a culmination of an electoral victory that denounced the FDR Democratic philosophy, and ushered in a new time of...what? Moral, Social and Religious superiority? Deficits don't matter? Defense spending is necessary, despite being reckless and mismanaged? Covertly sending arms to the Contras via Iran makes long term sense?
Reagan was a great communicator, I won't deny that. And he is a hero for the Right, much like Clinton, Kennedy, FDR, or Obama may become for the Left. The Conservatives have been looking for that kind of positive communicator since 1988, but have never found the man for the job. In the end, they have been trying to evoke Reagan, but have instead copied the other great Conservative voice, Rush Limbaugh. In the process, all of the positive, sunny messages from Reagan, coming out in a bitter, nasty diatribe of division and condescention, sounds confusing, mean-spirited, and in the end, unelectable.
Yet Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal (etc, etc) would do anything for the memory of Ronald Reagan, and they try to make America remember again how good it was during the Reagan days. Unfortunately, its time for Republicans to learn what the Dems had to in the 30 years after Kennedy. Camelot is gone. People don't remember. They vote in the here and now. And if you can't give people a vision for the future, rather than a memory of the past, you can look forward to watching the other party seize the mantle of leadership for years to come.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Sunday Morning Round Up--Durbin, Powell, Gingrich
Sunday was (for once) a striking contrast in styles in debates on national security. The two fascinating shows were Meet the Press and Face the Nation.
Meet the Press--for starters, the fact that a current Senate Majority Whip would go up against a former Speaker seemed like an unusual match up. But what struck me most about the debate (Newt Gingrich-R vs. Richard Durbin-D) was the fact that Newt didn't win the debate. Gingrich is in his element in these types of debates, and I was fully prepared to watch him wipe the floor with the latest Democrat who couldn't articulate his position clearly, or with passion.
Durbin hit Gingrich with stingers over and over again on Obama's competency, on Guantanamo, on Speaker Pelosi (asking if Gingrich felt Republicans should apologize and/or resign over similar actions), and it was a clear victory for Durbin.
The other message that was just terrible for Gingrich was this notion that he kept playing on, which was America "should be afraid". He kept coming back to the notion that fear is appropriate. Rightfully, Durbin hammered Newt on this point, saying that fear is not a platform on which to create a strategy and set of laws and actions. Durbin had the right message, and didn't miss the opportunity to draw the stark and correct contrast. Newt has now had a few bad outings on Pelosi, and on National Security. But he thinks he is right in his positions, and I doubt he will stop speaking out on this subject, unless he continues to look petty and hypocritical.
Face the Nation--This was a fascinating interview of Colin Powell. Primarily because it was Powell who started to articulate a platform for what a moderate Republican Party could look like. Powell seems like a sensible, strong leader, and should be held up as a model for Brand R to woo moderate, and even right of center Republicans, who do NOT wear a "Dittohead" button on their lapel. I think this could be Powell's swan song, as he has tried, in vain, to pull his party to his point of view.
The debates were ones that the GOP has been winning this past week. But today's talk shows were a clear victory, in these two instances, for the Democratic Party.
Meet the Press--for starters, the fact that a current Senate Majority Whip would go up against a former Speaker seemed like an unusual match up. But what struck me most about the debate (Newt Gingrich-R vs. Richard Durbin-D) was the fact that Newt didn't win the debate. Gingrich is in his element in these types of debates, and I was fully prepared to watch him wipe the floor with the latest Democrat who couldn't articulate his position clearly, or with passion.
Durbin hit Gingrich with stingers over and over again on Obama's competency, on Guantanamo, on Speaker Pelosi (asking if Gingrich felt Republicans should apologize and/or resign over similar actions), and it was a clear victory for Durbin.
The other message that was just terrible for Gingrich was this notion that he kept playing on, which was America "should be afraid". He kept coming back to the notion that fear is appropriate. Rightfully, Durbin hammered Newt on this point, saying that fear is not a platform on which to create a strategy and set of laws and actions. Durbin had the right message, and didn't miss the opportunity to draw the stark and correct contrast. Newt has now had a few bad outings on Pelosi, and on National Security. But he thinks he is right in his positions, and I doubt he will stop speaking out on this subject, unless he continues to look petty and hypocritical.
Face the Nation--This was a fascinating interview of Colin Powell. Primarily because it was Powell who started to articulate a platform for what a moderate Republican Party could look like. Powell seems like a sensible, strong leader, and should be held up as a model for Brand R to woo moderate, and even right of center Republicans, who do NOT wear a "Dittohead" button on their lapel. I think this could be Powell's swan song, as he has tried, in vain, to pull his party to his point of view.
The debates were ones that the GOP has been winning this past week. But today's talk shows were a clear victory, in these two instances, for the Democratic Party.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Economic Doom and Gloom--Scenario 1
I am a worrier. It's something that is difficult to explain to people. But whenever I am faced with a challenging situation, my first reaction is to play out the worst case scenario--the one that will do me personally, the greatest harm. Then I worry about that for anywhere from 5 minutes, to a day. After that, I start to strategize, and think about ways to mitigate the dangers, confront the issue head on. I'll consult with people I trust, if the situation allows, looking for perspective. If I can do nothing to stop the scenario from unfolding, throw myself at the mercy of the situation, and hope I can dull the pain I am going to incur.
Then, surprisingly, once I have assessed the potential damage, I feel relaxed, calm, and prepared to face the situation.
So, applying this logic, I have started to look at the current economy, and I am trying to figure out what I need to see to get me comfortable that we are on the road to recovery. Because right now, I have that worry in my head, and in my heart. That feeling that we are crusin' for a brusin'.
Here's my worst case scenario:
1. Job Loss--The thing that is going to kill this rally is the fact that jobs continue to be lost at a blitzing pace. I am STILL looking for a sign that job losses have decelerated. I am concerned that this will not stop for months still to come. Here's my take on this:
Auto Industry--1 million jobs still to be lost. Whether GM goes bankrupt is irrelevant.
Auto "ancillaries" (Trans Plants, suppliers, parts, etc)--2 million jobs still to be lost
Professional Services--500,000 jobs still to be lost
Retail--250,000 job still to be lost
Transportation--250,000 jobs still to be lost.
That's 4 million jobs, NET, that I think we will lose in our economy before the end of 2009.
2. Unemployment? 12% by the end of the year
3. The dollar--we will lose our AAA rating, as England has, and we may be forced to raise interest rates. The Euro will rise to 1.75:1.00. The yen and other currencies will also appreciate.
4. Oil--as it is traded in dollars, we could be looking at $80-90 oil per barrel. $3.50/gallon at the pump. Yikes.
5. Earnings--The first quarter was good for one thing: it told us that the world was not ending. But beating an expectation that has been DRASTICALLY reduced, doesn't say much in terms of economic conditions actually improving. Look for disappointments in Q2 and Q3 from an earnings standpoint.
6. Stock Markets--look for a retest of the DOW in the sub-7,000 range. S&P below 700.
7. Real Estate--look for Commercial real estate to drag us down another leg, as we clear out inventory.
This could easily be the scenario we face, as we round out President Obama's first year in office...
...and this kind of scenario will destroy Obama's credibility on the economy, and could very quickly turn his term into a disaster. We could only speculate on the kind of social unrest this scenario would result in. Crime, poverty, terror alerts, perhaps worse. Some have argued that we are getting there already.
Sound nasty enough? Okay, let's not get hysterical. Government stimulus, basic living necessities, and other counter-cyclical forces (ie, worldwide depression will also depress oil demand, for example), should hold some of this in check. And people will have to get used to the idea that their jobs aren't all that safe, their credit cards are not ATM machines, and the Cheesecake Factory is NOT there for every third meal.
While Obama hasn't taken some of the steps I'd like him to take from a fiscal standpoint, I don't think any of these doomsday scenarios are unfixable. People think the deficit run up is irreversible, but it isn't. We proved that in the 1990's. Even Medicare and Social Security promises are not without their fixes too, including raising the age limits, means testing, and the like. None of these proposals are popular, but they are solutions, and would fix the problem.
On a positive, note, one thing I give President Obama a world of credit for is his willingness to take on each of these topics, and force the country to make decisions, and take action on some of the issues we have ignored for too long. For it is only with this action that we can start to understand what we can truly do to fix our pressing issues. We may not have the right course of action on these topics (government funding, health care, global warming, taxes, etc), but we are at least engaged in the real issues of the day, instead of flag burning, Teri Schiavo, "Year of the Bible" bills, and other such nonsense we have been dealing with for the past 15 years.
But back to my original point. The doomsday scenario I have laid out here may sound bad, but if we can stare this in the face, and survive it, and even come up with solutions to fix some of what ails us, we stand a chance of building a better America in the years ahead. It's time to get working on the solutions.
Then, surprisingly, once I have assessed the potential damage, I feel relaxed, calm, and prepared to face the situation.
So, applying this logic, I have started to look at the current economy, and I am trying to figure out what I need to see to get me comfortable that we are on the road to recovery. Because right now, I have that worry in my head, and in my heart. That feeling that we are crusin' for a brusin'.
Here's my worst case scenario:
1. Job Loss--The thing that is going to kill this rally is the fact that jobs continue to be lost at a blitzing pace. I am STILL looking for a sign that job losses have decelerated. I am concerned that this will not stop for months still to come. Here's my take on this:
Auto Industry--1 million jobs still to be lost. Whether GM goes bankrupt is irrelevant.
Auto "ancillaries" (Trans Plants, suppliers, parts, etc)--2 million jobs still to be lost
Professional Services--500,000 jobs still to be lost
Retail--250,000 job still to be lost
Transportation--250,000 jobs still to be lost.
That's 4 million jobs, NET, that I think we will lose in our economy before the end of 2009.
2. Unemployment? 12% by the end of the year
3. The dollar--we will lose our AAA rating, as England has, and we may be forced to raise interest rates. The Euro will rise to 1.75:1.00. The yen and other currencies will also appreciate.
4. Oil--as it is traded in dollars, we could be looking at $80-90 oil per barrel. $3.50/gallon at the pump. Yikes.
5. Earnings--The first quarter was good for one thing: it told us that the world was not ending. But beating an expectation that has been DRASTICALLY reduced, doesn't say much in terms of economic conditions actually improving. Look for disappointments in Q2 and Q3 from an earnings standpoint.
6. Stock Markets--look for a retest of the DOW in the sub-7,000 range. S&P below 700.
7. Real Estate--look for Commercial real estate to drag us down another leg, as we clear out inventory.
This could easily be the scenario we face, as we round out President Obama's first year in office...
...and this kind of scenario will destroy Obama's credibility on the economy, and could very quickly turn his term into a disaster. We could only speculate on the kind of social unrest this scenario would result in. Crime, poverty, terror alerts, perhaps worse. Some have argued that we are getting there already.
Sound nasty enough? Okay, let's not get hysterical. Government stimulus, basic living necessities, and other counter-cyclical forces (ie, worldwide depression will also depress oil demand, for example), should hold some of this in check. And people will have to get used to the idea that their jobs aren't all that safe, their credit cards are not ATM machines, and the Cheesecake Factory is NOT there for every third meal.
While Obama hasn't taken some of the steps I'd like him to take from a fiscal standpoint, I don't think any of these doomsday scenarios are unfixable. People think the deficit run up is irreversible, but it isn't. We proved that in the 1990's. Even Medicare and Social Security promises are not without their fixes too, including raising the age limits, means testing, and the like. None of these proposals are popular, but they are solutions, and would fix the problem.
On a positive, note, one thing I give President Obama a world of credit for is his willingness to take on each of these topics, and force the country to make decisions, and take action on some of the issues we have ignored for too long. For it is only with this action that we can start to understand what we can truly do to fix our pressing issues. We may not have the right course of action on these topics (government funding, health care, global warming, taxes, etc), but we are at least engaged in the real issues of the day, instead of flag burning, Teri Schiavo, "Year of the Bible" bills, and other such nonsense we have been dealing with for the past 15 years.
But back to my original point. The doomsday scenario I have laid out here may sound bad, but if we can stare this in the face, and survive it, and even come up with solutions to fix some of what ails us, we stand a chance of building a better America in the years ahead. It's time to get working on the solutions.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Stock Market--Party's Over
We are in investment advice territory, so take my comments with a grain of salt. I am not a Financial Analyst, I don't even play one on TV. This site should not be your sole fiscal advisor. But I do have eyes, common sense, and a website. I am not sure what that entitles me to, but I'll put my opinion out there on this topic:
I believe it is time to take the money out of the Stock Market, and sit on the sidelines for a few weeks.
Each weekend, I go running with one of my bosses from work. He is in good shape. I'm not in great shape. And every week, after about a half mile, he asks me "so...what do you think of the market?" Every week, I tell him (in gasping, wheezing tones) "I think it's going lower". Every week, I have to explain why last week I was wrong. Which, if you have ever had to explain being wrong, while simultaneously out of breath, is twice as frustrating.
But I think what I have been seeing(or more precisely, NOT seeing)in the market, is now becoming obvious to the rest of the investing punditry--notably, that there is NOTHING to support this recent stock market run up.
I keep telling my boss, "I will believe in the market run up when the unemployment claims start to drop." But we haven't seen that. In fact, just today, the new jobless claims numbers came out at 631,000. This had been as high as 700,000, but in good times, this number is in the 150,000 range. So should I be excited, and ready to pile back into the market because new jobless claims have fallen all the way down to 4+ TIMES the usual rate? This is hardly encouraging, especially since we would have hoped to see a levelling off in the recession indicators. I don't see how these unemployment figures lead us to believe that things are better.
And all of the "green shoots" of prosperity that the administration is pointing to--things like consumer sentiment, right-track polling, optimism about the economy opinions, are not substantive in their nature, to show a true recovery is on the way.
The dollar is weaker. Manufacturing is bleeding. Car companies are shedding jobs. Housing is at best, a mixed bag. Unemployment stinks. Banks continue to fail. Interest rates are zero. Gas has crept up to over $2.50 a gallon, and rising. Somehow, that $13/week tax cut isn't really getting me much in the way of relief.
What part of this scenario is giving investors that all important sign that things are 35% better than they were in March?
The answer is, "NOTHING indicates that things are better". The market is heading lower. This rally has been for suckers. If I had any money in the equity market, I would take my gains at this point, and wait a couple of weeks, minimum, to see what happens, before putting another penny in.
But until I see unemployment level off, at somewhere closer to 200,000 new claims, and I start to see productivity, housing sales, longer lines at Yankee Stadium, ANYTHING like that, I think it's only a matter of time before the people, drunk on the recent rally profits, start to sober up and say, "hey, man...party's over".
I believe it is time to take the money out of the Stock Market, and sit on the sidelines for a few weeks.
Each weekend, I go running with one of my bosses from work. He is in good shape. I'm not in great shape. And every week, after about a half mile, he asks me "so...what do you think of the market?" Every week, I tell him (in gasping, wheezing tones) "I think it's going lower". Every week, I have to explain why last week I was wrong. Which, if you have ever had to explain being wrong, while simultaneously out of breath, is twice as frustrating.
But I think what I have been seeing(or more precisely, NOT seeing)in the market, is now becoming obvious to the rest of the investing punditry--notably, that there is NOTHING to support this recent stock market run up.
I keep telling my boss, "I will believe in the market run up when the unemployment claims start to drop." But we haven't seen that. In fact, just today, the new jobless claims numbers came out at 631,000. This had been as high as 700,000, but in good times, this number is in the 150,000 range. So should I be excited, and ready to pile back into the market because new jobless claims have fallen all the way down to 4+ TIMES the usual rate? This is hardly encouraging, especially since we would have hoped to see a levelling off in the recession indicators. I don't see how these unemployment figures lead us to believe that things are better.
And all of the "green shoots" of prosperity that the administration is pointing to--things like consumer sentiment, right-track polling, optimism about the economy opinions, are not substantive in their nature, to show a true recovery is on the way.
The dollar is weaker. Manufacturing is bleeding. Car companies are shedding jobs. Housing is at best, a mixed bag. Unemployment stinks. Banks continue to fail. Interest rates are zero. Gas has crept up to over $2.50 a gallon, and rising. Somehow, that $13/week tax cut isn't really getting me much in the way of relief.
What part of this scenario is giving investors that all important sign that things are 35% better than they were in March?
The answer is, "NOTHING indicates that things are better". The market is heading lower. This rally has been for suckers. If I had any money in the equity market, I would take my gains at this point, and wait a couple of weeks, minimum, to see what happens, before putting another penny in.
But until I see unemployment level off, at somewhere closer to 200,000 new claims, and I start to see productivity, housing sales, longer lines at Yankee Stadium, ANYTHING like that, I think it's only a matter of time before the people, drunk on the recent rally profits, start to sober up and say, "hey, man...party's over".
Fiscal Policy--The Pundit's Way
How we doin'? We've been out from under the Bush/Cheney administration now for just over 4 months. We are in a post-stimulus, post TARP, post Automotive industry period. Everyone "feeling groovy"?
Probably not. The latest unemployment numbers show that the rate of job loss has slowed. New Jobless claims have slowed to about 630,000 jobs a month? That doesn't sound too promising. But here's the thing--the rest of the world is stuck in the mud too. So we have a chance to figure this out, and lead the world recovery, giving us "first mover advantage" on new technology, business models, and trade opportunities. This may also entice foreign investment. If we can just get things moving again here. So how do we do it?
Here are a few things that I wish Washington had the guts to do to help kick start an aggressive growth fiscal policy, but probably won't ever get around to doing, because it's actually hard. So let's get all hypothetical about what can be done, shall we?
Here's a few suggestions:
Personal Fiscal Stimulus
1. Mortgage Refinance--I have been banging the drum on this for months. You want government intervention? Let's submit that the Fed, or Treasury (not sure which these days) opens the fed window to offer refinancing to all credit risks above 700 at 4%. That's right. 4%. For an average taxpayer paying 6% on a $200k mortgage, that's a monthly savings of almost $250. PER MONTH. So EVERY month, this family has $250 more to spend or save. $3,000 per year. Think of it as a reward to credit risks who actually pay their bills on time.
2. TARP "Refund"--as I have mentioned previously, let's allow the banks to start repaying TARP. Let's take the first $350B in paybacks, and give a $1,000 per person tax credit. For a family of four, that's a $4,000 stimulus check.
3. Auto incentives--$5,000 tax CREDIT for new auto purchase. Phase out $1,000 each year to 2014. It's too hard to say it has to be an American car, because the foreign car companies all make their cars here, and the American car companies all make their cars overseas. But many people don't even pay $5k a year in taxes to begin with. I have to believe people will buy a Ford Focus if you offer it to them for a 25% discount.
4. Energy incentives--conversions of homes to natural gas or electric heat--$1,000 tax CREDIT. Let's make foreign oil less "in-demand" shall we?
Business Fiscal Stimulus
a. Corporate Tax Rate Cut--I am not sure of the Constitutionality or the feasibility of this suggestion, but here it goes. Lower business taxes to 20% for Corporations, but demand that they be domiciled in the US, and that if they outsource jobs overseas, they will incur a 10% surcharge on profits. All profits. We talk a LOT about how great the American worker is, if we only give him or her a chance to be competitive. Here's that chance.
b. Empowerment Zones--yeah, perhaps a little nutty. But in a tip to the late Jack Kemp, let's give it a whirl. Can Gary, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and the rest of the upper mid-west really produce good products? Let's give companies an excuse to locate in these areas, tax free. Why not include New Orleans, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, or others in that fight? What about slicing taxes for businesses who want to relocate to AMERICAN cities? After all, we DO want a functioning economy, right? As long as we're going into debt, why shouldn't we cut the taxes on OURSELVES?
c. Health Plan--WITH Public Option--you want a competitive American worker? Get the health care expenses OUT of the workplace. It's time to call for health care that is tied to the INDIVIDUAL. There may be some viable options, and they may have to be a bridge (ie, the Swiss model). But in the end, a public option health system is the one that will, in my opinion, actually HELP us keep jobs in America. By taking the health care cost differentiator off the table.
d. Carbon Tax--Again, it sounds counter intuitive, but a clean energy incentive could be equally constructive. But this is an effort to drive up the Demand side of the equation, by forcing companies to demand cleaner energy technology, and create a market for non-Carbon Dioxide producing energy.
To those of you who think this is a little much, I ask you, "Do we want to tinker around the edges of our economy, or do we want to fix it?" Let's get some ideas out there, and put real money in people's hands again.
Probably not. The latest unemployment numbers show that the rate of job loss has slowed. New Jobless claims have slowed to about 630,000 jobs a month? That doesn't sound too promising. But here's the thing--the rest of the world is stuck in the mud too. So we have a chance to figure this out, and lead the world recovery, giving us "first mover advantage" on new technology, business models, and trade opportunities. This may also entice foreign investment. If we can just get things moving again here. So how do we do it?
Here are a few things that I wish Washington had the guts to do to help kick start an aggressive growth fiscal policy, but probably won't ever get around to doing, because it's actually hard. So let's get all hypothetical about what can be done, shall we?
Here's a few suggestions:
Personal Fiscal Stimulus
1. Mortgage Refinance--I have been banging the drum on this for months. You want government intervention? Let's submit that the Fed, or Treasury (not sure which these days) opens the fed window to offer refinancing to all credit risks above 700 at 4%. That's right. 4%. For an average taxpayer paying 6% on a $200k mortgage, that's a monthly savings of almost $250. PER MONTH. So EVERY month, this family has $250 more to spend or save. $3,000 per year. Think of it as a reward to credit risks who actually pay their bills on time.
2. TARP "Refund"--as I have mentioned previously, let's allow the banks to start repaying TARP. Let's take the first $350B in paybacks, and give a $1,000 per person tax credit. For a family of four, that's a $4,000 stimulus check.
3. Auto incentives--$5,000 tax CREDIT for new auto purchase. Phase out $1,000 each year to 2014. It's too hard to say it has to be an American car, because the foreign car companies all make their cars here, and the American car companies all make their cars overseas. But many people don't even pay $5k a year in taxes to begin with. I have to believe people will buy a Ford Focus if you offer it to them for a 25% discount.
4. Energy incentives--conversions of homes to natural gas or electric heat--$1,000 tax CREDIT. Let's make foreign oil less "in-demand" shall we?
Business Fiscal Stimulus
a. Corporate Tax Rate Cut--I am not sure of the Constitutionality or the feasibility of this suggestion, but here it goes. Lower business taxes to 20% for Corporations, but demand that they be domiciled in the US, and that if they outsource jobs overseas, they will incur a 10% surcharge on profits. All profits. We talk a LOT about how great the American worker is, if we only give him or her a chance to be competitive. Here's that chance.
b. Empowerment Zones--yeah, perhaps a little nutty. But in a tip to the late Jack Kemp, let's give it a whirl. Can Gary, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and the rest of the upper mid-west really produce good products? Let's give companies an excuse to locate in these areas, tax free. Why not include New Orleans, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, or others in that fight? What about slicing taxes for businesses who want to relocate to AMERICAN cities? After all, we DO want a functioning economy, right? As long as we're going into debt, why shouldn't we cut the taxes on OURSELVES?
c. Health Plan--WITH Public Option--you want a competitive American worker? Get the health care expenses OUT of the workplace. It's time to call for health care that is tied to the INDIVIDUAL. There may be some viable options, and they may have to be a bridge (ie, the Swiss model). But in the end, a public option health system is the one that will, in my opinion, actually HELP us keep jobs in America. By taking the health care cost differentiator off the table.
d. Carbon Tax--Again, it sounds counter intuitive, but a clean energy incentive could be equally constructive. But this is an effort to drive up the Demand side of the equation, by forcing companies to demand cleaner energy technology, and create a market for non-Carbon Dioxide producing energy.
To those of you who think this is a little much, I ask you, "Do we want to tinker around the edges of our economy, or do we want to fix it?" Let's get some ideas out there, and put real money in people's hands again.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The "Democrat Socialist Party" --Let the Rebranding Begin!
Contrary to what my friends, family, and even the media outlets are saying, I think this idea of re branding others is fantastic! The Republican Party (what do you call a Republican anyway? A Repub? A GOP'r? Perhaps I will certify them here as the Whigs). has decided to announce their "re branding" of the Democratic Party, the "Democrat Socialist Party". I assume this is to harken images of the "People's Republic of China", or the "German Democratic Republic" (you know, the old East Germany? The ones that always gave the lowest score when judging the figure skating championships? Yeah, those guys!). I'm not really sure what it means to "re brand" someone else's name. Does that mean that ANYONE has the right to re brand ANY name they don't like? Let me give this a whirl:
Sarah Palin--I have officially declared that the Alaska Governor no longer represents and lives the values that she professes to embody, such as fiscal responsibility, intelligence, or family values. By this logic, I shall re brand Sarah Palin "Ms. Alaska No-Brains, All-Game, No-Shame, Dame"
Newt Gingrich--I have decided that Newt should have to face the music for cheating on his wife while trying to impeach Bill Clinton for the same offense. He was in fact, hounded out of office for doing exactly what he hounded Jim Wright out of office for in the 1980's--royalties and fees for a book deal. So we shall re brand Newt Gingrich "Mr. Sell-the-rights Shtick, Vote-out-Slick, Divorce-the-sick, Hypocrite"
I am beginning to like this game.
Rush Limbaugh--Mr. Family values has a habit of bloviating on family values, and party allegiance. This thrice divorced, former drug-dependent addict, with no discernible tolerance for any other than his loyal dittohead following, will now be referred to simply as the "Bloviation Nation for the Conservative Conflagration"
Dick Cheney--What more can we say about Mr. Vice President? Twice picked up for DUI, 5 Deferments from Vietnam, One face shooting (that we know of), Three waterboarding efforts (that we have been told about), and a striking resemblance to Darth Vader. Let's "re brand" him "Dead-Eye Dick, the Drunk, Deferred, Deer-Hunting Darth Destroyer". Yeah, it's a little rough, but then again, have you seen his recent interviews?
Republican Party--Despite my efforts above to re brand these guys as the "Whigs", I think that may be too generous. Seriously, is the Republican Party at the point where calling their opponents names is the best option? I think I do have a re branding title for the Republican Party: "Irrelevant"
Sarah Palin--I have officially declared that the Alaska Governor no longer represents and lives the values that she professes to embody, such as fiscal responsibility, intelligence, or family values. By this logic, I shall re brand Sarah Palin "Ms. Alaska No-Brains, All-Game, No-Shame, Dame"
Newt Gingrich--I have decided that Newt should have to face the music for cheating on his wife while trying to impeach Bill Clinton for the same offense. He was in fact, hounded out of office for doing exactly what he hounded Jim Wright out of office for in the 1980's--royalties and fees for a book deal. So we shall re brand Newt Gingrich "Mr. Sell-the-rights Shtick, Vote-out-Slick, Divorce-the-sick, Hypocrite"
I am beginning to like this game.
Rush Limbaugh--Mr. Family values has a habit of bloviating on family values, and party allegiance. This thrice divorced, former drug-dependent addict, with no discernible tolerance for any other than his loyal dittohead following, will now be referred to simply as the "Bloviation Nation for the Conservative Conflagration"
Dick Cheney--What more can we say about Mr. Vice President? Twice picked up for DUI, 5 Deferments from Vietnam, One face shooting (that we know of), Three waterboarding efforts (that we have been told about), and a striking resemblance to Darth Vader. Let's "re brand" him "Dead-Eye Dick, the Drunk, Deferred, Deer-Hunting Darth Destroyer". Yeah, it's a little rough, but then again, have you seen his recent interviews?
Republican Party--Despite my efforts above to re brand these guys as the "Whigs", I think that may be too generous. Seriously, is the Republican Party at the point where calling their opponents names is the best option? I think I do have a re branding title for the Republican Party: "Irrelevant"
Can I apply for some of that TARP Repayment?
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are making news by announcing they want to pay back TARP. American Express, JP Morgan, and others have also announced their desire to be free from the TARP burden. Twelve smaller banks have returned nearly $1.2 billion in government money so far.
Could these funds REALLY be coming back to the federal government? Awesome! After all, most of these banks really never wanted to be under the thumb of the government anyways. They are all lending money, and have (for the most part) actually made a profit in the past 90 days (if you believe everyone's first quarter announced results).
So, some of that $700B is coming back to us, $10-20B at a time.
What to do with all that money? I have an idea. It's a little loopy, but why the heck not?
Let's say we get the first $350B back...Why not use those funds to dole out to any taxpayer who filed returns last year? Heck, we could give $1,000 to every US citizen right now, and tell them to do with it whatever they please. Most will probably use it to pay down debt, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, given the credit issues we are currently facing. If the average family has $8k in debt, we could have just cut the household debt in half. Others may spend it on things like...washing machines...new televisions, ipods, trips to Vegas (perhaps a trip to Albany, or Kansas City would be more sensible these days. KC-Mo, not KC-K, of course).
If the banks are truly "on their way" to solvency, and profitability, then the other $350B can be used to fight the deficit in our current fiscal policy. But it seems too easy to let the whole TARP repayment go right into some defense contract overrun, or bureaucratic overhead expense.
President Obama should think about this as his "second stimulus" plan. Since I am not at all convinced that we are out of the woods yet on this current recovery, a plan to truly get us out of the hole should rest on two things: First, get the people of the USA into a more prudent debt position, and allow them to invest in the economy. That is the fiscal stimulus. Second, look at opportunities to get government back down to size, in relationship to the taxes and spending ledgers. Stimulus is used to generate a robust economy. Once the economy is moving, we have to be mindful of our promises to our people--Social Security and medicare. We need to make good on promises, or we need to figure out a way to rewrite the rules that everyone can agree on.
Even Geithner has said that governments fail when they don't do enough, fast enough. Here's an opportunity to take some of our recent economic success, and parlay it into a real economic boon. But first, let's get the TARP money back, and then we can start using it on our people's fiscal health. Got a better idea? I'm listening...
Could these funds REALLY be coming back to the federal government? Awesome! After all, most of these banks really never wanted to be under the thumb of the government anyways. They are all lending money, and have (for the most part) actually made a profit in the past 90 days (if you believe everyone's first quarter announced results).
So, some of that $700B is coming back to us, $10-20B at a time.
What to do with all that money? I have an idea. It's a little loopy, but why the heck not?
Let's say we get the first $350B back...Why not use those funds to dole out to any taxpayer who filed returns last year? Heck, we could give $1,000 to every US citizen right now, and tell them to do with it whatever they please. Most will probably use it to pay down debt, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, given the credit issues we are currently facing. If the average family has $8k in debt, we could have just cut the household debt in half. Others may spend it on things like...washing machines...new televisions, ipods, trips to Vegas (perhaps a trip to Albany, or Kansas City would be more sensible these days. KC-Mo, not KC-K, of course).
If the banks are truly "on their way" to solvency, and profitability, then the other $350B can be used to fight the deficit in our current fiscal policy. But it seems too easy to let the whole TARP repayment go right into some defense contract overrun, or bureaucratic overhead expense.
President Obama should think about this as his "second stimulus" plan. Since I am not at all convinced that we are out of the woods yet on this current recovery, a plan to truly get us out of the hole should rest on two things: First, get the people of the USA into a more prudent debt position, and allow them to invest in the economy. That is the fiscal stimulus. Second, look at opportunities to get government back down to size, in relationship to the taxes and spending ledgers. Stimulus is used to generate a robust economy. Once the economy is moving, we have to be mindful of our promises to our people--Social Security and medicare. We need to make good on promises, or we need to figure out a way to rewrite the rules that everyone can agree on.
Even Geithner has said that governments fail when they don't do enough, fast enough. Here's an opportunity to take some of our recent economic success, and parlay it into a real economic boon. But first, let's get the TARP money back, and then we can start using it on our people's fiscal health. Got a better idea? I'm listening...
Sunday, May 17, 2009
GM is facing a "Humpty Dumpty" Moment
As complicated as the whole mess with General Motors has become, its fate is really as simple as a child's nursery rhyme:
"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the King's horses and all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again."
GM is going to collapse. Chapter 11 (Bankruptcy reorganization) will be announced first, and as President Obama, Governor Jennifer Granholm, Senator Carl Levin, and others try to help save the company, all of their combined efforts won't save it from Chapter 7 (Bankruptcy liquidation).
I wish I could convince the President and the other politicians that their efforts are a waste, but I understand that they are doing what they think is best for the people of their state, their constituents, their families, etc. Unfortunately, here's the scenario that seems more likely to take place:
1. GM Announces Chapter 11--If it hasn't been announced yet, it surely is the worst kept secret in business today. People who think otherwise remind me of the Groucho Marx quote "who are you going to believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?" Anyone looking objectively at GM's balance sheet, its prospects for solvency, it's ability to turn a profit, can't seriously think this company can survive. But the powers that be won't throw in the towel until they have showed the world they "tried". So we'll have to live through the pain of a Bankruptcy "Reorganization" first.
2. Bankruptcy takes longer than anticipated--which could still have a shot in the dark, if the company can emerge quickly, with new management, truly free of pension legacy costs, and a roll out of new models, the Chevy Volt, tax incentives to buy, and other such things. Alas, that's just not the way things work in the real world, and as GM languishes in Reorganization, the rest of the automotive world will move ahead, taking market share, the best talent, and innovation along with it. GM will be quickly left in the dust.
3. Plants shut, Dealerships can't move inventory--All of this means that the company won't have any real inventory to sell, as long as dealers can't guarantee the warranties, maintenance, spare parts, etc. Dealers may discount their cars, looking to move inventory, but it won't help their bottom line, and it will certainly depress GM's overall profit margins. Fewer cars rolling off the lines will continue to shutter plants, and will force further cuts in the number of dealerships.
4. Suppliers get squeezed, have to raise prices--Smaller orders and rising commodity costs will force parts suppliers to either raise their rates, or erode the quality of their service and delivery to GM's plants. This will further erode GM's margins.
5. Chevy Volt is delayed, destroying morale--With a continuing operating "death spiral", GM will have to scuttle plans for its next generation projects. The Volt will be delayed, which will put GM behind Nissan and others in the race for supremacy in the hybrid/electric space. Shareholders (if there are any left) will be devastated.
6. Vicious cycle of poor sales and higher materials costs--Each step will lead GM management to ask the government for more support, more latitude, and result in more cuts, and poorer quality and worsening margins.
7. Layoff costs start to overwhelm the company--As more people are laid off, the unemployment costs start to overwhelm the company. Loyalty packages get worse, and eventually cease altogether.
8. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp must take on pension costs--Bond holders will start to demand interest payments on their debt. PBGC will have to take on the pension costs, as the company can no longer afford to keep even promises made to retirees. The Pension has been running at a deficit for years, and the recent market meltdown, and operating losses have only served to exacerbate the shortfall. The retiree population will be stunned when they realize their pensions just got slashed by 71%. Lawsuits will ensue.
9. Liquidation becomes inevitable--The company won't be able to afford to continue as a going concern, and Chapter 7 will become the only option. Brands may be sold off, or shuttered, but the morale, and job loss resulting from such a development will absolutely destroy the upper Midwest for a generation.
10. The upper mid-west is devastated. Ford is given incentive to pick up some of the slack --Some of the jobs may drift to other car makers. But the governments will look to Ford primarily, to pick up some of the burden. Tax incentives, government payments, and other tricks will be tried to move workers to Detroit, and other hard hit areas. Some of it may work, but in the end, this area won't survive in the manner it is today. Population loss in the upper Midwest will be striking over the next 10 years.
Too stark a scenario for you? Perhaps so. But I am having a hard time envisioning the scenario that would prevent any or all of these things from happening. It may be time to admit the truth. GM is going to follow Chrysler down the chutes. And it's going to suck for all of us. So let's take the pain now, and figure out quickly how to get out of the mess we are in. Our options may be more limited a year from now...
"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the King's horses and all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again."
GM is going to collapse. Chapter 11 (Bankruptcy reorganization) will be announced first, and as President Obama, Governor Jennifer Granholm, Senator Carl Levin, and others try to help save the company, all of their combined efforts won't save it from Chapter 7 (Bankruptcy liquidation).
I wish I could convince the President and the other politicians that their efforts are a waste, but I understand that they are doing what they think is best for the people of their state, their constituents, their families, etc. Unfortunately, here's the scenario that seems more likely to take place:
1. GM Announces Chapter 11--If it hasn't been announced yet, it surely is the worst kept secret in business today. People who think otherwise remind me of the Groucho Marx quote "who are you going to believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?" Anyone looking objectively at GM's balance sheet, its prospects for solvency, it's ability to turn a profit, can't seriously think this company can survive. But the powers that be won't throw in the towel until they have showed the world they "tried". So we'll have to live through the pain of a Bankruptcy "Reorganization" first.
2. Bankruptcy takes longer than anticipated--which could still have a shot in the dark, if the company can emerge quickly, with new management, truly free of pension legacy costs, and a roll out of new models, the Chevy Volt, tax incentives to buy, and other such things. Alas, that's just not the way things work in the real world, and as GM languishes in Reorganization, the rest of the automotive world will move ahead, taking market share, the best talent, and innovation along with it. GM will be quickly left in the dust.
3. Plants shut, Dealerships can't move inventory--All of this means that the company won't have any real inventory to sell, as long as dealers can't guarantee the warranties, maintenance, spare parts, etc. Dealers may discount their cars, looking to move inventory, but it won't help their bottom line, and it will certainly depress GM's overall profit margins. Fewer cars rolling off the lines will continue to shutter plants, and will force further cuts in the number of dealerships.
4. Suppliers get squeezed, have to raise prices--Smaller orders and rising commodity costs will force parts suppliers to either raise their rates, or erode the quality of their service and delivery to GM's plants. This will further erode GM's margins.
5. Chevy Volt is delayed, destroying morale--With a continuing operating "death spiral", GM will have to scuttle plans for its next generation projects. The Volt will be delayed, which will put GM behind Nissan and others in the race for supremacy in the hybrid/electric space. Shareholders (if there are any left) will be devastated.
6. Vicious cycle of poor sales and higher materials costs--Each step will lead GM management to ask the government for more support, more latitude, and result in more cuts, and poorer quality and worsening margins.
7. Layoff costs start to overwhelm the company--As more people are laid off, the unemployment costs start to overwhelm the company. Loyalty packages get worse, and eventually cease altogether.
8. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp must take on pension costs--Bond holders will start to demand interest payments on their debt. PBGC will have to take on the pension costs, as the company can no longer afford to keep even promises made to retirees. The Pension has been running at a deficit for years, and the recent market meltdown, and operating losses have only served to exacerbate the shortfall. The retiree population will be stunned when they realize their pensions just got slashed by 71%. Lawsuits will ensue.
9. Liquidation becomes inevitable--The company won't be able to afford to continue as a going concern, and Chapter 7 will become the only option. Brands may be sold off, or shuttered, but the morale, and job loss resulting from such a development will absolutely destroy the upper Midwest for a generation.
10. The upper mid-west is devastated. Ford is given incentive to pick up some of the slack --Some of the jobs may drift to other car makers. But the governments will look to Ford primarily, to pick up some of the burden. Tax incentives, government payments, and other tricks will be tried to move workers to Detroit, and other hard hit areas. Some of it may work, but in the end, this area won't survive in the manner it is today. Population loss in the upper Midwest will be striking over the next 10 years.
Too stark a scenario for you? Perhaps so. But I am having a hard time envisioning the scenario that would prevent any or all of these things from happening. It may be time to admit the truth. GM is going to follow Chrysler down the chutes. And it's going to suck for all of us. So let's take the pain now, and figure out quickly how to get out of the mess we are in. Our options may be more limited a year from now...
Monday, May 11, 2009
Health Care--What can we expect?
Once again, Health Care rules the agenda in Washington. It's been a long time coming (16 years!), to say the least. I am sure that, with the resurfacing of the health care debate, will come all of the usual crap (the "Harry and Louise" ads, Betsy McCaughey will start popping up on every news outlet as the "expert" on why single payer is the worst idea ever, the cries that we can't be like Canada, or France, etc).
Perhaps I am too naive to think that this time...it will be different. But I think that there is a chance for real health care reform.
So...what IS real health care reform? That is truly the million dollar question. Unfortunately, we now understand why some of these questions have been put off for so long. It is partially a function of how difficult and challenging the existing system is to understand, and how messing with any part of it can have tremendous unintended consequences. It is also the concerns about how much control really can be ceded to a federal bureaucracy, and whether there are costs and efficiencies that can be gained by either moving to a Medicare Expansion (ie. Single Payor option), a federal mandate for coverage, or even a mix of the two (multi-option, with a public option choice).
We will hear a lot about how Canada's system is all fouled up, and we will hear about why it is nirvana. We will hear about waiting in lines, rationing, tax increases, federal control, and we will hear about insurance lobbyists, 47 million uninsured, and the rights of all to access to health care. In the end, though, I think everyone can agree that we want more affordable health care, and appropriate coverage for all who desire it.
I figured I'd check on some of the basics of how other countries do it. The French have a popular program, but is it workable here? Some of the other European countries have wonderful care, but their populations are either too small, or too homogeneous to necessarily be transferrable to our society.
So far, the best model, in my opinion, has been the Swiss Option. Not that it is the most populous, or heterogeneous society. Rather, that it is the one option that we can actually get to from where we are, that has a shot at passing Congress, and actually doing something about our health safety net, our health costs, and our health care industry prosperity.
So what does the model look like?
According to the NBER Working Paper No. 13817Issued in February 2008
Perhaps I am too naive to think that this time...it will be different. But I think that there is a chance for real health care reform.
So...what IS real health care reform? That is truly the million dollar question. Unfortunately, we now understand why some of these questions have been put off for so long. It is partially a function of how difficult and challenging the existing system is to understand, and how messing with any part of it can have tremendous unintended consequences. It is also the concerns about how much control really can be ceded to a federal bureaucracy, and whether there are costs and efficiencies that can be gained by either moving to a Medicare Expansion (ie. Single Payor option), a federal mandate for coverage, or even a mix of the two (multi-option, with a public option choice).
We will hear a lot about how Canada's system is all fouled up, and we will hear about why it is nirvana. We will hear about waiting in lines, rationing, tax increases, federal control, and we will hear about insurance lobbyists, 47 million uninsured, and the rights of all to access to health care. In the end, though, I think everyone can agree that we want more affordable health care, and appropriate coverage for all who desire it.
I figured I'd check on some of the basics of how other countries do it. The French have a popular program, but is it workable here? Some of the other European countries have wonderful care, but their populations are either too small, or too homogeneous to necessarily be transferrable to our society.
So far, the best model, in my opinion, has been the Swiss Option. Not that it is the most populous, or heterogeneous society. Rather, that it is the one option that we can actually get to from where we are, that has a shot at passing Congress, and actually doing something about our health safety net, our health costs, and our health care industry prosperity.
So what does the model look like?
According to the NBER Working Paper No. 13817Issued in February 2008
"In the Swiss healthcare system:
- there is an insurance mandate for all individuals [to have coverage],
- the government defines a what the insurance benefit will be for all standard health insurers,
- insurance companies are not allowed to deny coverage to any individual,
- health insurance and medical procedure prices are made publicly available,
- in exchange for providing health insurance to consumers, insurance companies receive premiums from consumers and risk-adjustment payments from the government in order that insurance companies are not punished if they decide to insure a sicker population,
- premiums are community rated, meaning that sick and healthy individuals pay the same price within each age group (the age groupings are 0-18, 19-25, >25 years old).
- individuals are allowed to purchase supplement insurance as well (there is no regulated benefit for supplemental insurance),
- there is significant cost sharing in all insurance plans (i.e.: deductibles, 10% coinsurance rates up to an annual ceiling),
- open enrollment occurs twice per year (June and Ddecember).
In 2003, 49.7% of Swiss individuals choose ordinary deductible health insurance, 42.0% choose higher deductible health insurance, and 8.2% chose insurance with limited choice of provider networks (HMO-style contracts). Since only 8% of individuals are in managed care insurance firms, quality is fairly homogeneous across insurance companies."
This model may not be ideal, but it would help in a number of areas, and could always be tweaked to handle a US population demography much different from the Helveticas. It would provide Private Insurers with the right to continue to practice competition, and at the same time, provide options for all individuals to receive health care coverage. From a service standpoint, it appears on par with the US in terms of wait times, and service (ranking second behind the USA).
What we can't see here, though, is the cost of the overall program. And, as with each of these plans, this is the rub. No one is going to be willing to put a plan into action unless it can be determined, with even some opaqueness, that it wouldn't be more costly, and less beneficial to the society at large.
But I think, over the course of the next few months, the Swiss model will be one that is at least debated, and could pose a real option for developing a plan to improve the future health care of America.
We shall see if the defection of Arlen Specter proves to be the difference in the Senate math that leads to a deal of some sort. We'll revisit this topic from time to time here, to see where the debate leads.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Recasting the GOP Message--The Ends DON'T Justify the Meanness
From the Bush/Romney/Cantor "listening, non-listening tour", to Dick Cheney's "Protect America at all Costs" message, to the Palin/Huckabee battle for the social conservative's soul, one thing has remained consistent. The Message from all facets of the Republican Party is 'all-negative, all the time'.
Mitt Romney keeps harping endlessly on the Washington/East Coast Liberal Establishment, and how we must rid ourselves of this menace. Huckabee has become the self-appointed justice of all things moral in America, showing such righteous indignation at any snippet of perceived amorality or depravity in the country. Dick Cheney is doing his best to remind America of why we voted the GOP out in the past two elections. Sarah Palin just reminds me of a political messenger in search of a cause to remind people of her relevancy.
I could continue to go on and on about Gingrich, Limbaugh, Hannity, McConnell, etc. They all have one issue to overcome, and they won't win again until they do these two things.
1. They need to present a positive message on what they can do for America.
2. They need to stop harping endlessly on what's wrong with America.
I would like to see ONE speech, one interview, one 'Fox News Sunday', one 'Huckabee minute' , one 3 hour Hannity or Limbaugh radio show, one Palin speech, dedicated to what the Republicans would do if elected to power. Unfortunately, I haven't heard a speech in ages where the content doesn't contain some shot at the opposition. And the shots are often not at individuals. They are at abstract "groups" of people. The secularists. The progressives. The appeasers. The "others". The problem is, there are too many of these "others" these days, to fashion a majority out of this line of thinking.
And it's getting scary. We need conservative ideas in the political arena. We need a two party system. But the Republicans seem to have given up on the idea of...well...ideas. The economy is terrible, people are concerned, and want to know that there may be options if this current economic agenda doesn't work out so well.
The Democrats spent years trying to run against Bush and Reagan, and for the most part, they lost. The winners messages for the most part, have been ones of positive action, of promise for the American people, and of ideas for how you want to lead the nation.
Where is that message from the GOP these days? Where are the ideas? Paul Ryan (R-WI) put out an alternative budget to decrease taxes and spending (although I found reading the markup to be about as easy to read as a Dostoevsky novel in parts). What I'd like to see is a pure argument FOR that tax policy, and what it would mean for Americans. And start to make the case. Otherwise, right now, there is really only one party with any real message. I am concerned that can be dangerous.
The GOP has taken the position that to stand on the sidelines and attack the position is their ticket back to power. I am concerned that they would rather watch the country possibly melt down than actually try to persuade people that their ideas are better.
Mitt Romney keeps harping endlessly on the Washington/East Coast Liberal Establishment, and how we must rid ourselves of this menace. Huckabee has become the self-appointed justice of all things moral in America, showing such righteous indignation at any snippet of perceived amorality or depravity in the country. Dick Cheney is doing his best to remind America of why we voted the GOP out in the past two elections. Sarah Palin just reminds me of a political messenger in search of a cause to remind people of her relevancy.
I could continue to go on and on about Gingrich, Limbaugh, Hannity, McConnell, etc. They all have one issue to overcome, and they won't win again until they do these two things.
1. They need to present a positive message on what they can do for America.
2. They need to stop harping endlessly on what's wrong with America.
I would like to see ONE speech, one interview, one 'Fox News Sunday', one 'Huckabee minute' , one 3 hour Hannity or Limbaugh radio show, one Palin speech, dedicated to what the Republicans would do if elected to power. Unfortunately, I haven't heard a speech in ages where the content doesn't contain some shot at the opposition. And the shots are often not at individuals. They are at abstract "groups" of people. The secularists. The progressives. The appeasers. The "others". The problem is, there are too many of these "others" these days, to fashion a majority out of this line of thinking.
And it's getting scary. We need conservative ideas in the political arena. We need a two party system. But the Republicans seem to have given up on the idea of...well...ideas. The economy is terrible, people are concerned, and want to know that there may be options if this current economic agenda doesn't work out so well.
The Democrats spent years trying to run against Bush and Reagan, and for the most part, they lost. The winners messages for the most part, have been ones of positive action, of promise for the American people, and of ideas for how you want to lead the nation.
Where is that message from the GOP these days? Where are the ideas? Paul Ryan (R-WI) put out an alternative budget to decrease taxes and spending (although I found reading the markup to be about as easy to read as a Dostoevsky novel in parts). What I'd like to see is a pure argument FOR that tax policy, and what it would mean for Americans. And start to make the case. Otherwise, right now, there is really only one party with any real message. I am concerned that can be dangerous.
The GOP has taken the position that to stand on the sidelines and attack the position is their ticket back to power. I am concerned that they would rather watch the country possibly melt down than actually try to persuade people that their ideas are better.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Capitalist Strategy #1--What about taxes?
I have heard a lot about why cutting taxes is a bad idea in today's economic reality. Why? I don't profess to support the Limbaugh crowd, but on the notion of taxes, wouldn't a decrease in, say, the Corporate tax rate to 20% from 35%, ALONG with a crack down on allowing safe havens for foreign registered American companies make some sense? We are trying to encourage companies to hire and make profits, aren't we?
Would it be too schizophrenic to say that such a move, coupled with a single-payer health care system, and 4% mortgage refinancing for all 700+ Credit score owners, could lead America into a new age of growth?
Why not try it? We are currently trying to save the economy by government spending, and forcing the demand line to rise. I think we all want to get to the same outcome. Lowering wealthy individuals income taxes right now is a non-starter with the public, and at 39.6%, while high, this is not exactly the kind of rate that would choke off individualism like, say, 70% (in the Ford/Carter era) or more would do.
But a corporation with lower US taxes, and no health benefits would soon see little to no cost benefit to outsourcing jobs to India, the Philippines, or other "low cost" options.
The next step to the tax code should be a TRUE tax credit on green energy. Do you want electric cars? Give US taxpayers a $7,500 tax credit on the purchase of an electric car. Give US tax payers a $10,000 credit on the installation of solar panels. Give companies similar types of incentives. If we are already planning to run a deficit of $1.7 Trillion a year, why not at least let people use that towards better environmental behavior?
I think we need to see how the next 6-9 months play out here in government stimulus land. But if we are supposed to celebrate news like today's economic data (539,000 unemployed, 8.9% unemployment rate, but hey, 539,000 is WAY less than it has been...), you can count me out. I will be patient on this whole economic experiment in government spending for fiscal stimulus. I hope it works. But if it isn't proving to help, let's think about some of the initiatives laid out here?
Would it be too schizophrenic to say that such a move, coupled with a single-payer health care system, and 4% mortgage refinancing for all 700+ Credit score owners, could lead America into a new age of growth?
Why not try it? We are currently trying to save the economy by government spending, and forcing the demand line to rise. I think we all want to get to the same outcome. Lowering wealthy individuals income taxes right now is a non-starter with the public, and at 39.6%, while high, this is not exactly the kind of rate that would choke off individualism like, say, 70% (in the Ford/Carter era) or more would do.
But a corporation with lower US taxes, and no health benefits would soon see little to no cost benefit to outsourcing jobs to India, the Philippines, or other "low cost" options.
The next step to the tax code should be a TRUE tax credit on green energy. Do you want electric cars? Give US taxpayers a $7,500 tax credit on the purchase of an electric car. Give US tax payers a $10,000 credit on the installation of solar panels. Give companies similar types of incentives. If we are already planning to run a deficit of $1.7 Trillion a year, why not at least let people use that towards better environmental behavior?
I think we need to see how the next 6-9 months play out here in government stimulus land. But if we are supposed to celebrate news like today's economic data (539,000 unemployed, 8.9% unemployment rate, but hey, 539,000 is WAY less than it has been...), you can count me out. I will be patient on this whole economic experiment in government spending for fiscal stimulus. I hope it works. But if it isn't proving to help, let's think about some of the initiatives laid out here?
What "Atlas Shrugged" Can Teach the Non-Conservative
As a long-time political junkie, I have been trying to pay attention to the "leading indicators" on both the political and economic fronts. Trying to see where both Washington and Wall Street is going has been an interesting pursuit--partially because I want to test some theories about the behaviors of our leaders, and partly because I want to understand where the US is going, and somehow get there first.
With that in mind, most of my articles are really a means for thinking out what is happening, and how that translates into the world we will see 6, 12, and 24 months out. This whole effort is by no means scientific, and does not/cannot take into account shocks to the system like a "9/11" attack. However, it does help me to see why things like the Stress Tests and the auto bailouts would be a total failure, and why someone like Arlen Specter would switch polticial parties.
Earlier this year, when Fox News was reporting on Michelle Malkin and others professing to the people of the world to "go Galt", I was curious what that meant. It turns out it was a reference to the Ayn Rand novel "Atlas Shrugged", which has been an enduring story of individualism and a call to arms for the capitalists among us. Although the book was written over 50 years ago, its foundation for the indomitable spirit of free enterprise, survival of the fittest, and limited government intervention are especially relevant in today's realm of government stimulus packages, auto company bailouts, and "TARP" fundings.
I went to the library and checked the book out (on CD. I knew Rand would be enough of a challenge to get through without having to read it, and I had a bunch of lengthy car trips upcoming at that point). I was expecting yet another Conservative Screed in the form of Mark Levin or Bill O'Reilly. What I found was something quite different. In fact, this was one of the few books I have ever read that has knocked me back a few steps in my political and philosophical thinking. In some respects, I have been looking at the world a little differently over the past couple of days, as a result of this book.
For Conservatives, what's great about this book is its great case for limited government and individualism (in the form of low taxes, limited regulation, and a desire to take responsibility for ones own actions), in a story that plays out the trends of today's governmental policies (nationalization of banks, intervention in GM) to a logical conclusion. In Rand's socialist end state, we all live in a collective society, no one takes responsibility for ANYTHING anymore ("each according to his own need"), and government bureaucrats setting all policies, according to kick backs, favors, and personal interest. Rand refers to these people as "the looters". In the end, "the looters" are so desperate for the industrialists to save them from their inert economy and bankruptcy, that when John Galt makes himself known to the public, they capture him, and torture him to try to force him to save their system of government.
Unfortunately, Rand also makes the points that today's Conservatives wouldn't like so much--notably the scene in which the great military industrial complex is brought into question. The American Government, seemingly uninterested in making its people's economic lives better, is only interested in creating weapons so powerful as to discourage others from ever attacking America. The world renowned Physicist in the novel is aghast at the notion that it was HIS work that had led to the development of "Project X" which developed such a tool. He asks why America would develop such a tool. When he is told that it is to discourage other countries from ever attacking America, he asks Why would anyone attack America, when they are starving and [we] are starving?
So, after listening to the book, I walked away with a new found understanding for the Conservative concern about a march towards Socialism, and a desire to "go Galt". Unfortunately, though, Rand's novel is just that--a novel. It does not take into account the realities of today--from the Internet to terrorism to Global Warming--and should be only another influence on one's thinking.
But I do admit that the book definitely made me look at the news and political landscape in a whole new way. We'll have to see what changes in my thinking it will lead to, but I think I have a better understanding of the fear in the Conservative dogma around government intervention, whether it can ever be as helpful to society as it initially intends to be.
With that in mind, most of my articles are really a means for thinking out what is happening, and how that translates into the world we will see 6, 12, and 24 months out. This whole effort is by no means scientific, and does not/cannot take into account shocks to the system like a "9/11" attack. However, it does help me to see why things like the Stress Tests and the auto bailouts would be a total failure, and why someone like Arlen Specter would switch polticial parties.
Earlier this year, when Fox News was reporting on Michelle Malkin and others professing to the people of the world to "go Galt", I was curious what that meant. It turns out it was a reference to the Ayn Rand novel "Atlas Shrugged", which has been an enduring story of individualism and a call to arms for the capitalists among us. Although the book was written over 50 years ago, its foundation for the indomitable spirit of free enterprise, survival of the fittest, and limited government intervention are especially relevant in today's realm of government stimulus packages, auto company bailouts, and "TARP" fundings.
I went to the library and checked the book out (on CD. I knew Rand would be enough of a challenge to get through without having to read it, and I had a bunch of lengthy car trips upcoming at that point). I was expecting yet another Conservative Screed in the form of Mark Levin or Bill O'Reilly. What I found was something quite different. In fact, this was one of the few books I have ever read that has knocked me back a few steps in my political and philosophical thinking. In some respects, I have been looking at the world a little differently over the past couple of days, as a result of this book.
For Conservatives, what's great about this book is its great case for limited government and individualism (in the form of low taxes, limited regulation, and a desire to take responsibility for ones own actions), in a story that plays out the trends of today's governmental policies (nationalization of banks, intervention in GM) to a logical conclusion. In Rand's socialist end state, we all live in a collective society, no one takes responsibility for ANYTHING anymore ("each according to his own need"), and government bureaucrats setting all policies, according to kick backs, favors, and personal interest. Rand refers to these people as "the looters". In the end, "the looters" are so desperate for the industrialists to save them from their inert economy and bankruptcy, that when John Galt makes himself known to the public, they capture him, and torture him to try to force him to save their system of government.
Unfortunately, Rand also makes the points that today's Conservatives wouldn't like so much--notably the scene in which the great military industrial complex is brought into question. The American Government, seemingly uninterested in making its people's economic lives better, is only interested in creating weapons so powerful as to discourage others from ever attacking America. The world renowned Physicist in the novel is aghast at the notion that it was HIS work that had led to the development of "Project X" which developed such a tool. He asks why America would develop such a tool. When he is told that it is to discourage other countries from ever attacking America, he asks Why would anyone attack America, when they are starving and [we] are starving?
So, after listening to the book, I walked away with a new found understanding for the Conservative concern about a march towards Socialism, and a desire to "go Galt". Unfortunately, though, Rand's novel is just that--a novel. It does not take into account the realities of today--from the Internet to terrorism to Global Warming--and should be only another influence on one's thinking.
But I do admit that the book definitely made me look at the news and political landscape in a whole new way. We'll have to see what changes in my thinking it will lead to, but I think I have a better understanding of the fear in the Conservative dogma around government intervention, whether it can ever be as helpful to society as it initially intends to be.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Is Scarborough Right? Could the GOP be poised for a Senate comback in 2010?
I have enjoyed watching Joe Scarborough develop over the past few years, from an opinionated Conservative into a thoughtful, pragmatic, Conservative, and a student of history. His transition to morning conversation from late night has also been a big success, and I think he is poised to be a sane voice for Conservative thought in an otherwise insane party these days.
So it made us very happy here at the Pundit, to see that Scarborough is watching the same developments in the Senate that we are, to see if the GOP has learned anything from the past two elections. Joe sees it, as do we. But what is it that we see?
Winning through Pragmatism.
Win the seats you can win by running candidates who are representative of the districts and states they actually come from. Keep the message positive. Speak to solutions. Provide a viable alternative. We all get a little leery of one-party (or in this case, one PERSON) rule in America. The problem these days is that the opposition has been so shrill, so out of touch with the real issues of the day, that people are scared off by the alternatives.
But parties constantly figure out ways to reinvent themselves, and the GOP will figure this out too. In many ways, they are already starting to.
Let's take a look at the GOP's possibilities for winning back the Senate for 2010, shall we?
1. Don't fight city hall--Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Wisconsin, Indiana, Maryland, New York (Schumer) and Vermont are lost causes. Every Conservative wants to defeat Barbara Boxer. Why waste the money? There are real battles to be fought, and WON. ideological battles are great, but isn't winning better? Isn't setting policy more important than having one Senate seat in California? Eye on the ball here. Short of complete economic or terroristic meltdown, Schumer is going to win. Leahy is going to win. Bayh is going to win. Get over it.
2. Hold ground--To make this work, the GOP needs to hang onto some tough fights. New Hampshire. Florida. North Carolina. Ohio. Louisiana. Kentucky. Each poses some problems. Each holds an opportunity for the GOP to show its stuff. Can New Hampshire run a candidate that can win in this increasingly blue state? Can Richard Burr shake off unpopularity to win in a state that is turning, well let's say, Carolina Blue? Will John Kaisich or Rob Portman prove to be viable candidates state wide in Ohio, a state that has turned out the GOP in the last two elections? Can David Vitter survive the DC Madam stink from a couple of years ago? Can the GOP run a viable successor to Jim Bunning (perhaps the least popular Senator in the country) and win?
The answer to each of these questions is "they had better, if they want to gain the Senate back.
3. Places for attack--The GOP can run the table, but they need some breaks.
Colorado--Michael Bennett is still an unknown commodity, and the state is still pretty evenly divided. Time to run a Republican who understands the Rocky Mountain sensibilities, and can rally support. Is Bob Beauprez that guy? The GOP hopes so...
North Dakota--Time to run a serious challenge to Byron Dorgan. It seems strange that the Dems have fared so well in ND on the Senate side. But this is still a Republican state, and should be primed for the taking.
Arkansas--Ditto for Arkansas. Blanche Lincoln is not a Liberal, but has not faced serious competition recently, which is odd for a state that is increasingly Conservative since the days of Bill Clinton. Time to put up a real fight for this seat. It is there for the taking.
Illinois--as the Dems beat themselves up, Mark Kirk should be able to thread the needle, and win the election. The GOP should make this a top priority.
Pennsylvania--Tom Ridge would be a formidable challenge to Arlen Specter, or whomever the Dems end up running. The question is, will the GOP nominate a Pro-choice republican? We'll have to see whether they will take Scarborough's advice, or push hard to the right with Pat Toomey.
Delaware--Can Mike Castle win against Beau Biden? Possibly. It's time to find out.
New York--Forget Schumer. Go after Tracey Flick (aka Kirsten Gilibrand). This is a seat that Peter King could win. I don't think David Patterson's behavior will make a difference. I do think that Wall Street, and Upstate voters could swing enough support away from Gilibrand, to a candidate who is perhaps more fiscally conservative, and more socially centrist. Perhaps there is another candidate in the wings? We'll keep an eye on this one.
Connecticut--Unlike Scarborough's prediction about the GOP, the reason Rob Simmons is doing well in the polls here has nothing to do with his politics. It has everything to do with Dodd's missteps--on AIG, on his own "less than kosher" financial dealings, and the fact that, after 30 years in the Senate, he's got no one left to do a favor for, or who owes him a favor. Simmons is a better reflection of what a Connecticut Republican could or should be--Socially moderate, fiscally more conservative. But in another year, he'd be losing by double digits. In 2006, the Republican got less than 5% of the vote here. 5%! That's down in the Natural Law Party territory. There were extenuating circumstances in that election too, but regardless. 5% for a major party can't happen. Ever.
That's 8 seats. That could be enough for a working majority, even though the Dems would have the advantage of setting the agenda. Who knows, anything can happen. Senators Kennedy and Byrd are in poor health. Byrd is in an increasingly Republican state. A further deterioration of the economy could put seats like Harry Reid (NV), or Daniel Inouye (HI--in his mid 80's) into question. It's a long shot, and the GOP would truly have to run the table. But it can be done. Getting the GOP to 51 seats in the Senate would flip the debate immensely.
At this point--I give it about 50-1 odds. But let's see where we stand in 6 months.
So it made us very happy here at the Pundit, to see that Scarborough is watching the same developments in the Senate that we are, to see if the GOP has learned anything from the past two elections. Joe sees it, as do we. But what is it that we see?
Winning through Pragmatism.
Win the seats you can win by running candidates who are representative of the districts and states they actually come from. Keep the message positive. Speak to solutions. Provide a viable alternative. We all get a little leery of one-party (or in this case, one PERSON) rule in America. The problem these days is that the opposition has been so shrill, so out of touch with the real issues of the day, that people are scared off by the alternatives.
But parties constantly figure out ways to reinvent themselves, and the GOP will figure this out too. In many ways, they are already starting to.
Let's take a look at the GOP's possibilities for winning back the Senate for 2010, shall we?
1. Don't fight city hall--Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Wisconsin, Indiana, Maryland, New York (Schumer) and Vermont are lost causes. Every Conservative wants to defeat Barbara Boxer. Why waste the money? There are real battles to be fought, and WON. ideological battles are great, but isn't winning better? Isn't setting policy more important than having one Senate seat in California? Eye on the ball here. Short of complete economic or terroristic meltdown, Schumer is going to win. Leahy is going to win. Bayh is going to win. Get over it.
2. Hold ground--To make this work, the GOP needs to hang onto some tough fights. New Hampshire. Florida. North Carolina. Ohio. Louisiana. Kentucky. Each poses some problems. Each holds an opportunity for the GOP to show its stuff. Can New Hampshire run a candidate that can win in this increasingly blue state? Can Richard Burr shake off unpopularity to win in a state that is turning, well let's say, Carolina Blue? Will John Kaisich or Rob Portman prove to be viable candidates state wide in Ohio, a state that has turned out the GOP in the last two elections? Can David Vitter survive the DC Madam stink from a couple of years ago? Can the GOP run a viable successor to Jim Bunning (perhaps the least popular Senator in the country) and win?
The answer to each of these questions is "they had better, if they want to gain the Senate back.
3. Places for attack--The GOP can run the table, but they need some breaks.
Colorado--Michael Bennett is still an unknown commodity, and the state is still pretty evenly divided. Time to run a Republican who understands the Rocky Mountain sensibilities, and can rally support. Is Bob Beauprez that guy? The GOP hopes so...
North Dakota--Time to run a serious challenge to Byron Dorgan. It seems strange that the Dems have fared so well in ND on the Senate side. But this is still a Republican state, and should be primed for the taking.
Arkansas--Ditto for Arkansas. Blanche Lincoln is not a Liberal, but has not faced serious competition recently, which is odd for a state that is increasingly Conservative since the days of Bill Clinton. Time to put up a real fight for this seat. It is there for the taking.
Illinois--as the Dems beat themselves up, Mark Kirk should be able to thread the needle, and win the election. The GOP should make this a top priority.
Pennsylvania--Tom Ridge would be a formidable challenge to Arlen Specter, or whomever the Dems end up running. The question is, will the GOP nominate a Pro-choice republican? We'll have to see whether they will take Scarborough's advice, or push hard to the right with Pat Toomey.
Delaware--Can Mike Castle win against Beau Biden? Possibly. It's time to find out.
New York--Forget Schumer. Go after Tracey Flick (aka Kirsten Gilibrand). This is a seat that Peter King could win. I don't think David Patterson's behavior will make a difference. I do think that Wall Street, and Upstate voters could swing enough support away from Gilibrand, to a candidate who is perhaps more fiscally conservative, and more socially centrist. Perhaps there is another candidate in the wings? We'll keep an eye on this one.
Connecticut--Unlike Scarborough's prediction about the GOP, the reason Rob Simmons is doing well in the polls here has nothing to do with his politics. It has everything to do with Dodd's missteps--on AIG, on his own "less than kosher" financial dealings, and the fact that, after 30 years in the Senate, he's got no one left to do a favor for, or who owes him a favor. Simmons is a better reflection of what a Connecticut Republican could or should be--Socially moderate, fiscally more conservative. But in another year, he'd be losing by double digits. In 2006, the Republican got less than 5% of the vote here. 5%! That's down in the Natural Law Party territory. There were extenuating circumstances in that election too, but regardless. 5% for a major party can't happen. Ever.
That's 8 seats. That could be enough for a working majority, even though the Dems would have the advantage of setting the agenda. Who knows, anything can happen. Senators Kennedy and Byrd are in poor health. Byrd is in an increasingly Republican state. A further deterioration of the economy could put seats like Harry Reid (NV), or Daniel Inouye (HI--in his mid 80's) into question. It's a long shot, and the GOP would truly have to run the table. But it can be done. Getting the GOP to 51 seats in the Senate would flip the debate immensely.
At this point--I give it about 50-1 odds. But let's see where we stand in 6 months.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Remembering Jack Kemp
It always seems to happen that you think about someone, perhaps you hadn't thought about in a while, and the next day, or a week later, something happens to that person. In my case, I hadn't thought about Jack Kemp in any serious way in ages, but something recently reminded me of him, and made me smile. But as I settled down to read the Sunday paper, I caught the Obituary for Jack Kemp, 73, and it truly saddened me.
I have never been confused for a Conservative, but as a practical pragmatist, Kemp was one of the last, if not THE last Conservative that has ever spoken to me in such a way as to possibly gain my vote. And it was the man, who lived such a wonderful life, who had achieved so much, yet remained so humble, and so likable, so "everyman", and yet so clearly extraordinary, that should be truly celebrated today.
Watching Fox News Sunday, it struck me that the people on the panels, both liberal and conservative, each spoke of Kemp as a friend first, and a great mind and leader second. I never knew the man, but I had the opportunity to hear him speak once. It was early into the Bush 41 Presidency, and he was speaking about how to use Conservative principles to help inner city businesses and housing through "empowerment zones". It was evident even then that Kemp had long-since adopted the Conservative Supply Side Theories hook, line and sinker. But unlike many of his colleagues, Kemp never lost his desire to truly, and personally, help people of all socioeconomic backgrounds.
As a Pro football player, Kemp had built long-lasting friendships with teammates--many of whom were African American, or from poorer neighborhoods. It was Kemp who had spent 18 years representing Western New York in the House of Representatives, and who had championed the notion of tax cuts and the Laffer curve, and made a career out of trying to make people's lives better.
What struck me so much about Kemp that night, and many appearances in the subsequent years, was the unwillingness he had for scapegoating, or criticizing the opponent. Jack seldom, if EVER, would take an opportunity to knock the Democrat, or opposing position. He merely preferred to make his own points, and to try to present a positive view of each issue, and how Conservatism could make the issue better. The GOP, as well as the Democrats, should take a lesson from this, when trying to craft their message over the next 18 months, in preparation for the 2010 mid-terms.
Unfortunately, Kemp was never able to make over the Republican Party in his own image. Juan Williams mentioned on Fox News Sunday, that it should have been Kemp, not Dole, Gingrich or George W. Bush to take the Conservative mantle from Reagan, and lead the party to the future.
Sadly, the public discourse may have been a lot more constructive, had someone like Jack Kemp been able to translate his principles, his optimism, and his ideas, into more of a party leadership position.
But remembering Jack Kemp is something for me to hold onto. The idea that public discourse, and ideological debates can be had without resorting to name calling, shallow cheap shots, score-keeping and bravado. Kemp proved you can make your case with care, a smile, and give people a reason to believe in you, rather than revile your opponent. I hope we all can remember him in the same vein, and perhaps try to recall that at the end of the day, we are all still on the same side.
I have never been confused for a Conservative, but as a practical pragmatist, Kemp was one of the last, if not THE last Conservative that has ever spoken to me in such a way as to possibly gain my vote. And it was the man, who lived such a wonderful life, who had achieved so much, yet remained so humble, and so likable, so "everyman", and yet so clearly extraordinary, that should be truly celebrated today.
Watching Fox News Sunday, it struck me that the people on the panels, both liberal and conservative, each spoke of Kemp as a friend first, and a great mind and leader second. I never knew the man, but I had the opportunity to hear him speak once. It was early into the Bush 41 Presidency, and he was speaking about how to use Conservative principles to help inner city businesses and housing through "empowerment zones". It was evident even then that Kemp had long-since adopted the Conservative Supply Side Theories hook, line and sinker. But unlike many of his colleagues, Kemp never lost his desire to truly, and personally, help people of all socioeconomic backgrounds.
As a Pro football player, Kemp had built long-lasting friendships with teammates--many of whom were African American, or from poorer neighborhoods. It was Kemp who had spent 18 years representing Western New York in the House of Representatives, and who had championed the notion of tax cuts and the Laffer curve, and made a career out of trying to make people's lives better.
What struck me so much about Kemp that night, and many appearances in the subsequent years, was the unwillingness he had for scapegoating, or criticizing the opponent. Jack seldom, if EVER, would take an opportunity to knock the Democrat, or opposing position. He merely preferred to make his own points, and to try to present a positive view of each issue, and how Conservatism could make the issue better. The GOP, as well as the Democrats, should take a lesson from this, when trying to craft their message over the next 18 months, in preparation for the 2010 mid-terms.
Unfortunately, Kemp was never able to make over the Republican Party in his own image. Juan Williams mentioned on Fox News Sunday, that it should have been Kemp, not Dole, Gingrich or George W. Bush to take the Conservative mantle from Reagan, and lead the party to the future.
Sadly, the public discourse may have been a lot more constructive, had someone like Jack Kemp been able to translate his principles, his optimism, and his ideas, into more of a party leadership position.
But remembering Jack Kemp is something for me to hold onto. The idea that public discourse, and ideological debates can be had without resorting to name calling, shallow cheap shots, score-keeping and bravado. Kemp proved you can make your case with care, a smile, and give people a reason to believe in you, rather than revile your opponent. I hope we all can remember him in the same vein, and perhaps try to recall that at the end of the day, we are all still on the same side.
Friday, May 1, 2009
For Conservatives, the end of the Souter Era still leaves a sour taste
For Conservatives, it's bad enough that recent elections, RNC strife, Specter defections, and this celebration of all things "Obama" have all converged on America, leaving Brand R, and Conservatism, in a terrible ditch. Justice David Souter's announcement that he plans to leave the Supreme Court this Summer is the "cherry on top" of the Conservatives Winter of Discontent.
I can hear the howls now. "Why did Souter wait until NOW!?" Couldn't he have left in 2004? Or even 1994, for that matter!". "This guy was the legacy of the failed Bush Presidency, in the eyes of Conservatives from Maine to California. Not George W. Bush, but his father. For it was George HW Bush ("forty-one") who put Souter up for the bench, saying "he'll be a solid Conservative voice" for the court.
Souter went on to be confirmed in relatively short order, but it turned out that he ended up being one of the most Liberal Justices on the court, and continues to be, up to the present, one of the "Liberal 4" block of Justices on most large issues of the day.
For Conservatives, a "mistake" like Souter cost causes like the Pro-Life movement their opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a Conservative Justice in Souter's place would have made the difference, and could have tilted the argument entirely during these past 17 years or so.
The fact that Conservatives had gotten through the Bill Clinton years virtually unscathed, only having to replace Byron White and Harry Blackmun with Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer. From the Conservative point of view, nothing big was lost in that transition. A lefty and centrist for two lefties.
The W. Years yielded an ideological "push" (Roberts for Rehnquist), and a significant shift to the right (Alito for O'Connor). Today, the Conservatives have their court within reach. For some issues, the court is already pushing Conservative interpretations. And the opportunities to have an even more conservative bench was within reach. All the Liberals (Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens) are either over 70 (Breyer), pushing 90 (Stevens), in poor health (Ginsberg) or looking to leave (Souter). What an opportunity!
But alas, Obama beat McCain in the election, and many of the Liberal Justices may decide this is the time to get out (while a Liberal can be replaced by another liberal). Souter's departure may be just the first of as many as four vacancies during this Presidential term. And it's got to be killing the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. It's insult to injury. Watching Souter leave is like watching the guy who just stole your girl turn to you and give you the finger on his way out the door with her...
We'll continue to pay attention to this story over the next few months, but for now, what does a Conservative have to do to get some good news these days?
I can hear the howls now. "Why did Souter wait until NOW!?" Couldn't he have left in 2004? Or even 1994, for that matter!". "This guy was the legacy of the failed Bush Presidency, in the eyes of Conservatives from Maine to California. Not George W. Bush, but his father. For it was George HW Bush ("forty-one") who put Souter up for the bench, saying "he'll be a solid Conservative voice" for the court.
Souter went on to be confirmed in relatively short order, but it turned out that he ended up being one of the most Liberal Justices on the court, and continues to be, up to the present, one of the "Liberal 4" block of Justices on most large issues of the day.
For Conservatives, a "mistake" like Souter cost causes like the Pro-Life movement their opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a Conservative Justice in Souter's place would have made the difference, and could have tilted the argument entirely during these past 17 years or so.
The fact that Conservatives had gotten through the Bill Clinton years virtually unscathed, only having to replace Byron White and Harry Blackmun with Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer. From the Conservative point of view, nothing big was lost in that transition. A lefty and centrist for two lefties.
The W. Years yielded an ideological "push" (Roberts for Rehnquist), and a significant shift to the right (Alito for O'Connor). Today, the Conservatives have their court within reach. For some issues, the court is already pushing Conservative interpretations. And the opportunities to have an even more conservative bench was within reach. All the Liberals (Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens) are either over 70 (Breyer), pushing 90 (Stevens), in poor health (Ginsberg) or looking to leave (Souter). What an opportunity!
But alas, Obama beat McCain in the election, and many of the Liberal Justices may decide this is the time to get out (while a Liberal can be replaced by another liberal). Souter's departure may be just the first of as many as four vacancies during this Presidential term. And it's got to be killing the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. It's insult to injury. Watching Souter leave is like watching the guy who just stole your girl turn to you and give you the finger on his way out the door with her...
We'll continue to pay attention to this story over the next few months, but for now, what does a Conservative have to do to get some good news these days?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
