It's Like He Read My Mind...

I would share my thoughts on the leaders in the GOP Presidential nomination race...but this article sums it up better than I could.

Summer Breeze...Makes Me Feel (Not So) Fine...

After seeing some of the changes on the blog of a dear friend whose occasional political musings I respect (even if they're "wrong" *snicker*), I realized that I need to once again play catch-up myself. Fortunately, I think it should be relatively easy to sum up my thoughts on the summer political season.

Both former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner and media mogul Rupert Murdoch "screwed" the public with their self-serving actions. Whether one is progressive or conservative, a public or private citizen, greed and egoism apparently does not discriminate.

Usually when a deal is struck in Washington and no one is happy about it, I feel then it must be a good compromise. However, I don't think I would apply that to the debt ceiling agreement. Although I do concede that Federal spending needs to be cut, I also believe there was a missed opportunity regarding higher income/net worth households and corporations. Granted, progressive aspirations to reverse the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts may have had unintended consequences on some of the middle class. However, increasing tax revenues on households earning above, say, one million dollars would have had made a huge difference in closing the Federal deficit.

Perhaps the one saving grace is that if the newly-appointed bi-partisan "Gang of Twelve" does not come to a more specific agreement on spending cuts and tax revenues by December, an automatic trigger goes into effect that cuts defense spending, a sacred cow for conservatives and strict constitutionalists. Personally, I don't know why the spending cut portion of the $1.5 trillion couldn't be spread out percentage-wise through all of the Federal budget, even the holy grails of entitlement Medicare and Social Security. I suppose that would have been too "easy"...

On a final note related to one of the other proverbial hats I wear...apparently the US is loosening its restrictions on visiting Cuba under the premise of cultural tours. This would add to the educational(?) travel packages as well as family visits by Cuban-Americans that are already permitted. While some say this action should not have been taken, I have also read commentary that the US Government is hypocritical since we allow travel into - let alone do business with - fellow Communist China, paper democracies such as Russia and Venezuela, and less-than-benevolent kingdoms such as Saudi Arabia. I believe there is substance to each point of view.

On the one hand, the major difference between Cuba and the other countries I referenced is that the latter countries allow their citizens to leave the country. (Whether there are positive/negative incentives for Chinese citizens to eventually return home is another subject.) On the other hand, I would personally not want to visit any of these places unless/until human rights issues, particularly the ability to travel outside one's borders, are resolved. I hope that I can avoid being put in a position that does not intersect with my business.

A Little Spring Cleaning

As I’ve been busy with other online and offline ventures, I apologize to the millions upon millions of you who have undoubtedly checked in daily with this blog daily hoping for an update on my musings. Your “patience” has finally been rewarded! LOL Needless to say, while my own world has been busier these last few months, so has the geopolitical world been even more hectic. I’m going to try to distill my thoughts down so I don’t end up creating a novel.


We Got Him. And of course by “him”, I mean Osama bin Laden. While I don’t celebrate his death, I do recognize the initially symbolic victory – and eventually, a very significant coup of information – our country achieved in finding him. Certainly this is not the end of terrorism; but beyond demoralizing al-Qaeda, the US has gained a treasure trove of information that could benefit our efforts tremendously. Back inside the Beltway, those who accused of Obama of being “soft” on terrorism were proven otherwise.

You’re Fired! I used to have a fair amount of respect for Donald Trump, despite his outlandish bravado and shameless self-promotion. I have enjoyed watching “The Apprentice” series – the original not the “celebrity” version - and as a fan of both Atlantic City and Las Vegas, I hoped his ventures in each of those towns there would be successful. I also looked on with curiosity to see how he would present himself as a potential Presidential candidate. While I expected him to be a fiscal conservative, I thought he might surprise people with a moderate social message. Never would I have imagined that the surprise would be that Trump would take the “birther” issue and make it a centerpiece of his quasi-campaign. As a result of that action, I have lost all respect for him. I seriously doubt that I will ever again watch any of his programming - including Miss America - or patronize any of his properties.

Paul Ryan. I will give Congressman Ryan credit for coming up with a relatively comprehensive, if still somewhat vague plan on how to address the budget. I don’t agree with the premise of turning Medicare into a voucher program as I doubt that health insurance companies will hold their inevitable rate hikes to a level equal to that of an increase in voucher funds (assuming the latter would even be supported by Ryan and Company). I also don’t trust that state government would use the Medicaid block grants for the use that they were intended. Just look at the results of the 1998 tobacco settlement. This is another case where I don’t believe charity would be able to make up the difference. And asking the disabled and elderly to pull on their proverbial bootstraps is unrealistic, to say the least.

I do give Rep. Ryan more credit for suggesting the closure of corporate tax loopholes. If his concurrent suggestion to also lower the corporate tax rate would result in the country receiving at least the same amount of revenue we are receiving now, I might be convinced to support it. However, I sense an effective permanent tax cut. Ultimately, I believe the country needs to both reign in spending and increase the share of taxes that higher net-worth individuals and higher-profit companies contribute. How to minimize the impact on middle-class households and smaller businesses is the trillion-dollar question.

Gingrich “Newtered”.While the thrice-married, former House Speaker shot himself in (or tasted) his foot on "Meet the Press" by suggesting that Congressman Ryan’s budget was “conservative social engineering” not unlike what he felt Obama and the Democrats were proposing, I give him credit for speaking the truth as he saw it. It’s unfortunate that he didn’t have an alternative to share or else he may not have found himself backpedaling almost as soon as he left the stage. Gingrich won’t win, but at least, unlike Trump who has also tested the Presidential waters frequently, Newt finally had the guts to dive in the pool…even if he apparently hit his head on the diving board.

Romneycare. Not unlike fellow Massachusetts resident Senator John Kerry’s infamous flip-flop with  his vote to fund the second Iraq war, former Governor Mitt Romney supported a version of universal health care in his state before expected Presidential candidate Mitt Romney expressed regret of his decision. I do think Romney is a smart businessperson with more humility (and better hair) than Donald Trump. I think he would be excellent in a Cabinet position. However, I don’t think enough religious conservatives will be able to look beyond their anti-Mormon prejudice to vote him in as President. It’s  really a shame since, as the GOP playing field currently stands, I believe that Romney has the best shot of attracting moderates.

President Obama. He’s not perfect. I still wish the economic stimulus package supported a New Deal-type plan that would have focused on revitalizing struggling inner cities and rural communities. He’s had to create or maintain uneasy alliances with countries whose human rights records are far from exemplary. Many of his ambitions are now being held in check by the majority Republican Congress. However, notwithstanding my comments about Romney, I don’t think there is a strong enough challenger to beat him in the upcoming elections. As many conservatives said circa 2004, “you don’t change presidents in a time of war”. And we are indeed still at war; in fact, we are now in (at least) three wars including our secondary albeit significant role in the Libyan civil war. Following his leadership in the demise of bin Laden, it will be difficult for any of the present and presumed Presidential candidates in the GOP to convince enough Americans that it is time to change course. A better strategy would be to figure out how to win back the Senate. That's not to say that I hope for that to happen any more than I wish Obama to lose the election…but there’s my free advice to Karl Rove and Friends.

Karma Chameleon

I've come to  the conclusion that that those conservatives and libertarians who support the Tea Party's message of fiscal restraint will remain bonded as long as conservatives do not start emphasizing their social agenda. Libertarians, who hold diametrically opposing social views, would subsequently break off from the movement. The following article seems to agree with my views, albeit from a more "karmic" approach.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575550243700895762.html

A Progressive Tea Party?

Not too long ago, in a galaxy not so far away...

"Imagine a parallel universe where the Great Crash of 2008 was followed by a Tea Party of a very different kind. Enraged citizens gather in every city, week after week—to demand the government finally regulate the behavior of corporations and the superrich, and force them to start paying taxes. The protesters shut down the shops and offices of the companies that have most aggressively ripped off the country. The swelling movement is made up of everyone from teenagers to pensioners. They surround branches of the banks that caused this crash and force them to close, with banners saying, You Caused This Crisis. Now YOU Pay....This may sound like a fantasy—but it has all happened. The name of this parallel universe is Britain."

http://www.thenation.com/article/158282/how-build-progressive-tea-party?page=0,1

Brilliant!

Being Human

So the other night, the lady and I are watching Piers Morgan's new show as he interviews former GWB National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. While my lady and I each share an admiration for Ms. Rice's groundbreaking accomplishments as a black woman, I am not as enamored with her political views.

When Piers asked "Condi" about her thoughts about President Obama, she expressed her own admiration for his accomplishments as a black man while respectfully disagreeing with his politics. She went on to describe her conservative beliefs, at one point using the phrase "individual freedom" to which I responded "except, of course, if you're gay."

My lady shot me a look and said, "People have the right to feel how they feel!" I said that was fine but I couldn't help but notice a glaring inconsistency when Ms. Rice and other conservatives apply "freedom" to (mostly) fiscal matters but not to social issues. I later thought to myself again about the "God and guns" dichotomy. While I don't begrudge anyone for exercising their legal rights to feel secure, I somehow don't think that "what Jesus would do" would involve open or concealed carry.

I did concede that progressives can be just as guilty. I noted that there are indeed so-called "limousine liberals" who believe in socioeconomic diversity in theory yet choose not to live that reality in practice. It may even work in the other direction as those at the other end of the spectrum - shall we call them "public transit progressives"? - who give lip service to working together with their more comfortable brethren but may not be so crazy about socializing after hours let alone welcoming them as in-laws.

Madison, Wisconsin and Colorado Springs, Colorado are two of America's quintessential small cities. They are also bastions of progressivism and conservatism, respectfully.

As the state capital, Madison's vibe is no doubt influenced by the presence its government employees as well as the University of Wisconsin. I have read anecdotes about Madison that say city residents people are generally eager to embrace "green living" and gay pride but are naive if not skittish about embracing the relatively low number of poorer minorities.

Colorado Springs is the home of the Air Force Academy as well as the Focus on the Family religious organization. While the support for family values is obvious, I would hazard a guess that the definition of such  would not necessarily extend to households that included same-sex parents, parents adorned with tattoos and piercings or families who had a generally progressive view of religion. Budding Air Force officers - if not also any Academy staff - who happen to be gay or lesbian probably are likely not encouraged to live openly, the pending repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" notwithstanding.

Both Madison and Colorado Springs seem to live under a "group think" where those who don't toe the party line (no pun intended) will have a hard time getting along in town, despite claims of open-mindedness or benign values.

People do indeed have the right to their personal and political beliefs. When those beliefs seem inconsistent or contradictory, I suppose that is what makes us human.

One and Done

Here's an interesting article about Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, who has just dropped out of the race for re-election, and how he has (not?) affected the number of African Americans in the GOP.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/11826_rncvoteblackrepublicansgrademichaelsteele

And So It Begins....

While this picture is representative of a typical day in Northern Virginia at rush hour, it's also meant to signify the virtual "gridlock" that I predict that will unfortunately grip the Congress and the White House once again over the next two years.

President Obama may be at least giving lip service to bipartisanship - as did Bush in 2007 - but not only does House Speaker John Boehner already plan as an initial action for to hold a vote to repeal the health care reform law, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has also openly stated his main goal is to make sure President Obama is not re-elected. With that sort of opposition, the likelihood of bipartisanship (in public anyway) seems infinitesimal.

Speaker Boehner obviously knows that his repeal bill may sail through Congress only to hit the wall in the Senate. This is just grandstanding for the conservative GOP base and other who are opposed to the health care reform law as it exists. I would imagine that Boehner will later attempt to repeal individual pieces of the law which he feels may have the best shot at removal. Instead of trying to remove parts of the law, I would rather see him work to add something such as tort reform; that is an idea - at least in terms of subjective "pain and suffering" judgements - that I would support. The trial lawyer lobby was certainly instrumental in  preventing the then-Democratic Congress and Senate from including that in the bill.

The new GOP majority in the House - particularly the freshmen Tea Party affiliates - have pledged to cut the federal budget by $100 billion. I would like to support this idea but I continue to have the feeling that the programs Republicans will focus on trimming will generally affect those that need it the most, i.e. social assistance. However, if Congress is willing to look at every government program and department equally, I think there are places where they can find a significant amount of savings.

Let's start with the Department of Defense. In fact, Defense Secretary Robert Gates already has. If his plans come to fruition, that would account for 20% of the Congress' savings by itself! Of course, those who believe that the government's main job should be to "provide for the common defense" may be concerned that the defense cuts may go beyond mere improved efficiency and instead affect the level of human and equipment resources. But considering Secretary Gates is someone who served under the previous administration - thereby fulfilling at least one goal of not changing leaders during wartime - one would like to think that his priorities haven't significantly changed.

How about corporate welfare? I have to wonder if those who were opposed to the bailouts of the banking and automotive industries are also against the money that corporations receive on behalf of research and development. How about we cut back or eliminate the research subsidies that we give out to these private companies?

This may be blasphemous for me to say as I have occasionally benefitted from related opportunities, but let's also take a look at the numerous private government contractors, of which a critical mass exists here in Northern Virginia.  And while a fair amount of contractor employees eventually cross over to the government, how about we expedite the process? Bringing these workers into the Federal fold would eliminate the formerly built-in contractor profit margin and slightly reduce salaries in favor of more favorable benefits. In the long run, I would predict this would save an significant amount of funds, much of which would again come from defense-related work.

UPDATE (January 6): Defense Secretary Robert Gates has really come through in the clutch, identifying up to $78 billion in potential savings! With "only" $22 billion left to cut, perhaps the House of Representatives will be more likely to focus on programs that will affect those individuals and companies who can afford to absorb the loss. One can only dream...