As we shift from a consumer-driven economy to one that looks outside of ourselves, what businesses sell and how and where they do business is also subject to change. This paradigm shift will impact all sectors of our economy: services, manufacturing and commodities. According to the latest issue of The Economist, sales to traditional markets have risen 20% since the end of 2007 but they have also risen 51% to Latin America and a whopping 53% to China which by the way, is now America’s third-largest market after Canada and Mexico.
Over the past four decades, the American service sector has far outpaced America’s manufacturers consistently today making up 30% of our country’s exports. Within that sector however, the share held by lower-value tourism and travel has slipped, while royalties and so-called private services—such as scientific, engineering and other consulting, and of course financial services—have advanced. Exports of these kinds of services, especially to countries such as Brazil, India and China nearly doubled between 2006 and 2010 and continue to grow exponentially
We all are cognizant, I think, that the biggest driver of this phenomenon has been the almost unbelievable advances America has produced in the development of digital technology, which facilitates an effortless sale of many American services globally. Michael Mandel of The Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank, thinks that there are well over 300,000 people employed making applications, games and other technology for smart devices such as Apple’s iPhone and for Facebook. Zynga, one of the largest manufacturers of online games and mobile entertainment applications, recorded $1.1 billion in revenue in 2011, largely from the sales of virtual goods in its games. A third of this came from players who live outside of America!
It was only four or five years ago that American manufacturing was crashing and burning. It had shed jobs almost continuously from 1998 through 2010, first because of outsourcing to places like Central America and China, then because of collapsing sales of hard goods such as cars, appliances, furniture and of course houses during the ever increasing recession.
Car sales have rebounded nicely—particularly for American carmakers that were saved from imminent doom by the Obama presidency—and house sales are at last beginning to crawl off the bottom. In addition, a falling dollar and restricted pay scales in America have combined with rising wages in China to make outsourcing less attractive. Some American companies have even brought jobs back home creating a positive scenario in which American manufacturing employment has risen steadily for the past two years. This is not all positive however since part of the adjustment that American business has made to the recession is to demand that employees who survive lay offs do more without additional compensation and the American worker has made the collective decision that a low-paying job is better than no job.
Getting back to being positive however, Ethan Allen, a company based in Connecticut that makes and sells upmarket furniture, was deeply battered by the recession, closing several stores and factories and eliminating 1,500 jobs. It has since sought to remake itself as “a vertically integrated interior-design company,” says Farooq Kathwari, the company’s CEO. Allen has added back 800 jobs, including 200 interior decorators who help customers choose furniture, which is then made to order in small production runs at its six American and two overseas factories.
Traditionally, America’s largest companies, such as Boeing and Caterpillar, have dominated exports. Small companies struggle with the reality that distribution; regulation and language barriers can be overwhelming in foreign countries. Consequently, the federal Export-Import Bank has stepped up, providing technical assistance and some funding to small business America helping them to sell goods and services globally. According to the Census Bureau, 293,000 companies exported goods and services in 2006 up 19% from 2006. What is even more interesting is that small companies with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 34% of American exports in 2010, up from 29% in 2006.
Listening to this morning’s various Sunday news roundtables, a new charge against President Obama seems to be gaining prominence within the Republican campaign message and that is that some 70% of the 2008 stimulus was spent on foreign companies.
A decade ago Air Tractor sold almost all of its crop-dusting and fire-fighting aircraft in the United States, leaving it vulnerable both to the American business cycle and weather. Today, helped by federal financing, (not funding) it has increased foreign sales to about half its total. Air Tractor employment has more than doubled and from its home base in Olney, Texas (population 3,285), Air Tractor this year will sell 40 aircraft, a fifth of its annual total, to Brazil, which needs bigger crop-dusters to expand its own grain sales internationally. “If we can do it in a town that has three stop lights and one Dairy Queen, it can be done by anyone” says David Ickert, American Tractor’s CFO.
All of this however, is just the beginning. Even as the results of what I have said above begin to have a real impact on the American economy, our recovery still leaves many challenges un-addressed. Primarily because of technology and as one of the consequences of an increasing reliance on technology, the companies leading the recovery pay higher wages but do not employ many people. Consequently, they have a minimal impact on American unemployment, while aggravating the difference between America’s poor, America’s dwindling middle class and America’s wealthy. Fortunately, this is still a bright light in an otherwise dark room and can become the basis for a more balanced and sustainable basis for growth than what America had before—and a far better platform for prosperity than an unreformed and increasingly stubborn Europe.
So, how can our next president continue to help our struggling but real recovery? First, behave more practically and less politically. Not pushing the American economy over the much feared “fiscal cliff” would be a start: instead settle on a credible long-term deficit reduction plan that includes both an elimination of tax breaks for the rich who show an ever-increasing inclination to hoard their wealth while refraining from creating jobs to increasing smart federal investments in American education and growth industries. The more Americans that are prepared to work in viable careers, the more taxpayers we produce, reducing greatly the number of Americans who depend on the government for support.
Second, the next president should finally take steps to repair America’s crumbling infrastructure. Even the most productive recoveries cannot help an economy thrive with dilapidated roads and the world ‘s most expensive health care system. A focus on just these two issues, as a start, will begin the process of an America recovery in a manner we can all live with.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
July 4, 2012
As we celebrate Independence Day today, I have been thinking a little on that iconic American saying that “Freedom isn’t free.”
Usually that sentiment refers to the sacrifices of the men and women who have served or currently serve in the military and that would also include their families. This sense of freedom not being a freebie is especially relevant today as the war in Iraq has ended (we can only hope this is so) and the war in Afghanistan winds down. One of the consequences of these senseless military adventures is that today 12.7 percent of returning veterans are unemployed (there is one bright note however in that some of the workers re-building the World Trade Center are veterans who are being trained in construction trades through an innovative union effort).
I share the belief that freedom is not free however large parts of the corporate world together with the political right wing are attempting today to cheapen this long-held American value. They have been using the word “freedom” cynically as part of an effort on their part to rally the American public—ultimately against its own best interests.
When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, which is derisively referred to as Obamacare by conservatives everywhere, Sarah Palin tweeted “Obama lies, freedom dies.” She is referring I suppose to the freedom to live without viable health care when you find yourself struggling with an illness or the consequences of a terrible accident. In its otherwise positive decision, the Supreme Court allowed states the “freedom” to deny Medicaid coverage to their poorest citizens—even though the federal government would pick up the tab.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker recently received the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) “Defender of Freedom” award. With the NRA being what it is, I can only imagine that their honoring the governor in this manner recognizes Governor Walker’s freedom to fight with the teacher’s union who simply want to bargain fairly regarding such issues as class size.
We are repeatedly told that corporations should have freedom from such issues as those pesky job safety regulations, environmental protections and labor standards thus providing working people the freedom to be crushed in collapsing mines, choke on polluted air and most importantly, freedom from a living wage.
When the Tea Party talks about the “freedom” to replace Social Security with vouchers, what they really mean is freedom from a secure retirement income. The “freedom” to get vouchers for retraining is actually freedom from unemployment compensation’s safety net when one’s job is shipped overseas.
The “freedom” of cutting local government translates into the freedom from having the help of a police officer or a fire fighter or EMS technician in one’s time of greatest need.
Let’s just call this right-wing freedom catch phrase what it really is: a twisted and mean-spirited political strategy designed to dupe the public, that is you and me, which holds the word “freedom” as something sacred.
Today, on Independence Day, I vote for returning to a truer and more accurate use of the word “freedom” by starting with President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms: Freedom of speech, expression, worship and freedom from want and fear.
Those freedoms are under heavy attack today and we will all pay a huge price if we allow the Tea Party, which has already hijacked the GOP, to also hijack our country right from under us.
Usually that sentiment refers to the sacrifices of the men and women who have served or currently serve in the military and that would also include their families. This sense of freedom not being a freebie is especially relevant today as the war in Iraq has ended (we can only hope this is so) and the war in Afghanistan winds down. One of the consequences of these senseless military adventures is that today 12.7 percent of returning veterans are unemployed (there is one bright note however in that some of the workers re-building the World Trade Center are veterans who are being trained in construction trades through an innovative union effort).
I share the belief that freedom is not free however large parts of the corporate world together with the political right wing are attempting today to cheapen this long-held American value. They have been using the word “freedom” cynically as part of an effort on their part to rally the American public—ultimately against its own best interests.
When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, which is derisively referred to as Obamacare by conservatives everywhere, Sarah Palin tweeted “Obama lies, freedom dies.” She is referring I suppose to the freedom to live without viable health care when you find yourself struggling with an illness or the consequences of a terrible accident. In its otherwise positive decision, the Supreme Court allowed states the “freedom” to deny Medicaid coverage to their poorest citizens—even though the federal government would pick up the tab.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker recently received the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) “Defender of Freedom” award. With the NRA being what it is, I can only imagine that their honoring the governor in this manner recognizes Governor Walker’s freedom to fight with the teacher’s union who simply want to bargain fairly regarding such issues as class size.
We are repeatedly told that corporations should have freedom from such issues as those pesky job safety regulations, environmental protections and labor standards thus providing working people the freedom to be crushed in collapsing mines, choke on polluted air and most importantly, freedom from a living wage.
When the Tea Party talks about the “freedom” to replace Social Security with vouchers, what they really mean is freedom from a secure retirement income. The “freedom” to get vouchers for retraining is actually freedom from unemployment compensation’s safety net when one’s job is shipped overseas.
The “freedom” of cutting local government translates into the freedom from having the help of a police officer or a fire fighter or EMS technician in one’s time of greatest need.
Let’s just call this right-wing freedom catch phrase what it really is: a twisted and mean-spirited political strategy designed to dupe the public, that is you and me, which holds the word “freedom” as something sacred.
Today, on Independence Day, I vote for returning to a truer and more accurate use of the word “freedom” by starting with President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms: Freedom of speech, expression, worship and freedom from want and fear.
Those freedoms are under heavy attack today and we will all pay a huge price if we allow the Tea Party, which has already hijacked the GOP, to also hijack our country right from under us.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Enough is Enough!
November must almost be upon us because politics is getting nastier.
In Missoula, Montana, the state Republican Party held their convention last week and while it had the usual President Obama and Democratic Party bashing, it got much uglier this time when an outhouse on wheels, designated as the “Obama Presidential Library” pulled up in in front of the hall where the convention was being held. If that in itself was not ugly enough, painted bullet holes riddled the sides of the outhouse signaling that the owner of the outhouse has not learned that suggesting the shooting of presidents is highly inappropriate to say nothing of it being illegal.
This was not the unveiling of the outhouse as it has been making appearances throughout Montana recently. Not to be dismissed as simply a humorist of bad taste, the builder of this despicable exhibit placed inside the outhouse comments for which must represent the intellect of Tea Partiers and other right wing nuts that have hijacked the GOP and become its new base.
Inside, a fake birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama made reference to the disproven controversy over the president’s birth. This conspiracy claims Obama is not an American citizen and, therefore, not the legitimate president of the United States. Numerous news agencies have discredited the claims, and Obama even released his long-form birth certificate to try to end the controversy. However, many “birthers” believe that document is also a fake. The outhouse promoted a conspiracy that is racist at its core — the only way an African American can be president is through a decades-long, sinister plan that involves faking birth documents. The fake birth certificate was stamped “Bullshit” and it was accompanied by crude graffiti that advised “For a Good Time call 800-Michelle (crossed out), Hillary, (crossed out) and Nancy Pelosi (circled in red).
Criticizing Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi is one thing. Portraying them as prostitutes is just sick and it boggles the mind that anyone who thinks that is an acceptable form of criticism, or who would laugh at such a visceral attack is someone that deserves any semblance of respect themselves, up to and including recognizing their right to free speech. As for the First Lady, all president’s wives support their husbands and except for the case of Hillary Clinton, who took a leadership role in formulating health care reform during the Clinton Administration, First Ladies tend to take on issues that totally lack controversy such as Laura Bush did regarding reading or attempting to raise awareness regarding obesity as Michelle Obama has done.
Yet our First Lady is taking a lot of criticism for her anti-obesity campaign. This should be above politics. Even worse is to suggest that calling an 800 number will get some sexy talk from the First Lady. There has never been a First Lady in history that deserves this kind of treatment. About the only positive thing here is that Obama’s daughters were not drawn into this sordid scene. I wouldn’t hold my breath however. These sickos are capable of anything.
I think Deschamps, the Chair of the Montana GOP and his peers should’ve done some critical thinking about the outhouse and the problematic and offensive messages it sent. First, there were the bullet holes targeting the president. We need to recognize that the threat of violence (or violent imagery) mixed with the public debate is not an indicator of a healthy democratic process.
Vigorous debate during election season is an American value. However, this clear implication of violence is not acceptable. Words, images, and metaphors matter and so by not condemning the outhouse, the Montana GOP threw a safe environment for our democratic process in that state in the toilet.
Political criticism and satire is fine and I am not above a little satirical fun at a politicians expense. However, this outhouse goes beyond decency. It is disrespectful to the position of the President and our First Lady. And the bullet holes, well, that person should get a call from the Secret Service and explain them.
Finally, the outhouse referenced Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi in the context of a “For a Good Time Call 800…” Over the past few years, the right wing in America has waged a broad-based political attack on the rights of women that is well documented, from opposing equality in health care to equal pay for equal work and everything in between. The outhouse provides an example of the right wing of the GOP’s derogatory and dismissive views regarding women and their contributions to society.
The outhouse may not have been an officially sanctioned exhibit at the Montana Republican Party’s convention last week, however it does represent the trifecta of right wing ideology by promoting racism, sexism and the threat of violence against political opponents.
Our country deserves better. By failing to remove the outhouse and vigorously condemn it, the Montana GOP legitimized ideology that flushes facts, gender equity, racial equality and a safe environment for the democratic process down the drain.
Enough is enough.
In Missoula, Montana, the state Republican Party held their convention last week and while it had the usual President Obama and Democratic Party bashing, it got much uglier this time when an outhouse on wheels, designated as the “Obama Presidential Library” pulled up in in front of the hall where the convention was being held. If that in itself was not ugly enough, painted bullet holes riddled the sides of the outhouse signaling that the owner of the outhouse has not learned that suggesting the shooting of presidents is highly inappropriate to say nothing of it being illegal.
This was not the unveiling of the outhouse as it has been making appearances throughout Montana recently. Not to be dismissed as simply a humorist of bad taste, the builder of this despicable exhibit placed inside the outhouse comments for which must represent the intellect of Tea Partiers and other right wing nuts that have hijacked the GOP and become its new base.
Inside, a fake birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama made reference to the disproven controversy over the president’s birth. This conspiracy claims Obama is not an American citizen and, therefore, not the legitimate president of the United States. Numerous news agencies have discredited the claims, and Obama even released his long-form birth certificate to try to end the controversy. However, many “birthers” believe that document is also a fake. The outhouse promoted a conspiracy that is racist at its core — the only way an African American can be president is through a decades-long, sinister plan that involves faking birth documents. The fake birth certificate was stamped “Bullshit” and it was accompanied by crude graffiti that advised “For a Good Time call 800-Michelle (crossed out), Hillary, (crossed out) and Nancy Pelosi (circled in red).
Criticizing Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi is one thing. Portraying them as prostitutes is just sick and it boggles the mind that anyone who thinks that is an acceptable form of criticism, or who would laugh at such a visceral attack is someone that deserves any semblance of respect themselves, up to and including recognizing their right to free speech. As for the First Lady, all president’s wives support their husbands and except for the case of Hillary Clinton, who took a leadership role in formulating health care reform during the Clinton Administration, First Ladies tend to take on issues that totally lack controversy such as Laura Bush did regarding reading or attempting to raise awareness regarding obesity as Michelle Obama has done.
Yet our First Lady is taking a lot of criticism for her anti-obesity campaign. This should be above politics. Even worse is to suggest that calling an 800 number will get some sexy talk from the First Lady. There has never been a First Lady in history that deserves this kind of treatment. About the only positive thing here is that Obama’s daughters were not drawn into this sordid scene. I wouldn’t hold my breath however. These sickos are capable of anything.
I think Deschamps, the Chair of the Montana GOP and his peers should’ve done some critical thinking about the outhouse and the problematic and offensive messages it sent. First, there were the bullet holes targeting the president. We need to recognize that the threat of violence (or violent imagery) mixed with the public debate is not an indicator of a healthy democratic process.
Vigorous debate during election season is an American value. However, this clear implication of violence is not acceptable. Words, images, and metaphors matter and so by not condemning the outhouse, the Montana GOP threw a safe environment for our democratic process in that state in the toilet.
Political criticism and satire is fine and I am not above a little satirical fun at a politicians expense. However, this outhouse goes beyond decency. It is disrespectful to the position of the President and our First Lady. And the bullet holes, well, that person should get a call from the Secret Service and explain them.
Finally, the outhouse referenced Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi in the context of a “For a Good Time Call 800…” Over the past few years, the right wing in America has waged a broad-based political attack on the rights of women that is well documented, from opposing equality in health care to equal pay for equal work and everything in between. The outhouse provides an example of the right wing of the GOP’s derogatory and dismissive views regarding women and their contributions to society.
The outhouse may not have been an officially sanctioned exhibit at the Montana Republican Party’s convention last week, however it does represent the trifecta of right wing ideology by promoting racism, sexism and the threat of violence against political opponents.
Our country deserves better. By failing to remove the outhouse and vigorously condemn it, the Montana GOP legitimized ideology that flushes facts, gender equity, racial equality and a safe environment for the democratic process down the drain.
Enough is enough.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Why Exact;y Does Romney Want Fewer Public Service Workers
After a disastrous week in which it was disclosed that the President had been outdone by the Romney campaign’s ability to raise $16 million more during the month of May than the Obama campaign, and that the President had been practically tarred and feathered for stating that the “private sector was alright” and the United States Secretary of Commerce was arrested for driving under the influence or affliction of something mysterious, Mitt Romney thought it was Christmas and gave the Democrats a much desired gaffe of his own when he stated, “[Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policemen and more teachers. Did he not get the message from Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”
Notwithstanding that he referred to fire fighters and police offers by using only the masculine gender it was easily the biggest Romney gaffe yet, bigger even than when he crowed during the circus known in more austere circles as the 2012 Republican Primary, “I love to fire people,” for Democrats and hopefully to most independents as well, it was a mark of stupidity and insensitivity. And yet, as I write these words I have the sense that for Republicans at least, it was no gaffe at all but rather an expression of how most of them feel. More than anything else however, this jittery and undisciplined response to the President says something universally positive about Mr. Obama and glaringly demonstrates the stark conservative contradictions regarding government programs.
There are several levels to this whole discussion, so let’s begin with what conservatives really believe.
While they insist that they are the party of “first responders,” “law and order” and so forth, Republican leadership really despises the concept of police and firefighters working for state and local government. Simply put, Republicans don’t really support law enforcement and other public workers being employed directly by We the People. As we have seen in privatized hell in such places as Iraq, they would prefer that these services be provided by the private sector. Actually, Republicans seemingly prefer that most if not all government services be provided and managed by private industry. Let the marketplace manage the services while allowing unaccountable corporations charge a fee to either the government or directly to the people on say, a pay-per-arrest or a pay-per-fire basis. What could go wrong? Can’t afford to have your burning house saved? Sorry buster, get a job and stop being a leech on society.
As for education, conservatives are closer than ever to privatization. School vouchers and charter schools are actively sucking money out of public education and pumping it into private services, leaving public education in a deeper hole and momentum remains in favor of more charter schools and less funding for everyone else.
For-profit education, security and rescue are gaining popularity with federal, state and local budgets strapped for cash. The danger of course is that this agenda mandates that private corporations are solely in the business for the sake of profit. If it makes financial sense to, for example, ban disabled or slower children from school because they lower aggregate test scores and drive away students from higher income families, then so be it—after all, profit is the only result worth measuring in the corporate world.
This is the Republican leadership agenda. Bleed the government to death and then hand everything over to Monsanto and Walmart. Meanwhile, Republican voters don’t even really understand what their leaders are up to. While the Tea Party distracts on charges of “socialism” most Republican voters actually approve of a reliable police force and firefighters—we all simply expect these services to be free and available, even self-identified anti-government conservatives.
The true irony is that Republicans send their kids to public schools like the rest of us. They send their kids to public colleges. They elbow their kids into public school sports programs proudly and with thunderous applause especially in such strong bastions of Republican conservatism as Texas.
They expect well-maintained and accessible public roads, national parks, clean water, tunnels that don’t cave in, bridges that don’t collapse, and most importantly, a military presence standing guard on the anti-immigration wall. Many of them however, like President George Bush, did not mind providing millions of federal government dollars to the financial sector. They generously offer government subsidies and incentives (corporate welfare) to businesses all across the country such as Exxon but oddly draw the line when it comes to making sure we can be treated for an illness or injury without going broke. The truth is that Republicans are the real socialists—they are selective socialists—such as Ron Paul who is the most conservative member of Congress in nearly a century receiving benefits under Medicare.
Consequently, I don’t imagine Romney’s remarks about the evils of government services like police, firefighters and public educators will resonate with those Republican voters who like us Democrats still applaud units like the NYPD and FDNY. Speaking of which, I assure you, if this had been a Democratic remark about pubic workers, the Republican response would have been a reel of every second of videotape from 9/11 crammed into a 60-second campaign commercial and aired nationally.
Too throw more gasoline on the fire since his anti-public workers remark, Romney has continued to cynically lie and attempt to weasel out of this proverbial hole he has managed to dig himself into. “Of course, teachers and firemen and policemen are hired at the local level and also by states. The federal government doesn’t pay for teachers, firefighters or policemen. So obviously that’s completely absurd.”
Ding-ding—WRONG! Clearly Romney is unaware of basic civics and how federal, state and local governments are interconnected. In addition to billions in annual federal spending designed to assist local police, firefighters and teachers, we know that Romney has been opposed to the president’s stimulus, which pumped billions of federal money into state and local treasuries in order to save the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, firefighters and police officers: $4 billion for state and local law enforcement; #2.1 billion for Head Start, $53.6 billion to prevent cuts in local school districts and state colleges. Why? Because the so-called free market failed to do so. Who else was supposed to step up?
This is part of the role of the federal government, contrary to the ridiculous position that government should be “run like a business.” Unlike businesses, government is NOT tasked with making a profit. Instead, and especially in times of economic distress, government is in a unique position to be able to provide money to the economy when no one else will. There is no question that this sometimes increases the deficit and debt. If that worries you, just take a short walk back through history to the Reagan years and the triple digit debt and doubled deficit following a considerably less serious recession.
Mitt Romney and his Tea Party allies operate under the false assumption that government is like a business. This is what really drives his distaste for spending federal money on our most crucial public servants. He says so and he needs to be asked why. A lot.
I can hardly wait to hear Mitt Romney explain that it was OK to lay of hundreds of thousand of these valuable public servants due to sate and local cutbacks. I am almost looking forward to hearing Romney tell us that we have enough teachers and firefighters and police and that in order to counteract the pro-firefighter, pro-police and pro-teacher Obama agenda, we should perhaps fire even more. After all, they are just government workers. This is what Romney, the Republicans and their Tea Party cohorts might want, especially if businesses like Bain Capital might profit from privatizing these services, but I assure you: across the political spectrum, this will prove to be the kiss of death for Republican presidential aspirations.
Notwithstanding that he referred to fire fighters and police offers by using only the masculine gender it was easily the biggest Romney gaffe yet, bigger even than when he crowed during the circus known in more austere circles as the 2012 Republican Primary, “I love to fire people,” for Democrats and hopefully to most independents as well, it was a mark of stupidity and insensitivity. And yet, as I write these words I have the sense that for Republicans at least, it was no gaffe at all but rather an expression of how most of them feel. More than anything else however, this jittery and undisciplined response to the President says something universally positive about Mr. Obama and glaringly demonstrates the stark conservative contradictions regarding government programs.
There are several levels to this whole discussion, so let’s begin with what conservatives really believe.
While they insist that they are the party of “first responders,” “law and order” and so forth, Republican leadership really despises the concept of police and firefighters working for state and local government. Simply put, Republicans don’t really support law enforcement and other public workers being employed directly by We the People. As we have seen in privatized hell in such places as Iraq, they would prefer that these services be provided by the private sector. Actually, Republicans seemingly prefer that most if not all government services be provided and managed by private industry. Let the marketplace manage the services while allowing unaccountable corporations charge a fee to either the government or directly to the people on say, a pay-per-arrest or a pay-per-fire basis. What could go wrong? Can’t afford to have your burning house saved? Sorry buster, get a job and stop being a leech on society.
As for education, conservatives are closer than ever to privatization. School vouchers and charter schools are actively sucking money out of public education and pumping it into private services, leaving public education in a deeper hole and momentum remains in favor of more charter schools and less funding for everyone else.
For-profit education, security and rescue are gaining popularity with federal, state and local budgets strapped for cash. The danger of course is that this agenda mandates that private corporations are solely in the business for the sake of profit. If it makes financial sense to, for example, ban disabled or slower children from school because they lower aggregate test scores and drive away students from higher income families, then so be it—after all, profit is the only result worth measuring in the corporate world.
This is the Republican leadership agenda. Bleed the government to death and then hand everything over to Monsanto and Walmart. Meanwhile, Republican voters don’t even really understand what their leaders are up to. While the Tea Party distracts on charges of “socialism” most Republican voters actually approve of a reliable police force and firefighters—we all simply expect these services to be free and available, even self-identified anti-government conservatives.
The true irony is that Republicans send their kids to public schools like the rest of us. They send their kids to public colleges. They elbow their kids into public school sports programs proudly and with thunderous applause especially in such strong bastions of Republican conservatism as Texas.
They expect well-maintained and accessible public roads, national parks, clean water, tunnels that don’t cave in, bridges that don’t collapse, and most importantly, a military presence standing guard on the anti-immigration wall. Many of them however, like President George Bush, did not mind providing millions of federal government dollars to the financial sector. They generously offer government subsidies and incentives (corporate welfare) to businesses all across the country such as Exxon but oddly draw the line when it comes to making sure we can be treated for an illness or injury without going broke. The truth is that Republicans are the real socialists—they are selective socialists—such as Ron Paul who is the most conservative member of Congress in nearly a century receiving benefits under Medicare.
Consequently, I don’t imagine Romney’s remarks about the evils of government services like police, firefighters and public educators will resonate with those Republican voters who like us Democrats still applaud units like the NYPD and FDNY. Speaking of which, I assure you, if this had been a Democratic remark about pubic workers, the Republican response would have been a reel of every second of videotape from 9/11 crammed into a 60-second campaign commercial and aired nationally.
Too throw more gasoline on the fire since his anti-public workers remark, Romney has continued to cynically lie and attempt to weasel out of this proverbial hole he has managed to dig himself into. “Of course, teachers and firemen and policemen are hired at the local level and also by states. The federal government doesn’t pay for teachers, firefighters or policemen. So obviously that’s completely absurd.”
Ding-ding—WRONG! Clearly Romney is unaware of basic civics and how federal, state and local governments are interconnected. In addition to billions in annual federal spending designed to assist local police, firefighters and teachers, we know that Romney has been opposed to the president’s stimulus, which pumped billions of federal money into state and local treasuries in order to save the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, firefighters and police officers: $4 billion for state and local law enforcement; #2.1 billion for Head Start, $53.6 billion to prevent cuts in local school districts and state colleges. Why? Because the so-called free market failed to do so. Who else was supposed to step up?
This is part of the role of the federal government, contrary to the ridiculous position that government should be “run like a business.” Unlike businesses, government is NOT tasked with making a profit. Instead, and especially in times of economic distress, government is in a unique position to be able to provide money to the economy when no one else will. There is no question that this sometimes increases the deficit and debt. If that worries you, just take a short walk back through history to the Reagan years and the triple digit debt and doubled deficit following a considerably less serious recession.
Mitt Romney and his Tea Party allies operate under the false assumption that government is like a business. This is what really drives his distaste for spending federal money on our most crucial public servants. He says so and he needs to be asked why. A lot.
I can hardly wait to hear Mitt Romney explain that it was OK to lay of hundreds of thousand of these valuable public servants due to sate and local cutbacks. I am almost looking forward to hearing Romney tell us that we have enough teachers and firefighters and police and that in order to counteract the pro-firefighter, pro-police and pro-teacher Obama agenda, we should perhaps fire even more. After all, they are just government workers. This is what Romney, the Republicans and their Tea Party cohorts might want, especially if businesses like Bain Capital might profit from privatizing these services, but I assure you: across the political spectrum, this will prove to be the kiss of death for Republican presidential aspirations.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Donald--Romney's Trump Card
This past week, Mitt Romney finally clinched the Republican presidential nomination. Tuesday’s Texas GOP primary, a largely uncontested election especially with the conspicuous absence of Texas Congressman and perennial presidential candidate Ron Paul, formalized the former Massachusetts governor’s status as President Barack Obama’s general election challenger.
While Romney’s nomination has been virtually assured for a month, Tuesday marked the culmination of several years of work, dating back to his unsuccessful 2008 bid for the presidency and perhaps far earlier.
On the eve of the Tuesday Texas primary Romney told reporters aboard his campaign plane that “It’ll be a big day tomorrow. I’m looking forward to the good news.”
As the GOP stalwart filed into Texas voting booths however, Romney’s focus was hundreds of miles north where he was scheduled to court voters and donors in Colorado and Nevada during a two-state swing punctuated by a Las Vegas fundraiser with right wing fanatic businessman, Donald Trump. The evening event, set for the Trump International Hotel, came amidst fresh criticism from both Republicans and Democrats over Trump’s continued questioning of President Obama’s citizenship. Maybe if Trump ran for the presidency and won, stuff would get done in Congress because Trump seems to be the one force that brings Republicans and Democrats together.
Anyway, Romney has thus far failed to condemn Trump’s false claims, offering a fresh example of the presidential contender’s reluctance to confront his party’s more extreme elements. There have been other examples in recent weeks that have also served to underscore Romney’s delicate push to win over skeptical conservatives while appealing to moderates and independents who generally deliver general election victories.
Recently asked to weigh in on Trump’s support for the so-called birther movement, Romney declined to condemn Trump’s latest assertion that Obama was born in Kenya. “I don’t agree with all the people who support me,” Romney answered. “And my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” Romney told reporters before flying from California to Colorado this past Monday evening. “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”
Polling suggests that the 2012 election between candidates Romney and Obama will be close, ultimately decided more than likely by just a few swing states, Colorado, and Nevada among them. Consequently, Romney will begin campaigning in the northern Colorado town of Craig before flying to Las Vegas for an afternoon rally before the Trump fundraiser.
The seemingly endless and painful GOP primary season ended this week, to the collective relief of most of us, Republicans and Democrats alike although I must admit a sense of giddiness as I watched the Republican candidates rip into each other. For his staying power, Romney was awarded 152 delegates in Texas while his former Republican rivals Santorum and Gingrich have already endorsed him. Cantankerous to the end however, Ron Paul has refused to endorse Romney although he has halted all active campaigning. Gingrich, in fact, attended the Trump fundraiser as a Romney supporter.
Under similar circumstance last week, Romney swept all the delegates in GOP primaries in Kentucky and Arkansas and picked up more endorsements from party leaders who heretofore had been more than just a little reluctant to stand up and be counted as Romney supporters.
Romney’s meeting with Trump however has generated more interest than his tightened grasp on the Republican nomination. “I do not understand the cost benefit here” conservative commentator George Will stated on ABC’s Sunday morning news show. When asked by Jake Tapper how Romney expects the American people and the media to take him seriously when he allies himself with Trump, Will looked at Tapper for a moment as if he had not a clue and then responded, “The cost of appearing with this bloviating ignoramus is obvious it seems to me. Donald Trump is redundant evidence that if your net worth is high enough, your IQ can be very low and you can still intrude into American politics.” Will continued “Again, I don’t understand the benefit. What is Romney seeking?”
Trump revived the false claims about Obama’s birthplace last week citing a discredited story about a literary agency that mistakenly listed that Obama was born in Kenya. While Romney briefly addressed the issue Monday, his senior aide Eric Fehrnstrom also declined to condemn Trump’s remarks in a recent interview. “I can’t speak for Donald Trump,” Fehrnstrom was quoted as saying, “but I can tell you that Mitt Romney accepts that President Obama was born in the United States.” Fehrnstrom added that Romney “doesn’t view the place of his birth (Obama) as an issue in this campaign.”
Mitt Romney has been criticized on several occasions for failing to speak out against extremist rhetoric from his party. The reluctance stands in contrast to the 2008 GOP presidential nominee and current Romney supporter, Senator John McCain, R-AZ., who once corrected a supporter who called Obama a Muslim.
Campaigning in Cleveland earlier in the month, Romney did not initially respond to a supporter who suggested that Obama should be tried for treason. He said after the rally that he didn’t agree.
Some critics also claimed that Romney was slow to condemn conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh who said a college student defending President Obama’s contraception policy was “a slut.” At the time, Romney initially declined to weigh in on the issue before finally saying, “It’s not the language” he would have used.
All of this my friends, is nothing compared to the rhetoric that is to come. You can bet your ever loving last derivative on that.
While Romney’s nomination has been virtually assured for a month, Tuesday marked the culmination of several years of work, dating back to his unsuccessful 2008 bid for the presidency and perhaps far earlier.
On the eve of the Tuesday Texas primary Romney told reporters aboard his campaign plane that “It’ll be a big day tomorrow. I’m looking forward to the good news.”
As the GOP stalwart filed into Texas voting booths however, Romney’s focus was hundreds of miles north where he was scheduled to court voters and donors in Colorado and Nevada during a two-state swing punctuated by a Las Vegas fundraiser with right wing fanatic businessman, Donald Trump. The evening event, set for the Trump International Hotel, came amidst fresh criticism from both Republicans and Democrats over Trump’s continued questioning of President Obama’s citizenship. Maybe if Trump ran for the presidency and won, stuff would get done in Congress because Trump seems to be the one force that brings Republicans and Democrats together.
Anyway, Romney has thus far failed to condemn Trump’s false claims, offering a fresh example of the presidential contender’s reluctance to confront his party’s more extreme elements. There have been other examples in recent weeks that have also served to underscore Romney’s delicate push to win over skeptical conservatives while appealing to moderates and independents who generally deliver general election victories.
Recently asked to weigh in on Trump’s support for the so-called birther movement, Romney declined to condemn Trump’s latest assertion that Obama was born in Kenya. “I don’t agree with all the people who support me,” Romney answered. “And my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” Romney told reporters before flying from California to Colorado this past Monday evening. “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.”
Polling suggests that the 2012 election between candidates Romney and Obama will be close, ultimately decided more than likely by just a few swing states, Colorado, and Nevada among them. Consequently, Romney will begin campaigning in the northern Colorado town of Craig before flying to Las Vegas for an afternoon rally before the Trump fundraiser.
The seemingly endless and painful GOP primary season ended this week, to the collective relief of most of us, Republicans and Democrats alike although I must admit a sense of giddiness as I watched the Republican candidates rip into each other. For his staying power, Romney was awarded 152 delegates in Texas while his former Republican rivals Santorum and Gingrich have already endorsed him. Cantankerous to the end however, Ron Paul has refused to endorse Romney although he has halted all active campaigning. Gingrich, in fact, attended the Trump fundraiser as a Romney supporter.
Under similar circumstance last week, Romney swept all the delegates in GOP primaries in Kentucky and Arkansas and picked up more endorsements from party leaders who heretofore had been more than just a little reluctant to stand up and be counted as Romney supporters.
Romney’s meeting with Trump however has generated more interest than his tightened grasp on the Republican nomination. “I do not understand the cost benefit here” conservative commentator George Will stated on ABC’s Sunday morning news show. When asked by Jake Tapper how Romney expects the American people and the media to take him seriously when he allies himself with Trump, Will looked at Tapper for a moment as if he had not a clue and then responded, “The cost of appearing with this bloviating ignoramus is obvious it seems to me. Donald Trump is redundant evidence that if your net worth is high enough, your IQ can be very low and you can still intrude into American politics.” Will continued “Again, I don’t understand the benefit. What is Romney seeking?”
Trump revived the false claims about Obama’s birthplace last week citing a discredited story about a literary agency that mistakenly listed that Obama was born in Kenya. While Romney briefly addressed the issue Monday, his senior aide Eric Fehrnstrom also declined to condemn Trump’s remarks in a recent interview. “I can’t speak for Donald Trump,” Fehrnstrom was quoted as saying, “but I can tell you that Mitt Romney accepts that President Obama was born in the United States.” Fehrnstrom added that Romney “doesn’t view the place of his birth (Obama) as an issue in this campaign.”
Mitt Romney has been criticized on several occasions for failing to speak out against extremist rhetoric from his party. The reluctance stands in contrast to the 2008 GOP presidential nominee and current Romney supporter, Senator John McCain, R-AZ., who once corrected a supporter who called Obama a Muslim.
Campaigning in Cleveland earlier in the month, Romney did not initially respond to a supporter who suggested that Obama should be tried for treason. He said after the rally that he didn’t agree.
Some critics also claimed that Romney was slow to condemn conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh who said a college student defending President Obama’s contraception policy was “a slut.” At the time, Romney initially declined to weigh in on the issue before finally saying, “It’s not the language” he would have used.
All of this my friends, is nothing compared to the rhetoric that is to come. You can bet your ever loving last derivative on that.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
My Memorial Day 2012
In Washington, D.C., adjacent to the many towering white marble monuments and memorials that populate that city, there is a wall of black, polished marble. It emerges, “like a gash,” some have said, from the ground and, after making an angular turn, at length returns to the ground once again. On the dark face of that wall are inscribed the names of 58, 132 men and women from the American armed services who either died, or were reported and remain missing in action, during the war in Vietnam.
This is the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The dedication reads: “In honor of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States who served in the Vietnam War. The names of those who gave their lives and of those who remain missing are inscribed in the order that they were taken from us.” Since its opening in 1985, the Wall has been visited by hundreds of thousands of Americans—families and friends of the dead and missing, visiting sightseers in our nation’s capital, and veterans. They all come to remember the war that over its ten year duration claimed a heavy butcher’s bill from America in money, material, time and energy but most of all lives—the war which became, as many claim, “the only war America ever lost.”
Unlike the other monuments in Washington, the Vietnam Memorial has become a type of depository of personal memories to the war dead from their families, friends and brothers in arms and sometimes, even from strangers. Every day, personal notes and other items of significance to the living and the dead are left behind in the cracks between the large black panels of the monument, or on the fringe of green lawn in front of it. These have been collected and stored in a warehouse and have recently begun to be sifted through by writers and edited into publications like The Wall and Shrapnel in the Heart.
Vietnam memorials come in all forms, expressing all types of emotions: pride, anger, frustration, discouragement,sadness and loss, just to name a few.
My first commanding officer in Vietnam was Lieutenant Edsall Frick, killed in action in 1968. The first time I ever set eyes on the wall, I frantically searched out his name in the huge telephone book like directory (there are several), located the panel on which his name had been mounted and found this message from a previous visitor, “Finally, America has awakened and taken home those of us who live and remember you and all the others…I kept your spirit alive till America woke up Sir. I’m done. Rest well my friend, my Lieutenant.”
Another message to another fallen comrade is etched in my memory as deeply as it is carved on the wall, “Still don’t know why. Think you guys may be better off. Strange…”
In many ways these personal messages are a unique dimension in the American experience of remembering those who have made the supreme sacrifice of their lives in our military services. Yet Vietnam still falls in the shadows of the dark, looming question: Why?
In wars fought previous to Vietnam, Americans at least believed they knew what they were fighting and dying for. But my war, the Vietnam War, has no name because there has never been a consensus as to why we fought and died there.
As American soldiers, sailors and air force personnel return from the war in Iraq, and with the soon and hoped for return of our forces from Afghanistan, a discussion of how Americans returning from Vietnam were and have been treated is timely and its significance for our country and for all of us as citizens is appropriate to discuss.
The war in Vietnam ended in 1975, with the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese army. But because of the great conflict and confusion that arose during the war and continued in its aftermath, not only were the veterans often ignored or even hated by their country, but the dead were left without a memorial expressing the appreciation and gratitude which the American people have in the past so freely demonstrated toward their fallen warriors.
The monument we visit today was at last erected in 1985, paid for by the private contributions of citizens, among them many veterans and their families as well as the families of those who had fallen. The time had finally come to speak about the war in Southeast Asia and about those men and women who gave their lives in the conflict. The outpouring of private messages and gifts at the Wall is one indication of how eager so many were to break the silence and raise a memorial to the dead, and in so doing attempt to come to grips with the conflict, confusion and hurt of both personal and national loss.
The more than 58,000 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial represent many personal tragedies but an even greater national tragedy is seen in the fact that the whole generation of Vietnam-era veterans has fallen under a cloud of shame and dishonor and recent efforts to set the record straight have done little to rectify this injustice.
Perhaps, you like me, have wondered why mere exposure to the realities of war, which have never changed, and to the personal losses that result, which again are the constant for those in combat, seemed to shock and dismay those who sit on the sidelines and have never had to try and wriggle their way into the ground to avoid a direct mortar hit, or watch the body of a brother in arms totally disintegrate right in front of them. As long as we kill each other on the field of battle, there will be examples of cruelty and what some might consider dishonor. The thing to keep in mind however is that those acts of isolated loss of control are credibly overshadowed by the thousands of acts of courage, civility and humanity as exhibited by our fighting men and women over and over again.
So have a hotdog for me this Memorial Day 2012, and say a silent prayer for those of our country who are still in the battle of their lives in places like Afghanistan. Pray that they too can come home, that their sacrifice will not be forgotten, or worse, undermined. Most important, let us all as a people work so that Memorial Day 2013 will find no American dying on foreign soil.
This is the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. The dedication reads: “In honor of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States who served in the Vietnam War. The names of those who gave their lives and of those who remain missing are inscribed in the order that they were taken from us.” Since its opening in 1985, the Wall has been visited by hundreds of thousands of Americans—families and friends of the dead and missing, visiting sightseers in our nation’s capital, and veterans. They all come to remember the war that over its ten year duration claimed a heavy butcher’s bill from America in money, material, time and energy but most of all lives—the war which became, as many claim, “the only war America ever lost.”
Unlike the other monuments in Washington, the Vietnam Memorial has become a type of depository of personal memories to the war dead from their families, friends and brothers in arms and sometimes, even from strangers. Every day, personal notes and other items of significance to the living and the dead are left behind in the cracks between the large black panels of the monument, or on the fringe of green lawn in front of it. These have been collected and stored in a warehouse and have recently begun to be sifted through by writers and edited into publications like The Wall and Shrapnel in the Heart.
Vietnam memorials come in all forms, expressing all types of emotions: pride, anger, frustration, discouragement,sadness and loss, just to name a few.
My first commanding officer in Vietnam was Lieutenant Edsall Frick, killed in action in 1968. The first time I ever set eyes on the wall, I frantically searched out his name in the huge telephone book like directory (there are several), located the panel on which his name had been mounted and found this message from a previous visitor, “Finally, America has awakened and taken home those of us who live and remember you and all the others…I kept your spirit alive till America woke up Sir. I’m done. Rest well my friend, my Lieutenant.”
Another message to another fallen comrade is etched in my memory as deeply as it is carved on the wall, “Still don’t know why. Think you guys may be better off. Strange…”
In many ways these personal messages are a unique dimension in the American experience of remembering those who have made the supreme sacrifice of their lives in our military services. Yet Vietnam still falls in the shadows of the dark, looming question: Why?
In wars fought previous to Vietnam, Americans at least believed they knew what they were fighting and dying for. But my war, the Vietnam War, has no name because there has never been a consensus as to why we fought and died there.
As American soldiers, sailors and air force personnel return from the war in Iraq, and with the soon and hoped for return of our forces from Afghanistan, a discussion of how Americans returning from Vietnam were and have been treated is timely and its significance for our country and for all of us as citizens is appropriate to discuss.
The war in Vietnam ended in 1975, with the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese army. But because of the great conflict and confusion that arose during the war and continued in its aftermath, not only were the veterans often ignored or even hated by their country, but the dead were left without a memorial expressing the appreciation and gratitude which the American people have in the past so freely demonstrated toward their fallen warriors.
The monument we visit today was at last erected in 1985, paid for by the private contributions of citizens, among them many veterans and their families as well as the families of those who had fallen. The time had finally come to speak about the war in Southeast Asia and about those men and women who gave their lives in the conflict. The outpouring of private messages and gifts at the Wall is one indication of how eager so many were to break the silence and raise a memorial to the dead, and in so doing attempt to come to grips with the conflict, confusion and hurt of both personal and national loss.
The more than 58,000 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial represent many personal tragedies but an even greater national tragedy is seen in the fact that the whole generation of Vietnam-era veterans has fallen under a cloud of shame and dishonor and recent efforts to set the record straight have done little to rectify this injustice.
Perhaps, you like me, have wondered why mere exposure to the realities of war, which have never changed, and to the personal losses that result, which again are the constant for those in combat, seemed to shock and dismay those who sit on the sidelines and have never had to try and wriggle their way into the ground to avoid a direct mortar hit, or watch the body of a brother in arms totally disintegrate right in front of them. As long as we kill each other on the field of battle, there will be examples of cruelty and what some might consider dishonor. The thing to keep in mind however is that those acts of isolated loss of control are credibly overshadowed by the thousands of acts of courage, civility and humanity as exhibited by our fighting men and women over and over again.
So have a hotdog for me this Memorial Day 2012, and say a silent prayer for those of our country who are still in the battle of their lives in places like Afghanistan. Pray that they too can come home, that their sacrifice will not be forgotten, or worse, undermined. Most important, let us all as a people work so that Memorial Day 2013 will find no American dying on foreign soil.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Here Today----Gone Tomorrow
When the late great Washington, DC radio jazz disc jockey, Felix Grant, spoke about his initial success in convincing ABC to keep him on the air but then they ultimately fired him, he remarked, “I won the battle, but lost the war.”
Despite popular opinion, the Tea Party actually cost Republicans Senate seats in 2010 and they are poised to provide Democrats another gift in 2012. Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, a poster child right wing attack dog, supported by the Tea Party, upset a united GOP establishment Senator, this time in Indiana. Now, the same GOP establishment who had their head handed to them in a teacup will want Indiana voters to think that Mourdock is a strong and reasonable candidate in a historically red state. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The reality is, Mourdock is a Tea Party extremist who makes Sarah Palin look like Eleanor Roosevelt and Indiana voters in the upcoming general election will reject him just as voters rejected the likes of Ken Buck, Sharron Angle and God save us all, Christine O’Donnell.
Richard Mourdock has put Tea Party politics and his own career ahead of Hoosier jobs time and time again. His position is in sync with the GOP in general and the Tea Party specifically. In this still struggling economy, Mr. Mourdock and his Tea Party cohorts reject protecting and creating jobs in favor of politics. When fighting against the Obama administration’s efforts to rescue the crashing and burning Chrysler Corporation he shared with reporters, “I didn’t take a pledge that I would support every job in Indiana” and later referred to his opposition to the effort to save Chrysler as his “Rosa Parks moment” because he knew that there would be consequences to him turning his back on thousands of Chrysler auto workers. First, for someone like Richard Mourdock to invoke the memory of Rosa Parks as analogous to any position he might take spits on the memory and life of this remarkable woman while trivializing the issues of the American Civil Rights movement.
Indiana is the most manufacturing dependent state in America. Hoosiers will likely respond to this assertion that their elected officials shouldn’t defend their jobs as well as Nevadans did to Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle’s insistence that those worried about job creation should call someone else and that it simply was not her job to protect the economy of the great state of Nevada.
Polling is one of those sciences wherein you can make the results fit whatever position you are trying to support vis-à-vis a poll. One issue however goes against that grain and that is the reality that Americans today want more bipartisanship from their legislators. With an elitist attitude that operates in complete opposition to that desire, Richard Mourdock has pandered to his Tea Party base by referring to bipartisanship as “part of the problem” (Probably taken from a page in Ronald Reagan’s strategy when he uttered the words, “Government is not part of the solution, it is the problem”). In his written statement on the night of the election, Senator Lugar said this about Mourdock: “He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate.’
Mourdoc’s playing to the base worked in the Indiana Republican Party, but as Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell discovered, it could all collapse for him in the general election. With Tea Party approval in Indiana in the 30s, Mourdock will face a long and exhausting campaign defending his beliefs that Social Security, the U.S. Department of Education and Medicare (among other things) are unconstitutional; his call for a national sales tax that would raise taxes on 80% of Hoosiers; or the two million dollars he spent as Indiana’s state treasurer when he took his challenge to the Chrysler rescue to the Supreme Court.
Since 2010, we have all witnessed the impact of the Tea Party in Congress: an angry, divisive body politic where bipartisanship and solutions are not the goal. Extremist legislation like the Ryan budget, which would end the Medicare guarantee and slash medical care for veterans passes the House with ease. Nationally however, Tea Party popularity is declining because Americans across the country recognize that extreme candidates aren’t interested in results. So, ultimately these same candidates will risk vulnerability in a 2012 general election contest.
Meanwhile, Democrats have a candidate in Indiana ready for the general election. Joe Donnelly withstood the Republican wave of 2010 in a Republican congressional district while facing well over $2 million spent against him by third parties and Super Pacs. Joe Donnelly knows what it takes to win under the most difficult of circumstances. Richard Mourdock meanwhile struggled to build a steady state-driven campaign operation and consequently relied mostly on outside dollars and support—much as Ken Buck did in Colorado in 2010.
While Richard Mourdock struggles to find ways to back off his extreme Tea Party record, Joe Donnelly already has a strong record of standing with Hoosier working families. Indiana’s middle class wants someone who will fight for them—not a knee jerk conservative ideology. This is why unlike with my friend the late Felix Grant who won the battle but ultimately lost the war¸ Joe Donnelly will be elected to the United States Senate in Indiana and on a national scale, President Barak Obama will be re-elected to the American presidency.
Despite popular opinion, the Tea Party actually cost Republicans Senate seats in 2010 and they are poised to provide Democrats another gift in 2012. Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, a poster child right wing attack dog, supported by the Tea Party, upset a united GOP establishment Senator, this time in Indiana. Now, the same GOP establishment who had their head handed to them in a teacup will want Indiana voters to think that Mourdock is a strong and reasonable candidate in a historically red state. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The reality is, Mourdock is a Tea Party extremist who makes Sarah Palin look like Eleanor Roosevelt and Indiana voters in the upcoming general election will reject him just as voters rejected the likes of Ken Buck, Sharron Angle and God save us all, Christine O’Donnell.
Richard Mourdock has put Tea Party politics and his own career ahead of Hoosier jobs time and time again. His position is in sync with the GOP in general and the Tea Party specifically. In this still struggling economy, Mr. Mourdock and his Tea Party cohorts reject protecting and creating jobs in favor of politics. When fighting against the Obama administration’s efforts to rescue the crashing and burning Chrysler Corporation he shared with reporters, “I didn’t take a pledge that I would support every job in Indiana” and later referred to his opposition to the effort to save Chrysler as his “Rosa Parks moment” because he knew that there would be consequences to him turning his back on thousands of Chrysler auto workers. First, for someone like Richard Mourdock to invoke the memory of Rosa Parks as analogous to any position he might take spits on the memory and life of this remarkable woman while trivializing the issues of the American Civil Rights movement.
Indiana is the most manufacturing dependent state in America. Hoosiers will likely respond to this assertion that their elected officials shouldn’t defend their jobs as well as Nevadans did to Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle’s insistence that those worried about job creation should call someone else and that it simply was not her job to protect the economy of the great state of Nevada.
Polling is one of those sciences wherein you can make the results fit whatever position you are trying to support vis-à-vis a poll. One issue however goes against that grain and that is the reality that Americans today want more bipartisanship from their legislators. With an elitist attitude that operates in complete opposition to that desire, Richard Mourdock has pandered to his Tea Party base by referring to bipartisanship as “part of the problem” (Probably taken from a page in Ronald Reagan’s strategy when he uttered the words, “Government is not part of the solution, it is the problem”). In his written statement on the night of the election, Senator Lugar said this about Mourdock: “He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate.’
Mourdoc’s playing to the base worked in the Indiana Republican Party, but as Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell discovered, it could all collapse for him in the general election. With Tea Party approval in Indiana in the 30s, Mourdock will face a long and exhausting campaign defending his beliefs that Social Security, the U.S. Department of Education and Medicare (among other things) are unconstitutional; his call for a national sales tax that would raise taxes on 80% of Hoosiers; or the two million dollars he spent as Indiana’s state treasurer when he took his challenge to the Chrysler rescue to the Supreme Court.
Since 2010, we have all witnessed the impact of the Tea Party in Congress: an angry, divisive body politic where bipartisanship and solutions are not the goal. Extremist legislation like the Ryan budget, which would end the Medicare guarantee and slash medical care for veterans passes the House with ease. Nationally however, Tea Party popularity is declining because Americans across the country recognize that extreme candidates aren’t interested in results. So, ultimately these same candidates will risk vulnerability in a 2012 general election contest.
Meanwhile, Democrats have a candidate in Indiana ready for the general election. Joe Donnelly withstood the Republican wave of 2010 in a Republican congressional district while facing well over $2 million spent against him by third parties and Super Pacs. Joe Donnelly knows what it takes to win under the most difficult of circumstances. Richard Mourdock meanwhile struggled to build a steady state-driven campaign operation and consequently relied mostly on outside dollars and support—much as Ken Buck did in Colorado in 2010.
While Richard Mourdock struggles to find ways to back off his extreme Tea Party record, Joe Donnelly already has a strong record of standing with Hoosier working families. Indiana’s middle class wants someone who will fight for them—not a knee jerk conservative ideology. This is why unlike with my friend the late Felix Grant who won the battle but ultimately lost the war¸ Joe Donnelly will be elected to the United States Senate in Indiana and on a national scale, President Barak Obama will be re-elected to the American presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
