Question: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
Answer: YES, Mr. ROMNEY, AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE ARE BETTER OFF THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO!
Four years ago, we were looking into the abyss. Four years ago, Wall Street and the banks were trembling. Four years ago, the American automobile industry was on the eve of destruction. Every job associated with the auto industry was about to go away. Forever. Four years ago, we were fighting two wars. No end in sight. Or was it three wars? It’s hard to remember. Four years seems like a long time. Hard to remember what it was like. It’s like a nightmare that we woke up from. A catastrophic plane crash that we walked away from. YES, the truth is, we are better off.
“I will find a way or make one.” — Admiral Robert E. Peary, American explorer
“As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.” — Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
By all accounts, Chief Justice John Roberts believes that the Supreme Court of the U.S. should try to find a way to uphold a law enacted by Congress, rather than declare it unconstitutional. In other words, declare a Congressional act unconstitutional only if it really is unconstitutional.
Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Supreme Court decision today on the Affordable Care Act, AKA “Obamacare,” shocked my system. It was the first jolt of optimism about the future of America that I’d felt in months. And I hadn’t expected to have any reaction at all.
Chief Justice John Roberts is the man of the hour. With one stroke he won for himself a place in American history.
I can’t claim full understanding of the High Court’s ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act. My gut reaction is it changes everything. It goes far beyond the legal issues at hand. This ruling might be the turning point that saves the American system.
Thank God! Finally, a hand reached out in humanity and compassion to innocent young people! It’s limited compassion, but it’s a step toward forgiveness of young people persecuted for doing nothing wrong except being the children of their parents.
President Barack Obama is announcing today a reprieve for 800,000 children of immigrant parents. No deportation for two years, for those who qualify.
The hand of compassion the President offers by executive order is temporary. A two-year reprieve. The young people will continue to live in anxiety about the future. And they will carry a sorrowful burden of worry about their parents and grandparents. The two-year reprieve offers no “path to citizenship.” Not for the children, and certainly not for the adults. These young people remain children without a country.
What will be the backlash? Will Americans demand that parents and grandparents be deported as a sacrifice for the lives of their children? Is President Obama sacrificing his presidency? Can Republicans tolerate a little compassion?
The irony is that these children of hard-working immigrants can play a critical role in the future strength and greatness of the United States.
Tonight’s Republican presidential debate on CNN was introduced as a sensational TV extravaganza, complete with a wildly cheering audience. My first impression was that American politics has descended to the level of one or all of the following:
Gladiators fighting to the death for the entertainment of spectators in a coliseum.
A reality television show devoid all meaning and without redeeming social value.
A Super Bowl without the great commercials, cheerleaders, and halftime show.
Is it possible to lower the standards any further? You had only to wait for the sponsors of the first two commercials:
Movies on Demand: “Watch Lady Gaga anytime.”
Wrestle Mania.
Despite the demeaning atmosphere of the televised debate, I thought the four candidates made strong efforts to focus on important issues of government and character.
Imagine, if you can, the words that would describe each of the four candidates in a high school yearbook:
Mitt Romney — “Mr. Handsome” and “Most likely to succeed in business.”
New Gingrich — “Debating Team Champion” and “Most likely to steal your girlfriend.”
Rick Santorum — “Mr. Personality” and “Most religious.”
Ron Paul — “Most Intellectual” and “Most likely to succeed in medical school.”
I’m a true-blue Democrat, so I make no claim to objectivity. In my opinion, President Barack Obama would most easily defeat either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.
If the Republican candidate is Mr. Gingrich, I fear that the election will turn ugly and racist. Mr. Gingrich makes no attempt to hide his disdain for President Obama and all African-Americans. I think a Gingrich campaign would bring to the surface a great deal of racism. I’m afraid a significant segment of the country would rally to Mr. Gingrich, but the majority would be so repulsed by the blatant racism that Mr. Obama would win easily.
If the Republican candidate is Mr. Romney, the divide between Romney’s wealth and his brand of vulture capitalism will contrast so sharply with the fortunes and values of working people, the election might indeed resemble “class warfare.” I believe that Mr. Obama would defeat Mr. Romney in a landslide of possibly historic proportions.
An election between either President Obama and former Sen. Santorum, or Obama and Rep. Ron Paul, would provide American voters with a clear and honest choice. I think both Santorum and Paul are strong advocates of a strong conservative tradition in American politics. President Obama would be favored over either of them at the outset of the campaign. But both Santorum and Paul ane impressive men and either one of them might close the margin to 50-50 during the fall campaign. I see Obama, Santorum and Paul all as wholesome role models for American young people, and probably qualified and competent for the high and demanding office of president of the United States.
A campaign featuring Ron Paul would be quite an educational experience for the American people, probably offering the clearest and least emotional discussion of the issues. Mr. Paul is the longshot, but his ability to answer nearly any question concisely and with clear logic, without dodging, is refreshing and enlightening. I think Mr. Paul and Mr. Obama, as opponents, might bring out the best in each other and in American politics.
Before the age of television and internet, it was believed that the American people most wanted a strong, trusted father figure or grandfather figure as president. Mr. Obama occupies the White House as a family man in the “Father Knows Best” tradition that warms the American heart.
Let me finish on a light note by asking which of the Republican candidates you would be willing to leave your grandchildren with over a long weekend? Here’s my reaction to that question:
Mitt Romney — A trusted family man, a good role model, he can easily afford to feed the kids well for the weekend. The drawback is he might spoil them with a lifestyle the children will never again experience.
Ron Santorum — Certainly! Mr. Santorum is an excellent role model and would make a fine church youth leader. He’d take the children to church, picnics, and a baseball game. An All-American weekend.
Ron Paul — The best grandfather figure, kindly and intellectual. He might introduce the kids to logic or science, or just take them to a good G-rated movie and have a relaxed family weekend.
Newt Gingrich — Mr. Gingrich can be very entertaining. He’s a man of the world and a brilliant scholar. I wouldn’t let the children anywhere near Mr. Gingrich. I wouldn’t want the kids picking up any bad habits.
CAN ANY PRESIDENT REALLY "CREATE JOBS?" Public domain photo, Wikimedia Commons
See if you can find any cause-and-effect relationship in this repartee from Wednesday’s televised debate among Republican presidential candidates:
Moderator Brian Williams: “Gov. Romney . . . Massachusetts ranked only 47th in job creation during your tenure as governor . . .”
MITT ROMNEY
Gov. Mitt Romney: “We created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president (Barack Obama) has created in the entire country . . .”
Gov. Richard Perry: “We created more jobs in the last three months in Texas than he created in four years in Massachusetts . . .”
Perry: “. . . Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt.”
RICK PERRY
Romney: “Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, Governor.”
We are doomed if we base our debate about the economic crisis on a fallacy. The fallacy is that a governor or a president can create jobs, or fail to create jobs.
Truth is, the president of the U.S. and the governors of the states can not and do not directly create jobs, nor do they have any but the most ephemeral impact on economic conditions and events that affect jobs in the private sector.
If a governor decided by himself to add an employee to his executive staff, then I suppose you could give the governor credit for creating one job. If a governor decides to add a new bureaucratic agency, consisting of 100 state employees, then I suppose you could credit him with creating 100 jobs.
But the president and the governors do not have it within their power to add or subtract a single job from the private economy. Even the Federal Reserve Board has only feeble power to affect the economy, through manipulation of interest rates and money supply, and the FED is independent of the president and Congress.
Congress has limited power to indirectly stimulate the economy by increasing government spending. But just now, spending is out of favor, and many politicians and voters support cutting government spending and debt.
The only way government can directly impact private job creation is by funding a project or a program that must hire workers in the private sector. For example, the government could decide to build a bridge, or a water system. The government would contract with private business to build the bridge, and the business would hire workers.
Presto! New jobs are really created to build the bridge! That’s a direct cause and effect between the bridge and new jobs. Plus, the bridge project and its workers have a ripple effect, adding more jobs in the community, and perhaps opening up the property on the other side of the bridge to new economic development. Simple, no?
The mob is clamoring for a big, definitive “plan” to “create” JOBS.
The problem is, we are all yearning for a return to the prosperity and good jobs of the 1950s. A return to Middle-class America. That model of American prosperity lasted for a half-century, even as it was eroding away. That model lasted through the inflating 1970s, the greedy 1980s and the bubbling 1990s.
The middle-class model of America, with good-paying jobs all around — it’s over. We aren’t going back to the 1950s. It’s impossible. That’s where President Barack Obama’s JOBS plan has got to start. Continue reading →
Will the next election be a “culture war?” Looks like. Please read Jon Taplin’s latest post, “Bring On The Culture War.”
“Bring on this culture war to end all culture wars. We need a real clear decision. Do we (all the people, not some of the people) want to move towards Rick Perry’s vision on the future or Barack Obama’s vision of the future. Down Perry’s road lies a world where gays stay in the closet, women are submissive, where Social Security is abandoned to the care of Wall Street (for a big fee), and where we keep trying to play the role of policeman of the world.
Pretty much the opposite would be what Obama believes. So let’s choose as a country.” — Jon Taplin
At stake in the 2012 culture-war election, of course, is nothing less than the future of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Will America be a democracy of the people, or an aristocracy of the wealthy and powerful? Will we have a middle-class in America, or a deep divide between wealth and poverty?
Are people willing to give President Obama a fair hearing, or are they predisposed to hate the man?
At rock bottom, the interlocking political and financial structures of the U.S. are based on trust. Recently, a string of financial failures has shaken the credibility of the U.S. political-financial-industrial complex, resulting in a rapidly spreading failure of trust.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, Wikimedia Commons photo
Trust is frayed to the point where, at the end of this week, Speaker John Boehner severed negotiations with President Barack Obama on raising the U.S. debt ceiling and averting financial crisis. At this point, you really couldn’t call the Tea Party a party of “loyal opposition.”
Question:What do you think will happen when the government is forced, starting August 2, to choose which bills to pay and which bills to default on— which promises to keep and which promises to break?
Answer:I wouldn’t be surprised if a Wildcat Debt Strike sweeps across the U.S. like a prairie fire in the fall.
Consider the events that brought us to this convergence:
SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER, Wikimedia Commons photo
Strike One — The financial bubble burst, and Wall Street persuaded the pillars of the U.S. government — the Treasury Department, the President, the Congress — that the world economy would collapse without a sudden government bailout. (Presidential candidates of both parties endorsed the bailout in 2008.) Wall Street extorted billions under TARP, but continued to pay bonuses as usual to Wall Street executives. In 2009, billions more were spent in a giant stimulus package, propping up the profits and cash reserves of corporations and the compensation packages for CEOs.
Strike Two — The real estate bubble burst, and banks throughout the U.S. foreclosed on mortgages, further driving down the value of houses. As people found their mortgages underwater (that is, the mortgage is worth more than the house), they considered whether or not to continue making the monthly payment. Some homeowners lost jobs and were unable to pay; some calculated that it made no sense to throw good money after a bad house. It is now widely accepted that people can and will walk away from a mortgage. Banks are not willing to modify impossible mortgages, and debtors are not willing to pay impossible mortgages.
Strike Three — The debt bubble bursts. That comes in August, if the U.S. government decides not to pay its bills, especially its obligations to individual American citizens.
It’s all reciprocal, isn’t it? I’ll play fair with you as long as you play fair with me. As long as my house has value, I’ll continue to pay my mortgage. As long as you pay me, I’ll pay my debts.
Everything depends on our belief in the myths that George Washington will own up to cutting down the cherry tree; and that Abe Lincoln will walk six miles to return a penny.
The entire system could come undone in a cascade of individual decisions to hoard cash and ignore debts. When the government refuses to pay someone — whether it be a Social Security beneficiary, a veteran, a bureaucrat, a soldier, or a Medicare bill to a hospital — that someone will in turn refuse to pay an obligation.
The autumn of 2011 might deteriorate into a general Wildcat Debt Strike, with individuals following the government into spontaneous default on taxes, mortgages, car payments, and most of all, credit card bills.
President Barack Obama floated a trial balloon on the front page of the Washington Post on Thursday, in a long story that said the President is prepared to discuss cuts to both Medicare and Social Security. As the headline put it, Medicare and Social Security are “on the table,” otherwise known as the chopping block. No one quoted in the story was willing to have their name attached to the information.
In the whole, long newspaper story, the words “defense” and “defense cuts” were never mentioned. Not once. What? You mean Medicare and Social Security are on the table, but the elephantine defense budget is not? It’s not credible, not believable.
As Obama was supposedly preparing to sacrifice Medicare and Social Security, Republicans repeated their long-stated position: Tax increases for the rich are NOT “on the table.” Republicans allowed as how they might be willing to wheel and deal on tax breaks and loopholes, so long as the net effect is no increase in taxes on the rich.
Also yesterday, AARP, the largest organization representing senior citizens, made its position clear: The AARP opposes any cuts in Medicare and Social Security.
So, the lines are clearly drawn in the class war to divide up what’s left of the American Dream. The rich and powerful have made clear they will accept nothing less than total victory over the middle class and poor. President Obama hints he might be a willing accomplice in the cashing out of Medicare and Social Security. If so, it would be a presidential betrayal of the American people on a historic scale.
Could President Obama possibly be serious about caving in to the rich and powerful on both Medicare and Social Security? Plus a player to be named later, Medicaid?
I hope the President is not serious. To balance the budget by cutting Medicare and Social Security for the middle class and the poor, while at the same time refusing to raise taxes on the rich by a single penny, would be a craven injustice. Remember, the rich are paying tiny taxes, compared to what they have paid historically, and their wealth continues to expand, in a continuing social transfer of assets from bottom to top.
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the American budget that could not be remedied by modest tax increases on the wealthy, accompanied by modest spending cuts in the defense budget. That’s what should be “on the table.”
I hope Obama floated this balloon simply to highlight how outrageous it would be to force the middle class and the poor to pay for the financial crisis created by the rich and powerful. In any event, the trial balloon provided an easy target for Democrats in Congress to shoot down.
Do you suppose that anyone is negotiating in good faith as the clock ticks down to financial default by the U.S. government? If U.S. leaders fail to behave responsibly, the hard times ahead could test the fabric of American society like never before.
Living Simply And Still On The Grid 