Six True Things Politicians Can’t Say (via The Weekly Sift)
Worth a read.
via The Weekly Sift
Cheri’s Hypothesis
http://cherishypothesis.blogspot.com/
Declaration of Independents
It seems if political pundits of either ilk talk about the “Independent” voter, they nearly always follow with some chart, survey, or statistic discounting the existence of Independent voters. Instead, they are referred to as “Democrats in Independent clothing” or “Closeted Republican.” At least, I think that’s what they mean by the latter.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should confess I am a registered Independent in the state of Florida & have been for some time now. I will also tell you what I am about to share has nothing to do with any other party or person. If it did, you would be justified in calling me out since the basis of my retort is my independent voter status, and accordingly I do not act as spokesperson for any other, nor do I request they speak for me. Hence, the moniker “Independent.” As such, I’ve decided to clarify my decision to register as an Independent.
My Declaration of Independent Voter Status:
When in the course of the elections process in the United States of America, a candidate is aligned with the most extreme elements of a party in order to form a more perfect nomination, only to move back to the middle of the political spectrum when faced with the opposing party’s extreme nominee, the people, by virtue of natural rights endowed upon them by their creator to think and act freely, may dissolve and render moot their contract with any party to which they may be allied. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are guaranteed to the individual, therefore it is the individual who must take accountability for actions such as voting that bear direct consequences on the security of these rights. If integrity is of greater importance than the obligation to espouse the shifting stance of a party’s candidate through an election cycle, remaining affiliated with a party becomes a liability rather than an asset to the individual. In such case, the moral obligation is to remove externally manipulated forms of obligation in order to ensure and accept sole responsibility for choices one makes on Election Day.
The results of such divestiture from any party affiliation are and should be sole accountability for one’s choice; an ability to weigh current conditions necessitating government action or inaction and what form they should take; and the freedom to make your final choice as it was intended in the legally protected sanctity of a voting booth.
Today, Republicans are being defined by the most extreme elements of their party. Certainly, the Republican Progressives of the early 20th century are less willing to speak out in the GOP of today. Democrats are currently demonstrating a greater willingness to be more central in their actions, but their is no guarantee they won’t shift to the extreme if given the chance to pursue a greater number of voters inhabiting that portion of the political spectrum. Balance is difficult to find in the disparate and numerous directives from different political strains within the US. Choosing to be Independent puts both parties on notice your vote is not automatic. It requires a reasoned argument and the promise from the candidate to remain reasonable once they reach office, and not to cleave to an ideology when circumstances present themselves requiring contrary actions.
“Patriotism,” despite its obfuscation and manipulation in party rhetoric simply means a commitment to remain engaged in the political process, protecting it from all dangers foreign and domestic. Practicing free speech and dissension is one of the greatest acts of patriotism in America because freedom of expression is this nation’s foundation. Self-empowerment leads to control over one’s own life and future. The liberty to express oneself without conflicting loyalties empowers. Playing a part in one’s own destiny gives meaning and meaning imparts happiness.
Whether or not statistics suggest my choice for independent voter status merely disguises an allegiance to one party or the other, the action itself carries a greater message: I am exercising my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and accepting sole responsibility for my success or failure in maintaining that right.
Earn my vote.
When Two Sides on the Same Coin Fight
Fighting based on theory and politics oftentimes causes both sides to carry the argument beyond reality. Like the child in the custody battle that Solomon orders cut in half, it sometimes takes drastic measures to snap your neck around to face what’s been left behind. I recently ran across a TED Talk by Mike Rowe from 2008 that resonated with me and I believe it may be relevant to the extremes seen in the political arena lately.
Sit back & hear his story in the context of understanding personal responsibility; that no labor is unskilled; and without the other side, that coin you’re on would be worthless.
7 Deadly Sins in Virtuous Clothing
Governor Perry mentioned 7 ways he would change the Constitution in his book Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America From Washington. Considering he took the time to write these in a book, which boasts proofreaders, editors, publishers, etc., who all read it over, he must have given these seven ideas considerable thought.
For that reason, I think it only fair to give 7 reasons why each of his 7 considered conclusions is dead wrong:
- Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution. Perry’s argument that judges are unaccountable to the people demonstrates his lack of understanding checks & balances built into the Constitution. The judicial branch can interpret law any way it sees fit. In a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court, they could literally interpret a law to mean the sky is officially yellow. Seriously. This sounds pretty powerful. However, our system takes this into account by leaving in the hands of the President the responsibility of enforcing these laws. A President may decide to issue an Executive Order countermanding the newly interpreted law, and if the Courts simply re-interpret the Order, he or she may decide against enforcing it altogether. This is actually a common practice at all levels of government as arcane laws remain on the books as a result of negligence and current priority. The Court is powerless to rule on an issue until it is brought before them. In short, they have a powerful bark without the bite. If the Executive proves unwilling or unable to act, the Legislative still wields Articles of Impeachment Powers. The reason for keeping the judiciary out of the direct line of fire from voters is to keep it an apolitical body not subject to the whimsical pandering common in the election cycle.
- Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote. Uh…that’s a big “no.” Congress already has the power to override an Executive’s veto, now he wants to give the Legislative power over the Judicial? The legislative branch is empowered to write laws & to repeal them. If the Court rules a certain way, it is far easier for Congress to enact new legislation or repeal prior legislation than to gain a 2/3 majority to overrule a decision. As noted above, the checks & balances are already in place. Perry seems to advocate checks & imbalance. Schnook.
- Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. The federal income tax, hated as it is, gives government the ability raise revenue in a progressive manner. Is it manipulated? Yes. Is that fair? No. Still, you don’t remove a tax system that has overseen a broadening of the middle class and made the slope to wealth a gradual one, rather than one divided by large gaps as occurs in regressive tax systems where unfair taxation is built into it. Reform through transparency and simplification is a much wiser approach. Further, whether or not you agree with leadership and the recent wars, there are times when war presents itself, and it is the undisputed duty of government to “provide for the common defense,” something requiring the ability to raise revenue.
- End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. Okay, Governor Perry, which do you want: Accountability or not? First, he wants judges held to greater political scrutiny, and Senators to return to the days of state appointment. I have to wonder why he focuses on limiting a judiciary that recognized the state’s rights to allow abortion while consolidating the power of a state over the appointment of Senators, which incidentally has a majority of the opposite party. Is it possible he sees the Constitution as a political instrument rather than document?
- Require the federal government to balance its budget every year. Why is this more important than ensuring the government has the means to tackle relevant issues of the time? This falls in the same category as the income tax. There has been enormous abuse of the power to accrue debt, and it is easy to see the attraction of a balanced budget amendment. However, doing so lacks any measure of foresight. History is filled with examples of how being debt-conscious and economically ignorant can lead to longer and more frequent recessionary cycles that lead to depression. Again, the better approach is an active constituency that demands accountability from both their legislative & executive bodies. Laws cannot be a cure for laziness.
- The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states. This one doesn’t need a lot of explanation. Marriage is a ritual begun millennia ago that has been defined and redefined within a single culture many times let alone the vastly different interpretations between many cultures. In a nation known for its multi-cultural background, I highly doubt an amendment to the Constitution defining such an institution is in the best interest of its citizens. Instead, it seeks to install one religion’s values over others’. A better solution is to get government out of marriage altogether & only oversee the contractual obligations to which one commits in a marriage through power of attorney given a spouse, thereby enabling joint property disputes to be more easily resolved.
- Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country. Here again Perry allows his personal desires to overreach law, the foundation of government in the United States, and this is actually one suggestion of which I am less constitutionally critical. Stare decisis is the basis for the continued legality of abortion following Roe v. Wade in 1973, nearly 40 years ago. To reverse that decision, the courts would be endangering a tenet of law long-considered to obligatory to honor in many other cases: Precedence. Ironically, by ignoring precedence, it might cause many other cases based upon it to unravel similarly. Therefore, agree with Perry or not on this, pursuing new legislation is the appropriate means. Abortion, however, generates quite a bit of disagreement among the population and research suggests its legalization has contributed to a more stable society over time wherever introduced. To a person running for election, this is not an area where success can be found except for tapping into the emotional impetus to get votes from a reactionary constituency.
My final thought on Perry’s constitutional revisionism: You seem to have a lot of ideas for changing laws. Why are you running for President and not Congress?
War of Words Offers Hope
Recently, someone asked me why we keep talking when each side does not move an inch from his point of view. It’s hopeless!
I answered with the inarguable point: “Because.” And I’m right, too.
There are many reasons why keeping two groups with intransigent and diametrically opposed viewpoints throwing words across the table–or virtual table, as the Internet replaces face-to-face time in conference rooms–at each other ad nauseum. The most obvious: As long as they are talking, they aren’t killing each other.
Now I didn’t say neither wants to kill the other, just that they’re too busy letting each other know why they want to kill each other to actually do so. If during this heated “hate exchange” they realize pummeling the other with words is hurtful, all the better. Clearly, if the goal is to hurt the other in the first place, it would be counterproductive to outright kill them. Thus, the suffering continues. And so does life.
Where there is life, there is hope, no?
American Pie
There is a lot of rancor over the widening gap between the rich and poor in America, but is it really all that bad? In a word: Yes.
In a report on PBS’ NewsHour, a Harvard/Duke study is cited for its findings related to the perception of American wealth distribution and its reality. Below are pie charts of 4 nations. Check them out:
How wealth is divided among 5 evenly divided quintiles of population within 4 different nations.
Given the choice, which country would you choose to live in?
Most in the study chose “Nation 2.” Most also believed this represented the breakdown of wealth in the US. Actually, the country represented in #2 is Sweden. You may have guessed #1 is fictitious, and you would be right. An even breakdown of wealth in a nation is often the selling point of communism, and rarely the reality. One of the charts, however, does represent the United States today and if you guessed #3, you would be wrong. That’s actually a chart I added to show how much has changed over the interceding 9 years. It is, in fact, the wealth distribution in the US as of 2002. For those that chose #4 for the US in 2011, you were not just being pessimistic, but realistic, also.
In the last year alone, the top .1%–that is, the top 1/10 of 1 percent–has increased its wealth by 10%. To understand that rate of increase, imagine how easy it is if you have a dollar, to increase that amount by a dime, or 10%. That doesn’t seem too difficult. What if instead you increase it by $50 billion, or 10% of $500 billion. That’s the kind of wealth we’re talking about generating, and since it refers to a share of the overall wealth, it actually requires denying others the dime on the dollar to increase at such a rate.
I won’t say that I want the even distribution of the mythical Nation #1 above. I do, however, see our current state as unsustainable. While Sweden’s model seems most appealing and fair, I would be happy with the former state of distribution within our own borders here in America. There is a sweet spot of revenue and spending that supports such a model. Perhaps it’s worth employing since so many years were spent finding it.
We may not be flawless, but we do know what flawed looks like.
You Put Your Hands Upon My Hip
Then you dip, I dip, we dip! All this talk of a possible “double-dip” recession got me thinking: Have we ever faced something so economically scary? It turns out we have. Many times.
Considering it has been 26 months since the current anemic recovery began, and fingernails are getting shorter with each new report on the economy, I checked for recessions in the US separated by less than 30 months:
- Depression of 1807-1810 followed by recession of 1812
- Recession of 1812 followed by depression of 1815–1821
- Depression of 1815-1821 followed by recession of 1822-1823
- Recession of 1822-1823 followed by recession of 1825-1826
- Recession of 1825-1826 followed by recession of 1828-1829
- Recession of 1833-1834 followed by recession of 1836-1838*
- Recession of 1836-1838* followed by recession of 1839-1843*
- Recession of 1839-1843* followed by recession of 1845-1846
- Recession of 1845-1846 followed by recession of 1847-1848…
*Taken together, these 6 years represented the longest Depression in history following Jackson’s short-lived pay-off of the debt.
Well, you get the picture. It goes on and on like this until the 20th century. Since the Great Depression ended, there have only been two instances of recessions recurring in a time frame less than 30 months. The first occurred as an 8-month recession lasting into 1958 was followed by a 10-month recession beginning in 1960. The second one is more interesting, though, given its similarity to the current circumstances.
The president residing over the downward turn in the economy inherited a terrible economy with little time for things to turn around as his precedent had only replaced the Fed Chairman, and thus monetary policy, 18 months before he took office. When things are a mess it takes a while to turn it around. This is why he decided to keep the preceding executive’s Chairman and policies like Obama did following his election when there had been only 6 months action before taking office since the “Great Recession” was not even acknowledged until nearly a year after it began.
Unemployment was a little higher in the 2nd double-dip recession of the century than it is today, but still close enough to call it apples to apples. The country faced high energy prices and crises overseas, though no declared war, and government regulation of business was a center issue. American manufacturing faced a crisis and a government bailout was required to save the automobile sector.
If you haven’t guessed already, the last double-dip recession occurred under Ronald Reagan. Following the 6-month recession of 1980, Reagan entered office & decided to keep Carter 1979 appointee Paul Volcker, who had been implementing a plan of deregulation under Carter to nurture the economy away from approaching calamity. He also took a lot of heat for raising the federal funds rate to attack stagflation. In the end, his efforts worked to curtail inflation from a peak of 13.5% under Reagan in 1981 to 3.2% by 1983 and interest rates would follow it back down.
It took more than 3 years for Volcker policies to have enough impact to pull the economy into an extended recovery. Reagan decided to make a change in 1987 when Volcker thought deregulation had gone far enough and moderation was needed. That August he named Allen Greenspan, who was friendly to Reagan’s approach of removing most forms of regulation, Chairman of the Fed.
Three years later, the first George Bush was dealing with a recession of his own.
Is It the Deficit, Stupid?
It seems fighting the deficit is all the rage in Washington these days. Every politician is looking for air time to profess his or her greater concern for reigning in our spiraling debt before China takes over and we shift our capital to Athens. After the 2010 elections supposedly proved to everyone that “we the people” wanted fiscal accountability out of our representatives, the partisan bickering shifted from where Obama was born to who’s responsible for this outrageous debt. It is such an ominous black cloud, the furthest right contingent of the Republican Party decided it was worth tying it into the mundane act of raising the debt ceiling. Never mind the fact that making such an act a public exhibition of wailing and excessive fear-mongering would sully our fiscally reputable name, Obama decided to let become intertwined. He, too, bought into the idea that Americans expressed their disapproval of the deficit in the 2010 polls.
But is it really just the deficit?
“It’s the economy, stupid!” became a mantra since James Carville first made it the central theme of Clinton’s successful 1992 campaign. Like Watergate, it fits most everything you want to replace “economy” with. Mother Jones’ writer Bradford Plumer did just as much with “deficit” for an article written 7 years ago on John Kerry’s campaign. The current deficit is beyond what was predicted, but the alarm bells were already sounding. This idea really doesn’t jibe with history, however.
Many deficit hawks have occupied the White House, and most would be surprised to hear FDR was one of them. His obsession with turning deficit spending to end the Depression into a surplus is credited with extending the Depression as he became more concerned with balancing the budget in 1936. Modern Jacksonians crow Andrew Jackson’s decision to pay off the debt completely 100 years prior, but fail to mention the 2-year recession with a 33% decline in business that followed. Still, he is credited with the only time in history the US was debt-free, however short-lived.
Then there is that point: Have we fared so poorly as a nation despite being indebted for nearly our entire history? Typically, wars bring on excessive debt in times of excessive need. The prosperity that follows usually offers considerable returns on these debts. The current economic situation requires investment from all areas if there is to be such a return to prosperity this time. The Bonus Army of WWI veterans made Congress wiser when veterans of WWII returned home. They passed several measures including the GI Bill to bring them back into the work force contributing to the economy. Their contributions led to the growth in the 1950’s. Shouldn’t we offer more to the veterans of the current war than a higher unemployment rate than the rest of the nation’s high rate? Sinking money into Europe and Japan didn’t break our bank after the war, rather it increased our prospects for long-term trade. Further, it avoided the same failures of diplomacy following WWI that insisted in ostracizing Germany through blame and war reparations.
Post-war Germany encountered economic ruin, and its people were ripe for the kind of political manipulation the Nazis employed appealing to their suffering and yearning for pride. The Nazis used it to create an explosive economy, and still managed their debt wisely since their aggression would soon make them an undesirable credit risk. It should be a concern they financed through other means including the confiscation of property from people bound for concentration camps.
To set aside all else in the name of a balanced budget shows a lack of understanding for not only economic needs and cycles, but also of the mandate given by the people. Yes, there is concern over the debt. This concern is not for the amount today, but how to pay it off tomorrow. Jobs are needed right now. Word on the street is there is a great need to repair streets. And bridges, and tunnels, and a lot of other infrastructure projects before a general failure. Interest rates are historically low. Labor is abundant. These projects are not only huge in cost, but absolutely necessary eventually. Should we borrow now when debt is cheaper to hold, or later when the economies of the world have recovered?
It’s the economy, stupid.
