There’s No Elephant in the Room

The United States is challenged by some very critical issues that will have both tremendous short-term and long-term consequences.  To develop the best solutions for these problems, our country needs a robust debate between two political parties that are willing to confront the issues as they exist.  Unfortunately, only one party is looking realistically at America and the problems we face.  The Republican Party has become captive of the religious fringe and generous corporate benefactors and appears to be operating in some parallel universe.  The American public is cognizant of this political vacuum.  The Republican candidate has gotten over half of the votes cast in just one general election since 1988.  One only has to compare the attendees at the post-election “victory” parties for the 2012 presidential election to appreciate to whom the respective parties addressed their messages.  One party reflected the true diversity and energy of these United States.  The other was an animated Norman Rockwell painting from the 1950s with varying shades of white skin and grey hair. 

The dead elephant.

The Republican’s U.S. is “not a traditional America anymore,” according to Fox News Bill O’Reilly.  It no longer rewards hard work and has become a country of takers (“the 47%”?) who want “gifts”.   It only follows that this perspective would generate the GOP 2012 campaign promise to “take our country back” --- to a more homogeneous society with greater intolerance of minorities, where women were not a majority of the voters, young people were not engaged in politics, and a place with a middle class that was not decimated by trickle-down economics and income inequality similar to what existed before the Great Depression.  (Interestingly, the desire to take America back in time does not include reimplementation of the tax policies in effect then - a top marginal tax rate of 91% and corporate taxes which were twice as large, relative to national income, as modern years.)

The president is a Kenyan-Muslim, atheist socialist, and global warming and man-induced climate change do not exist in this world.  Regarding the latter, the scientific community is virtually unanimous in asserting that the earth is warming, and over 90% of scientists believe it has a human cause.  Unfortunately, in today’s GOP, scientific evidence has been replaced by the wisdom of such luminaries as Donald Trump (“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”).  An October 2012 Pew Research poll reveals that only 42% of Romney supporters say there is strong evidence of global warming and only 18% acknowledge human origin.  This is in stark contrast with the respective 88% and 63% responses by Obama supporters.  Tax cuts are the universal panacea for all economic ailments in the Republican realm even though they require ignoring the recent recession and massive borrowing binge they engendered.  Contrary opinions such as the recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that found no relationship between tax rates and economic growth are censored and quashed.  The “takers” in this world include hordes of undocumented voters who are stealing US elections.  Thirty-seven states enacted or considered tougher voter ID laws in response to GOP scare tactics.  In reality, since 2000 there have been only ten cases of voter impersonation in the US.  Of course, the GOP is home to medical scholars like Representatives Akin and Bachmann who provided valuable insight into such toxic and imaginary concepts as “legitimate rape” and mental retardation is caused by the HPV vaccine, respectively.  The Romney campaign summarized the GOP attitude towards reality: "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

To have an impact outside their ever-shrinking constituency, the GOP has to show the American people that it has their back and a genuine concern for all Americans.  America includes the increasing number of women who are having children without marrying the fathers, gays and lesbians who are not willing to stay in the closet, and Latinos and Asian Americans who want their slice of the American Dream, for example.  In response to an October 2012 Pew Research poll which asked Americans to identify the most important problem facing the US, the two leading responses with 25% each were the lack of jobs and the economy.  In fifth place with only 8% of the responses was the Republican priority of “deficit and national debt/balanced budget/government spending”. 

Addressing the concerns of most Americans would enhance the relevancy of the Republican Party in our political discourse.  A political party rooted in conservatism guided by a less government philosophy can make a meaningful contribution in this debate, provided it takes the country as it exists.  Social issues need not be ignored; however, the GOP will continue to marginalize itself if it uses them as a wedge to divide us.  Promoting the liberty of the individual is an American value, as long as it does not require interference with others.  This is in the best interests of America and the GOP.  Focusing upon the unborn straight, white baby’s unfettered right to bear arms and study creationism in public school continues the GOP’s role as a roadblock and, in effect, makes it responsible for the President’s legislative failures.

Government is to serve people and make their lives better.  We do not live in a theoretical world in which everyone has an equal opportunity or adequate resources.  Sometimes, we need government; there are things that private-industry cannot do effectively - provide infrastructure, access to health care, equal opportunity for an education, and assistance when unemployed.  Americans need a safety net that may be the only barrier preventing crime and civil chaos in these uncertain economic conditions.  These are real problems confronting millions of Americans.  The GOP does a disservice to our nation through their antipathy to government and by bogging us down in culture war distractions and the politics of division. 

Abraham Lincoln is often called the “Father of the Republican Party”.  Our sixteenth president appreciated that government has a significant role to play in moving the country forward.  Under Lincoln the United States took an active role in protecting minorities from the majority, created an income tax, and embarked on significant infrastructure projects (what would be labeled economic stimulus today) such as the transcontinental railroad, etc.  Doris Kearns Goodwin, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for her Team of Rivals book regarding the Lincoln presidency, notes Lincoln “believed government had a role in helping people rise to the level of their talent … [a] sort of equal-opportunity role.”  Lincoln would not be welcome in the Republican Party today, and all Americans are poorer for it. 

Two Americas?

“There’s class warfare alright, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”  Warren Buffet, 3^rd richest man on Forbes Richest Person List

“Let me tell you about the very rich.  They are different from you and me.”  F. Scott Fitzgerald

           

            Rich and poor America are drifting further apart, and the standard of living is eroding for the vast majority of Americans. Not since the pre-Great Depression 1920’s have the very top received such a large share of the nation’s income. This trend is detrimental to the long-term stability of this country and all its citizens, including the top 1% as it reduces opportunities that were previously available.  It is not irreversible; however, it requires an immediate response.

Over the past thirty years, the average household income of the top 1% (assumed to earn over $250K/year) compared to the bottom 90% has tripled from 14:1 to 42:1.  The median US family income has grown only at an annual rate of 0.36% while the top 1% realized a 278% aggregate increase during this period.  Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, notes in his recent book, “The Price of Inequality” (2012), that “The United States has the highest level of inequality among advanced industrial countries…[and]…We are now approaching the level of inequality that marks dysfunctional societies…including Iran, Jamaica, Uganda, and the Philippines.” As a result, the US middle class has shrunk, and the American tradition of equal opportunity is becoming a myth.  As income inequality increases, the ability to improve upon ones economic condition decreases. Stiglitz concludes that in America, a person’s success depends more on parental income than in other economically developed countries.

            Economists have identified numerous causes of America’s increasing inequality. The increasing regressive nature of the US tax system has benefited the top 1% disproportionately.  Taxes are now the smallest percentage of US GDP since 1950 due to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts.  Current tax rates are significantly less progressive, impacting those with lower incomes more.  For example, the top 1% benefit from 71% of all capital gains (because the lower economic classes have few capital assets, if any) which are taxed at only 15% (compared to the top marginal rate of 35% for salaries and wages which is virtually all of the lower class income).    Lower wages over the past thirty years have caused greater inequality.  The minimum wage has declined by almost 30% (in constant dollars), and union membership (which has the effect of raising wages of both union and non-union members) has dropped 40% to less than 12%.  Globalization has often been a “race to the bottom”.  Industry often relocates to the lowest cost producer, leaving low-paying “service” jobs behind.  Deregulation and less supervision have allowed the financial sector to increase the economic inequality through predatory lending, excessive credit card fees, and complex and high-risk “financial innovations” that few understand.

Historically, the economic meltdowns in 1929 and 2008 and the economic calamity that followed were preceded by sharp increases in inequality.  In contrast, from the 1950’s through the 1970’s, a period of economic stability and growth, inequality declined.  Stiglitz argues that   “inequality gives rise to instability, the instability itself gives rise to more inequality.” Economic inequality causes money to go from those who will spend it (the lower economic classes) and create further economic demand to those who are well off (the top 1%) and cannot spend it all.  As the cycle progresses, the lack of demand causes increased unemployment and those without go further into debt to obtain necessities.

Economic instability leads to social instability.  As income inequality increases, there is reduced contact among all Americans, and there are fewer shared experiences.  The 1% may live in gated communities and send their children to private schools.  The wealthy become less willing to spend on common needs; they do not depend upon public parks, schools, medical care, research, or security.  They can purchase their own.  Consequently, government investment declines.  Studies have also shown that increasing income inequality correlates with increasing crime rates, and decreasing trust, health care, and community involvement, such as voting and volunteerism. 

Further challenges to social stability arise from the erosion of the United States’ tradition of fairness and equal opportunity for all.  A very small segment of our community has growing and disproportionate power that benefits them and adversely impacts the vast majority.  Americans are realizing that they were duped by those advocated the Bush and Reagan tax cuts.   Contrary to the continued assertions of some, Alan Krueger, Chairman of the Council of Economic Affairs, confirms “that there is little empirical evidence that reduced tax rates increased income growth, jobs or business formation.”  They were successful, however, in turning budget surpluses into record-breaking deficits that add to the national debt.  The decade after passage of the Bush tax cuts exhibited the lowest average annual growth after WWII – even if the years after 2007 (when the economy imploded) are omitted.  For the GOP presidential nominee to identify the top 1% as “job creators” who need even greater tax cuts is sophistry and ignores history.  In response to the 2008 financial crisis, the US spent far more to bail out banks and maintain banker bonuses than to help the unemployed – people who lost their jobs because of financial institution irresponsibility. 

America needs a vibrant middle class.  It is the purchases of goods and services by this group that stimulates demand and investment, thus increasing employment and wages.  The tax cut for those earning over $250,000 should not be extended again.  There needs to be shared-sacrifice.  The lower classes have seen incomes remain flat, at best, while government programs that directly affect them have been slashed; yet, the top 1% has escaped economic decline.  It is absurd to argue that a tax rate increase to 39.6% from 35% will provide a disincentive for the high income wage earners.  The United States economy did extremely well with less inequality and debt when the top rate was 70% as it was before Reagan took office, and as noted above, the tax cuts have not yielded the economic cornucopia that was promised (and is still being promised) to promote their adoption.  Research shows that the top save approximately 20% of their income and the bottom economic classes spend all their income and more for necessities.  Consequently, economic demand is lower and employment is reduced than if the bottom had more to spend.  Stiglitz estimates that if the top saved only 15% instead of 20%, the unemployment rate would be just over 6%, instead of the current 8+%.  The current capital gains taxation structure requires change, as well.  Think about it; is it in society’s interest to tax the income of investors and speculators at a lower rate (15%) than a wage earner (up to 35%)? 

Just as was done in the Progressive Era and after the Great Depression, we need to temper financial markets, and increase social and economic stability through a strengthened Social Security program, minimum wage laws, and affordable health care.  Privatization is not always the answer.    Unlike government employees, corporate executives are paid to generate profits; the private sector should not be relied upon to regulate themselves or handle certain activities when their profit-maximization incentives are not aligned with the public interest.  The increasing wage gap between those with a college education and those without and the migration of off-shore of technical jobs, provide ample evidence that greater efforts must be made to provide affordable education.  Globalization is here to stay, but it has to be managed better.  Operating unchecked, the prevailing wage for an unskilled worker in the US would be that of a similar worker in China.  Finally, the political system must be made more responsive to the concerns of all citizens, not just those with the largest bank accounts

Horatio Alger with his rags to riches story is not dead; however, he needs immediate and heroic efforts to get off life support.

Romney’s VP Selection Conundrum

Now that Mitt Romney has vanquished his opposition and is destined to be the GOP nominee for the 2012 presidential election, the question is who will be his VP selection?  Over the next few months we can expect Team Romney to audition numerous possible candidates through interviews and joint campaign appearances.

Beyond the need for some basic chemistry between Romney and his VP (sorry Newt, Rick, and Michele), what factors are relevant?  In this post-Palin world of potential GOP VP nominees, we can expect a vigorous vetting of all the potential candidates with an emphasis on selecting an individual who is competent to assume the presidency on January 20, 2013.  Theoretically, the ideal candidate will address Romney’s perceived weaknesses:   come from a swing state, appeal to women and Latinos (a significant force in AZ, CO, FL, NV, NM, VA, and NC), have foreign policy experience, be able to beat Joe Biden in a debate, shore up support with tepid Tea Party supporters, and not have transported the family dog on the roof of the family car during a vacation to Canada (i.e., be a regular person who can relate to American families). 

In today’s Republican Party, this ideal VP candidate does not exist.  Many of these requirements are contradictory.  A Tea Party favorite who is popular among women and Latinos is as likely as Republican support for Bush tax cut expiration.  The death of the moderate GOP wing where social issues were of secondary importance to economic concerns has significantly reduced the pool of potential VP candidates. 

Who are the potential GOP VP’s and what are their chances?

Tea Party favorite and Florida’s first-term Senator, Marco Rubio is the son of two Cuban immigrants and hails from an important swing-state that Obama won in 2008. Rubio’s draw backs are that the Latino vote is not a monolith; Cuban-Americans often vote differently from those with Puerto Rican and Latin American heritage.  Rubio lacks foreign policy experience and by voting against re-authorizing the Violence Against Women’s Act may have further alienated women voters.  Finally, questions regarding his double billing the taxpayers and inconsistencies in his rags-to-power biography remain unanswered.

An April Quinnipac poll shows New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is the most popular VP candidate.  His budget cuts and confrontational style against government employees’ unions have made him a Tea Party darling.  Christie lacks any foreign policy experience and would not help Romney improve his standing with women or Latinos.  Further, recent polls do not show a Romney-Christie ticket even carrying New Jersey for the GOP in November.  One intangible in Christie’s favor, however, is his ability to be a very effective “attack dog” against Obama on the campaign trail.

Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan who authored the Republican budget proposal that would radically change government taxation and spending and programs such as Medicare is considered the most influential Republican policy maker.  His selection would strengthen Romney’s support among Tea Partiers, as well; however, it would do little to improve perceptions regarding women, Latinos, and the lack of foreign policy experience.  Further, Ryan’s proposals to effectively end Medicare as we know it for people 55 and under might provide the Democrats with a PR windfall: “the let them eat cake/let the seniors die” ticket.

Rob Portman, a senator from Ohio is on all the pundits’ short-lists; however, these all-knowing prognosticators fail to offer convincing reasons why Romney should consider him.   While he hails from a state that has voted for the winner in every presidential election since 1960, he is similar to Ryan.  He does not address any of Romney’s weaknesses and is not assured of putting Ohio in the GOP column in November.

While we can expect Romney to make a show of considering women for the job, it is extremely unlikely that one will be selected.  Only one has any foreign policy experience.  Governor Susana Martinez is a female Latino; yet, she has been a governor for only 16 months.  This is one month less than Sarah Palin, whose inexperience was a major distraction for the GOP in 2008.  Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina has the same limited executive experience as Martinez and her support of Romney was ineffective in the South Carolina primary.  Gingrich won over 40% of the votes to Romney’s 28%.  Condolezza Rice, a US Secretary of State for George W. Bush has the name recognition and foreign policy experience.  Or does she?  She was intimately involved in the recent US-Iraq War fiasco, and does Romney want to remind voters of the Bush administration?

Since there is no compelling candidate for the GOP VP nomination, it is anyone’s guess as to Romney’s ultimate selection.  Given the conflicting nature of the preferred VP characteristics, we can expect the Romney decision process to prioritize the most important requirements.  Of course, it will be tempting to choose Herman Cain who has said that he would deign to consider the job if the position was offered.  (Seriously!) The three most critical constraints will be chemistry with Romney, doing no harm to the ticket (i.e., no Palin-like surprises), and be acceptable to the ultra-right wing elements of the GOP who now control the party.   The veto power of this faction was recently illustrated when they forced Romney to cower and abandon his foreign policy spokesperson solely because he was gay.  Under these constraints, the field is wide open and Romney may surprise us all by selecting a bland, nationally unknown GOP senator from the mid-west with a super “traditional” family, conservative persona.  A show hands for…South Dakota’s Senator John Thune?

Obama: An Accomplished President

With Barack Obama’s first term coming to a close, many Americans are wondering what he has accomplished.   This article will evaluate President Obama’s accomplishments and failures based upon the conditions under which he took office.

            “Obamacare”.  Barack Obama signed the historic Health Care Reform Act, an objective that has been sought by most presidents since WWII, to provide universal health care by making 44 million current free-riders pay into the system.  It allows states to develop their own policies in accordance with federal standards, and it prevents insurance companies from denying insurance because of a pre-existing condition.  Parts of the Health Care Reform bill include, allowing children to remain covered by their parents' insurance until the age of 26, tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage, and tax credits for up to 29 million individuals to help pay for health insurance.  Moreover, health insurance plans are now required to disclose how much of the premium actually goes to patient care.  Other healthcare initiatives include the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act (provides health care to 11 million kids, 4 million of whom were previously uninsured), cutting prescription drug cost for Medicare recipients by 50%, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (allocates $12.2 Billion in new funding), and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (gives the FDA the authority to regulate the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco for the first time).

            The Economy.  Obama inherited the worst economy (as defined by negative economic growth) since the Great Depression. The 2.6 million US job losses in 2008 were second only to the losses in 1945 when the US switched from a wartime economy, and the under-employment was at a record high.  He managed to prevent the United States economy from lapsing into a second Depression.  He did this by pushing the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 which invested $789 billion in the American economy.  He continued George Bush’s bank bailout (which has been repaid with $20 billion profit) and rescued the American auto industry (at an estimated $14 billion cost).  He also launched recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, providing transparency and allowing the public to report fraud, waste, or abuse.  Obama ensured that a housing collapse would not be as likely in the future by passing financial reform law requiring lenders to verify applicants' credit history, income, and employment status.  In 2010, the benefits of these policies started to become apparent.  The jobs created that year in the private sector, exceeded what was created under George W. Bush in his eight years as president. This growth continued in 2011 with 1.9 million new private sector jobs while governments lost over 250,000 jobs.  Despite this increase in government spending, Obama managed to halt the rapid increase in the national debt.  Obama policies increased the debt by $1.4 trillion, as opposed to Bush policies that increased the debt by $7 trillion.

            Financial Reform.  Against significant Wall Street and GOP opposition, Obama signed financial reform laws that benefit the average American and address some of the causes of our recent economic meltdown.  The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau polices the financial world and looks out for the interests of everyday Americans.  Obama signed a “Credit Card Bill of Rights” that prevents credit card companies from imposing arbitrary rate increases on customers. The financial reform law prohibits banks from engaging in proprietary trading (trading the bank's own money to turn a profit, often in conflict with their customers' interests). For wealthier Americans, financial reform allows shareholders of publicly traded companies to vote on executive pay.

            Foreign Policy.  Obama has refocused America’s foreign policy on its national interests by not acting unilaterally and by pursuing long-term objectives.  US troops are leaving Iraq this year and Afghanistan by the end of 2013.  For the first time in the past two decades, Osama bin Laden is no longer a threat to this nation, and the leaders of his terrorist organization have been methodically and effectively removed.   Obama has walked a fine-line of avoiding increased US entanglements in the Middle East during the “Arab Spring” (e.g., he cooperated with our allies to  overthrew Libya’s dictator, Gadhafi, without suffering any US casualties) and has gradually increased pressure on Iran because of their nuclear ambitions.  These accomplishments stand in stark contrast to his predecessor’s “shoot from the hip” unilateral policies.  Earlier in his term, he signed New START Treaty, a nuclear arms reduction pact with Russia.  He has signed three free-trade pacts; yet, he has been more aggressive in challenging unfair trade practices.  Lastly, Obama issued an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay.

            American Society.  While working on Health Care and the Economy, Obama managed to find time to work on other issues that contribute to increasing equality and making the US a more civil society.  He appointed two women to the Supreme Court, one being the first Hispanic-American to serve.   He extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.  He implemented the repeal of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” so that gay Americans may openly serve in our country’s armed forces, and no longer defends the “Defense of Marriage Act” and its mandated discrimination against some marriages.  Lastly, he has focused concern on the environment after years of neglect (e.g., the significant decrease in greenhouse gases arising from the increased average fuel economy standards from 27.5mpg to 35.5mpg, starting in 2016.)

            Remaining Challenges.  The United States continues to confront significant challenges.  The economy is still depressed.  There has been no aggregate US job growth since 2001.  Long-term unemployment remains at Great Depression levels.  Nearly 15% of Americans live below the poverty line.  Although he has proposed to increase the tax rates of those earning over $1 million/year to be on par with middle class Americans and savings from Medicare and Medicaid, Republicans in Congress have not cooperated with him.  Obama signed an order closing Guantanamo Bay prison, yet 171 prisoners still remain there.  His potential second term will need to address these remaining promises.  Lastly, Obama has still continued the Patriot Act from the Bush Administration despite the fact that its constitutionality has been challenged.

            Obama’s critics complain that he is not accomplished; yet, based off of the facts listed above, he appears to be an accomplished and historic president.  If he does win re-election, it is safe to expect more monumental change because as a lame duck he can champion unpopular initiatives because he cannot run for president again.

CA Prop 103 Redux-Medical Insur. Rate Regulation

According to the Consumer Watchdog (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/success-story/saving-california-drivers-62-billion), the California citizen-sponsored Proposition 103 saved California drivers almost $62 billion in auto insurance premiums from 1998-2008.  In addition to creating an elected insurance commissioner, Prop 103 created a regulatory mechanism to prevent excessive auto insurance premiums.

In the general election November 2012, California voters may have a similar opportunity to reign in the spiraling health insurance rates for individual (as opposed to group) health insurance policies.  Currently, signatures are being collected to place an initiative (“Approval of Healthcare Insurance Rate Changes”) on the ballot that would give the California insurance commissioner authority to reject excessive rates.  Health insurers would be required to publicly disclose and justify their rates.  California is only one of the 17 states that do not have such authority.   To be on the ballot, the initiative requires the signatures of 505,000 registered California voters.  Copies of the petition may be downloaded at http://www.justifyrates.org.

Of course, qualifying for the ballot is just the first and easiest step.  The insurance industry spent almost $64 million in their futile attempt to defeat Proposition 103, and the vehement and rabid hostility to the Affordable Care Act demonstrates the blind (and profitable) allegiance of corporate minions.  When Anthem Blue Cross makes $525 million in profit from Californians in one recessionary year (2009) and is able to ship it to its parent, it is obvious that the profits endangered will compel the industry to try everything possible, overtly and surreptitiously, to obfuscate the issues and confuse the voters.

Iranian Entertainment: Cardboard cutout Ayatollah Khomeini tours Tehran

Iranian government officials are either playing dumb to entice the United States into war or they are actually dumb.  Their detachment from reality is another reason why we cannot trust them with a nuclear weapon.

Last week, Iranian leaders celebrated the 33rd Anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini's return from exile by ordering soldiers to reenact the Ayatollah's arrival at Tehran's airport with a life-size cardboard cutout of the stern Ayatollah. There are pictures of honor guard soldiers saluting this cardboard on the official Iranian news site http://www.mehrnews.com/....  After departing the plane, Iranian officials paraded a picture of the Ayatollah around in a vintage red Chevrolet. (It's comforting to know they still use American cars for official functions.)  The absurdity of this public relations fiasco was not lost upon ordinary Iranians who reportedly mocked this charade.

On a frightening note, Iranian government officials think that a U.S.-Iranian War would be bad, for the Untied States.  They claim to have the upper hand if conflict would break out.

"You see every now and then in this way they say that all options are on the table. That means even the option of war," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said during Friday prayers in Tehran. "This is how they make these threats against us.  Well, these kinds of threats are detrimental to the U.S.," he said. "The war itself will be 10 times as detrimental to the U.S."

The United States spends about 100 times the amount of money Iran does on their military.  There is no comparison between the American and Iranian armed forces (even if we include the Revolutionary Guard), and in any conflict, American forces would seriously disable, if not eradicate, Iran's war-making capabilities.

The Iranian leaders entrenchment in their alternate reality provides a convincing reason why the world cannot trust them with nuclear weapon capabilities.  They must have been drinking with Rick Perry again...

Newt Will Seek Revenge

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (Daily Kos)

Newt Gingrich is most likely going to lose Florida this evening.  That does not matter.

Mitt Romney has spent $16 Million destroying Gingrich's reputation.  Gingrich is going to stay in the fight because Romney has destroyed Newt twice, in Iowa and Florida.  I do not see Newt as the forgiving type, so what goes around comes around.

Newt will stay in the fight to try and do damage to Romney because he is the reason why Newt may not win the nomination.

What America Needs: Ron Paul

The number of Libertarians is growing in America.  They are dissatisfied with both major parties and think government's primary purpose should be limited to national defense and furthering "personal liberty".  Ron Paul and his acolytes support these tenents.

"If you like small government you need to work hard at having a strong national defense that is not so militant. Personal liberty is the purpose of government, to protect liberty - not to run your personal life, not to run the economy, and not to pretend that we can tell the world how they ought to live."
                ~Ron Paul

This is a simplistic and selfish perspective that fails to recognize the complexity and inter-relatedness of our local community, national, and international links. These views are absurd, impractical, and result from abhorrence of Obama's alleged "liberal"  administration.  Yet, more and more people are thinking government is the problem.  There has not been a serious debate in our country about what would happen if we drastically shrank government and pursued the now "mainstream" conservative mantra of elephantine privatization.  To precipitate this necessary debate Ron Paul ought to win the GOP nomination; Americans would recognize the consequences of following this Libertarian path.

Until we do so, Ronald Reagan's legacy, "Government is the Problem", will continue to metastasize.  Moreover, Republicans will try to shrink government, and the Democrats will ineffectively compromise.  Ultimately, leading to a gradual decrease in government.

Three things would be achieved if Ron Paul won the GOP Nomination, not the Presidency.
1.)  Barack Obama would be guaranteed a second term.
2.) People would realize government is the solution. (After hearing Obama debate Ron Paul on the role of government)
3.) It would be amusing to watch the GOP implode.

The Future of the United States: Tax Increases or Tax Increases

Winston Churchill once said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing-after they’ve tried everything else.” America has a very weak economy.  9.1% of American workers are unemployed, and 28% of all homeowners cannot repay their mortgages.  Politicians are trying everything to fix this economy except the right thing.  This is quite evident when 74% of the country thinks America is on the wrong track, and Congress has an 84% disapproval rating (NYTimes/CBS Poll).

            Political analyst Andy Friedman gave a lecture in Orange County on Washington politics.  He is a proclaimed expert on all things political and writer of The Washington Update.  He predicted what will happen in Washington within the next couple of years.  He started with the facts of the current situation.

            The United States’ $1.3 trillion budget deficit is preventing Washington from addressing America’s pressing economic problems.  The government spends $3.6 trillion a year.  The United States income is $2.3 trillion a year.  The deficit is 9% of the United States GDP and is unsustainable.  It is unsustainable because the countries who fund our deficit (mostly China) say they will not fund it much longer at these high levels.  If we do not solve this problem, China and others will stop lending the US money, and the US will have to offer higher interest rates, ultimately, leading to higher deficits.

          As Churchill predicted, initial attempts to curb the deficit this year have been too little and unsuccessful.  Republicans refuse to consider any solution that includes tax increases and are advocating further tax reductions complied with reduced government spending.  The Democrats position combines spending cuts with selective tax increases for those with the highest incomes.

            In April, the government was on the verge of shutting down because the Democrats agreed to “only” $10 billion in cuts, and the Republicans wanted $60 billion.  The government was nearly shut down over whether to cut 0.8% of the deficit or 4.6% of the deficit.  This was not an attempt to solve the problem, and in the end, they cut the deficit by only 2.9%.  They were arguing over pennies.

            The Democrats and Republicans still did not cooperate a few months later.  In June, the United States government was on the verge of defaulting because Republicans did not want to raise the debt ceiling (The constitutionality of which will have to wait for another article).  This led to huge talks debt talks.  Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and President Obama had a Grand Plan ready, but Boehner due to political pressure.  This proposal would reduce the debt by $4 trillion.  The tax cuts for people who make more than $250,000 would expire.  Medicare eligibility would rise from 65 to 67, and the rich would pay more for Medicare.  Lastly, Social Security growth would be reduced.     

            The final plan calls for a bipartisan bicameral congressional committee has until Thanksgiving to get only $1.5 trillion in deficit savings over the next 10 years.  If this fails, then $1.2 trillion in spending cuts will trigger automatically.  These cuts will come equally from domestic and defense spending.  Friedman predicts that it is very unlikely that this committee will reach a consensus.  If they could not get along in April over $60 billion, how will they agree to $1.2 trillion?  Besides, this $1.2 trillion in cuts over the next ten years (only $120 billion per year) does hardly anything to reduce the deficit.  To address the issues both sides of the equation require attention; entitlements need to be cut, and taxes need to be severely increased on higher incomes.

            The problem with this situation is the Republican plan to cut the deficit is good thinking in the long run, but it is anti-jobs.  The balanced budget approach can only work after the United States is out of a recession.  Government needs to spend to stimulate the economy because private industry is not going to invest in a weak economy for fiscal purposes.  Government does not need to make a profit; thus, it can make an investment in the weak American economy as opposed to private industry not investing.  One can see the truth in this statement by looking at the United Kingdom’s economy.  They have lapsed back into a recession as the conservative government relies solely upon cuts in spending.

            On December 31^st, 2012, the Bush tax cuts will expire, and the deficit will be reduced as a result.  Regardless of who wins the 2012 election, on that date, Barack Obama will be the president with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate.  Barack Obama will have a lot of negotiating power over Republicans because Obama does not need to renew the Bush tax cuts.  Obama may negotiate a grand deficit reduction plan.  More likely, Friedman predicted, Obama will not negotiate with the GOP and simply let the tax cuts expire.  However, when the tax cuts expire, taxes increase across the board.  This will not cause much economic harm because tax increases do not prevent investment, if anything, they ensure government investment.  It will mainly impact middle and lower Class families. 

            Can this scenario be avoided? Can Congress discover compromise and adopt a plan that reduces the deficit? Hopefully, congress does not harm America any further and learns that a mixture of cuts and tax increases must be instituted to fix the budget deficit.  Democrats will need to cap Social Security growth and raise the Medicare age.  Republicans will need to agree to tax increases for the rich.  Lastly, there can be no more political gimmicks and sideshows.  For example, House Republicans must stop focusing on trivial social issues such as abortion.  They have a 22% approval rating and a 69% disapproval rating (Fox News Poll).  If politicians do not change within a year, Congress may see a lot of freshmen in the 2013-2015 session.

Paging Ronald Reagan, Paging Ronald Reagan

                      With the GOP Nomination less than five months away, three presidential candidates are fighting for the attention of the GOP voters.  None of them have any key policy differences.  They all have similar policies regarding health care, taxes, the budget, and the deficit.  They are trying to distinguish themselves by their experience and their anti-Obama fervor.  The GOP’s only hope at this stage is bringing Ronald Reagan back from the grave.

            Currently, the Republican front runners are Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.  Rick Santorum is a former Senator from Pennsylvania.  After finishing in a close second in the Iowa Caucus, he has captivated the Media and undecided GOP voters.  He does not have a strong chance at winning the election because of his more conservative, religious views on issues, such as, abortion.  

               Former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, could win the GOP nomination if he does well in South Carolina and in Florida.   The biggest problem for him is splitting the vote between himself and Rick Santorum.  By default, Mitt Romney would defeat both him and Rick Santorum.  Many people anticipate him "self-destructing".  (SEE: Incident on Air Force One about 15 years ago.) 

            Lastly, former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney is the leading GOP candidate.  As front runner, he tries to avoid  controversy and emphasizes his business experience and his tenure as chief executive of Massachusetts.  Paradoxically, his current positions regarding health care and taxes are contrary to his policies as governor.  By placing second in the 2008 GOP Primary, he has the experience and name-recognition to win the   current primary.  He may be similar to McCain who lost to Bush in 2000, and won the primary in 2008.  Romney’s relatively moderate views will help him win primaries in more liberal states.  His recent victories in Iowa and New Hampshire have given him momentum, the question is: can he maintain that momentum?  With candidates dropping out after South Carolina and Florida, they could flock to a candidate besides Mitt Romney. 

            There are some other notable candidates such as Jon Hunstman and Ron Paul.  Jon Hunstman is the former Governor of Utah.  As the most moderate candidate and a former ambassador to China for Obama, he has low odds of winning the primary.  He did not win the New Hampshire primary so he is probably not going to win the nomination because he was betting solely on New Hampshire.   Ron Paul, a Congressman from Texas, ran in the 2008 election and tries to have a Libertarian stand-point.  His second place finish in the New Hampshire Primary is a good sign for him.  However, he is too far right. 

               When voters are deciding who to nominate for president, generally, they prefer a variety to choose from. In this case, the differences are superficial.  The only difference among the GOP candidates is their limited experience.  There is no distinguishing issue among the GOP candidates.  The three front runners have no disagreement on the major issues, such as the budget, the deficit, health care, or the economy.  They all want a balanced budget that would consist of no new taxes and rely solely on spending cuts.   They seek deficit reduction in the next decade that relies in part on repealing Obama’s health care law.  It is irrelevant that economists argue that repealing the health care law would actually decrease the deficit and eliminate its potential savings.  The leading Republican candidates seek cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  Intense attempts by Republican Party leaders to entice New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to enter the race, illustrate how weak the current GOP candidates are perceived to be.

               The strategy of appealing  to the more conservative voter on the political spectrum may be short-sighted.  This group does not decide elections; they only represent a small portion of the electorate.   Furthermore, this anti-incumbent fervor often does not work in the long run because the voters want to hear new ideas.  The voter wants solutions to what is important to them.  Right now, the GOP candidates’ policies are devoid of solutions and merely try to appeal to the typically more right wing primary voters. 

               Perhaps most significantly, none of the candidates are presidential.  They do not have the courage to stand up to the crowd.  For example, none of the candidates challenged the audience when it booed an active gay soldier who served in Iraq, cheered the number of executions in Texas under Rick Perry, or cheered someone dying because they lacked health insurance.   Americans are not a blood-thirsty horde in favor of government cruelty, and vengeance, or unwilling to support its troops.    If the GOP does resurrect Ronald Reagan from his grave, they should stop his turning in it first.