Turn the Page

It's New Year's Eve.  Do you know where your champagne is?


With everything going on around the holidays I haven't had much time to reflect on the political and social happenings of the past couple weeks.  A few fairly significant items made the news; the repeal of DADT, passage of the new START, Justin Bieber nominated for Artist of the Year (suddenly I remember why I haven't watched an awards show since Steely Dan robbed Radiohead at gunpoint of Album of the Year).  Some of those things were probably more important than others, so I'll give them some additional attention in the first post of the new year.  So, hope your Christmas was Merry and you New Year is Happy.  See you next year!

Seats At The Kiddie Table

Only 9 more shopping days until Christmas.  Remember, if you don’t shop, terrorism wins.

Last Tuesday, President Obama reached a deal with senate Republicans regarding the extension of the Bush tax cuts and unemployment insurance benefits, both set to expire at the end of the year.  It certainly wasn’t pretty for Democrats.  On the face of it, Republicans got everything they really wanted - including the privilege of re-asserting the very same tax issue just in time for the next election - while Democrats got some additional unemployment insurance and a bowl of grits.  But, as additional details began to emerge, several astute observers pointed out that against an opposition united against anything and everything even remotely resembling economic stimulus, the President managed to extract almost $400 billion in additional stimulus, to take effect throughout 2011.  On Wednesday, Democrats began to complain that even though unemployment insurance would be extended for 13 months, instead of the three they though they might be able to get, and the tax cuts for the middle class would also be extended - as they all said they wanted - the fact that rich people would also benefit from the deal was difficult for them to stomach.  By Thursday, Democrats decided that the best deal they are going to get, isn’t good enough for them, and approved a non-binding resolution stating they would not bring the tax compromise to the floor for a vote.  Sigh.  Democrats, study the pretty picture below, then meet me at paragraph three.

So.  Here we are again.  Hope everybody was able to clean the unicorn rainbow crap off their lawn before the snow hit.  I’m told that if you don’t its really hard on the grass in the spring.  Anyway, about that tax cut deal.  Look, I know its difficult to be a Democrat.  Its somewhat akin to getting involve in a land war in Asia.  Sure, the cause may be nobel and the need may be great, but after a few winters it inevitably turns into a quagmire and you spend the next decade spinning your wheels trying to get out.  Believe me I understand that.  But throwing a tantrum?  Threatening to take your ball and go home?  That’s not the way to handle this.  I know, I know, Republicans have done that very same thing for the past two years and it worked perfectly for them, I know.  But they are children, and children can get away with that.  Especially when they have parents as lenient as you are.  And the tantrum simply doesn’t have the same effect when it’s thrown by the adults.  Unlike children, adults have responsibilities.  The family has to eat, the bills have to be paid, and someone has to hide the matches to keep the kids from setting the house on fire.  The fact that said someone has to be you, makes all those threats sound bitter and vindictive.  Perhaps it would help if we talked things through a little.  Maybe that would help everyone feel better.

All day Thursday, Democrats on the Hill complained that they hadn’t been part of the negotiations leading to the compromise.  While it certainly is a legitimate statement, there is a reason they weren’t invited to negotiations.  They weren’t invited because they are terrible at negotiations.  A little less than two years ago, the President came to Democratic House and Senate leaders and said hey, here’s what I’m looking for in a healthcare reform bill.  You guys go and negotiate something and get back to me.  Eighteen months later, those crack negotiators still didn’t have a piece of legislation they could agree on amongst themselves, never mind anyone from the other side of the aisle.  And in that case, over the first 12 months of debate, they didn’t even need anyone from the other side of the aisle!  It took Democrats 18 months to “negotiate” a healthcare package they could agree on.  President Obama only had 18 days remaining in the legislative session to come up with a compromise that everyone could agree to hate, but pass anyway.  Including House and Senate Democrats in that process would only have served to make the improbable, impossible.  

Aside from the fact they weren’t involved in negotiations, Democrats primary complaints about the compromise are as follows.  People who make the most money will see the greatest benefit (in terms of dollars saved) from extending the Bush-era tax cuts.  Cutting taxes for wealthy people - in and of itself - does not necessarily create jobs, as evidence by the close-to-zero net job growth witnessed during the afore-mentioned presidency.  A majority of the public actually favors the expiration of the said tax-cuts for the top two percent of income earners.  And, extending those cuts will have to be paid for with more borrowed money, adding an additional $700 billion to the deficit.  Okay, points taken.  All of those statements are absolutely true.  For the first two years of his presidency, Barack Obama made no secret about the fact that he wanted to see the tax cuts for the middle class continue and those for the top two percent expire.  But what this President seems to have the ability to do - which no other Democrat in Congress seems to share - is to deal with the world as it is, instead of how it looks through the rose-colored utopian Ray-Bans everyone else seems to be using.

The cold, hard reality is this.  Three weeks from now, Republicans will take over control of the House of Representatives and gain five additional seats in the Senate.  Any tax package designed by a Republican-controlled House to be passed by a Senate split 53-47 is going to be far less favorable to Democratic ideals than the package the President agreed to last Tuesday.  That package would likely include bigger tax-cuts, extended for a longer period of time, with little assistance - if any - to the unemployed.  In addition to that, waiting for the next Congress to take up the issue would mean that everybody would see their taxes increase on the first of the year, with the poorest workers hit with a 50% jump.  There are some Democrats in Congress who feel the Republicans are bluffing, that it is too big a political risk for them to allow unemployment insurance to expire and force a government shutdown.  Those Democrats are idiots.  They have obviously learned nothing about the Republican Party over the past two years about.  Republicans don't care about the deficit.  (If they did they would add an additional $4 trillion to the debt by insisting on extending the tax cuts.)  Republicans are also perfectly willing to cause working people (and people who would rather be working) real pain in order to make a political paint.  Millions of people lose unemployment benefits in an economy where 4-5 people apply for every open position?  They should try harder.  Tens of millions of government workers don’t get paid due to a government shutdown?  They should have found jobs in the private sector.  It will be left to Democrats to explain why everyone’s taxes went up on the first of the year when Democrats claimed they wanted to keep the current rates for lower and middle income earners.  And this is a political party that couldn’t sell beer to a college frat party, they’ll just talk themselves right out of office!

Democrats could have resolved this issue a long time ago.  Step in the way way back machine with me if you will, to several months before the midterms elections.  House Minority Leader John Boehner was caught on camera admitting that if his choice was between extending tax-cuts only for low and middle income earners or not extending any tax-cuts at all, he would vote for the former.  That very same afternoon, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should have headed to the floor with a bill extending tax-cuts for low and middle income earners only and called for a vote.  Needless to say, they didn’t do that.  In fact, Harry Reid refused to even consider bringing the tax issues to the Senate floor because he and other Democrats didn’t want to explain to voters on the campaign trail why he feels it is necessary for taxes to increase.  Democrats didn’t want to do their jobs, but they don’t want the President to do his either.  Why does it seem like the Democratic Party is always so much more comfortable in the minority, without the responsibility of governing, where all they have to do is complain?

Fast forward to one week later.  The Senate has passed the tax-cut extension package, sending it off to the House, where who knows what will happen.  With that piece of legislation taken care of, the Senate was supposed to be able to move on to the remaining issues of the lame-duck session, like the repeal of DADT and the passage of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.  Of course, whether or not any of that is likely to happen remains hostage to the whims of infantile Senate Republicans.  During the debate over healthcare reform, Republicans delighted in citing polls showing 53%-47% opposition to the bill as evidence the President was acting against the “will of the American people.”  Now, in the face of a year-long Pentagon study, endorsements from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Republican Defense Secretary and the support of 77% of the “American people,” John McCain appears ready to insist on filibustering the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  As of today, Jim DeMint (R), South Carolina has threatened procedural motions to delay and eventually kill the appropriations bill and the arms treaty.  Apparently, the de-facto leader of the Republican Party himself has declared the tax-cut extension agreement struck with the President to be a sellout of “true conservative values,” and absolutely everything on this President’s agenda to be evil incarnate, and his minions have jumped to do his bidding.  Welcome to gridlock ladies and gentlemen.  Enjoy the next 24 months.

Some more news on the economic front, the U.S. trade deficit has declined to it’s lowest level in two years, thanks in no small part to the lower value of the dollar and a growing inflation issue in China.  Despite this, some people on the Hill continue to insist the government take steps to strengthen the U.S. dollar.  In difficult economic times, maintaining a “strong dollar policy,” for no other reason than the phrase contains the word “strong,” only serves to weaken essential American exports at a time when we cannot internally muster sufficient domestic consumer spending to accomplish a full recovery.  Cheap exports help us make up that difference.  Drop the macho act and use the weaker dollar to support economic growth.


Earlier this week, a federal judge in Virginia ruled a portion of the healthcare reform package - the individual mandate - to be unconstitutional.  Lower court decisions on this matter now stand at 2 - 1 in favor of the law, and there is no one who doesn’t not expect this matter to ultimately end up in the Supreme Court.  The judge ruled that the Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the power to mandate that individuals purchase insurance.  And the judge is probably correct.  But if that is the way the government’s lawyers chose to phrase their case, they deserved to lose that case.  There are ways to justify a mandate without resorting to the Commerce Clause.  The mandate should be structured as a tax.  Beginning in 2014, Americans would be required to pay an “Affordable Care Tax,” in the amount of whatever the penalty for not purchasing health insurance is under the current law.  However, if people then choose to purchase insurance - either on the individual market, the new exchanges or through his or her employer, they would receive a tax credit for the full amount of the “Affordable Care Tax” paid.  No mess, no fuss, no Commerce Clause, no problem.


Several notable passings have occurred over the past seven days.  First, Elizabeth Edwards, attorney and wife of former U.S. Senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards, passed away after a protracted battle with cancer.  She was 61 years of age.  Her death was followed by that of the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and former assistant Secretary of State, Richard Holbrooke.  He was 69.  Both were dedicated public servants, and both will be missed.

Finally, a team of scientists at Georgetown University successfully transformed immature stem cells into pancreatic tissue to combat Type 1 diabetes.  Again, it’s very early, but it really is exciting that we may soon be able to eradicate one of the most pervasive diseases in our society.  Yay science!

Surely You Can't Be Serious

Is it December already?  Holy cow when did that happen?  Oh well, I hope all the turkey has been digested.  Because if it hasn’t, you should probably throw it away at this point.

So, apparently the Transportation Safety Administration has stepped up security at airports across the country.  Travelers will have two options; pass through the high-tech, new-fangled X-ray/electromagnetic body imaging scanners, or opt for the old-school, low-tech full-body pat-down by a TSA agent.  Some people are upset about this.

In the interests of full disclosure, I don’t fly all that often.  And by “don’t fly all that often” I mean about once every three or four years.  That said, I am not particularly offended by said security measures.  I guess if I can get from South Bend to Seattle in four hours on a none-exploding aircraft and have someone fondle me in the process I’m not really going to complain.  I suppose it might depend on whom it is doing the fondling.  But I can understand why some people aren’t thrilled about either option.  Why should some stranger making $13 an hour get to see me naked at the airport just so I can start my vacation a few hours earlier?  In the wake of four hijackings and four thousand deaths in September of 2001, Americans insisted they were ready to put up with more than a little inconvenience in order to ensure public safety.  Nine years later we seem to be having second thoughts.  What I do find amusing is where we’ve decided to draw the line separating what we are willing to accept in the name of safety.  Renditioning people to foreign countries to be “interrogated”, beating them, freezing them, photographing them naked stacked in pyramids, nipping them with dogs and drowning them until they broke were/are all perfectly acceptable security methods.  But someone “touching our junk” should be grounds to have them arrested.  Is anybody under the illusion that many of the same people demanding a halt to unreasonable bodily searches would be the first people in front of the camera demanding to know why the government failed to provide full body scanners at airports to prevent a bombing, were one to occur?

As part of his effort to focus on debt reduction following the drubbing in last month’s election, President Obama announced this week that he will request a two year wage freeze for all federal employees.  The proposal, one among several expected in the coming weeks, would save the Treasury about $60 billion over ten years.  Obviously a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done, but why not start with the low-hanging fruit.  Hopefully future proposals will address more significant, systemic budgetary issues, like the ballooning cost of Medicare, the bloated defense budget and the deficit-exacerbating tax cuts scheduled to expire in three weeks.  For a little perspective on how the numbers stack up, see below.  (chart from CNNMoney.com)

  

I remain completely unconvinced that most of those elected to Washington in November on a platform of fiscal responsibility, have any interest in fiscal responsibility - largely due to the fact that the people who sent them there aren’t really interested in fiscal responsibility either.  In a Wall Street Journal poll released on November 18, respondents were asked if they preferred Congress use spending cuts or tax increases to balance the budget.  A whopping 70% expressed opposition to cuts in Medicare, Social Security and defense (only 27% in favor), while 59% opposed any increase in taxes.  Apparently people think we should reduce our debt by increasing our expenditures as we decrease our revenue.  No wonder this country is getting it’s butt whooped at math.  Barack Obama and Paul Ryan might just be the only two people in DC interested in reducing the deficit.  Good luck to you both.  Let me know how it turns out.

The Pentagon released the results of its year-long “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” impact study on Tuesday.  Absolutely unsurprisingly, 92% of military members surveyed said they did not object to lifting the ban.  Additionally, 69% acknowledge they have served or are currently serving with gay or lesbian personnel.  Even though 30% of respondents indicated they felt that repeal would affect their unit’s ability to train well together, only 10% felt it would affect their own ability to train well with their unit.  That’s the old “of course most people are bad drivers, I’m just not one of them” syndrome.  Let’s get this out of the way.  This policy is stupid.  It is absolutely ridiculous that we tell some young men and women that they can give their lives in service to their country - as long as no one knows they’re gay.  In the words of one special ops soldier interviewed for the report,

“We have a gay guy [in the unit].  He’s big he’s mean and he kills lots of bad guys.  No one cares that’s he’s gay.”

A lot of people in this country were convinced that allowing blacks to serve in the military would ruin “unit cohesion.”  They were exposed as fools and racists.  A lot of people were convinced that women had no place in the military, and would ruin “unit cohesion.”  They were exposed as idiots and sexists.  Far fewer people remain convinced that allowing homosexuals to serve will ruin unit cohesion.  Repeal this law and expose those people for the frauds they are as well.

The big news of the weekend was the release of some hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. State Department cables by WikiLeaks.  Persons who have nothing better to do with their time than to comb through millions of lines of text seem to think there is nothing particularly sensitive revealed in the documents.  The information dump mostly seems to be an exercise in an international game of “tell me what you really think of that guy,” which, while amusing for it’s gossip value, has little to no bearing on the price of tea in China.  However, there is a broader point to be made.  We have entered an age of involuntary transparency.  Regardless of whether or not we think secrets should be kept, they won’t be kept.  Someone, somewhere, somehow will discover them   and post them online for all the world to see, and there is little anyone can do to stop it.  This wasn’t the first classified information dump, and it certainly won’t be the last.  According to Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, several American banks and pharmaceutical companies are next on his hit list.  There is no longer any such thing as privacy, no such thing as “off the record.”  It’s all out there in the ether, waiting to be consumed by persons who were never intended to consume it.  We will have to adapt accordingly.

Finally, actor Leslie Neilsen passed away last week.  Although he starred in many serious films during his career, he was perhaps best known and loved as Dr. Rumack in Airplane! and Lt. Frank Drebin of Police Squad! and the Naked Gun series.  Call him an actor, call him a comedian, call him an all around great guy, just don’t call him Shirley.