Young, Green and Blue

What Paul Ryan Hopes You Gloss Over In His New Budget

2013-03-13T10:39:00.000-07:00

Yesterday morning, Paul Ryan released a rehashed version of the “Path to Prosperity” – and it’s nearly identical to the Romney/Ryan economic blueprint roundly rejected by Americans in November. Medicare is turned into a voucher system, Medicaid is block-granted to the states, Obamacare is repealed, marginal tax rates are lowered.

That being said, examining his budget reveals some of Ryan’s glaring omissions, inconsistencies, and the extent to which he attempts to redefine the role of government in America.

Let’s begin…

“Today, Washington budgets by crisis.” -p.4

In and of itself, this admission is obvious and insignificant, primarily serving to tap in to widespread disgust at ‘Washington’ playing politics. But looking back, the crisis atmosphere was ushered in by Congressional Republicans – primarily in the House – who held America’s bond yields hostage during the debt ceiling debate of 2011. From that act of intransigence, the Budget Control Act of 2011 combined with the pending expiration of the Bush tax cuts to create the fiscal cliff, which in turn pushed off sequestration until March.

Paul Ryan appears to be ducking blame for his role in engineering these manufactured crises, which have become all too commonplace.

“The House Republican budget reduces deficits by $4.6 trillion over the next ten years. It targets wasteful Washington spending and reforms the drivers of the debt.” -p. 7

Paul Ryan’s short-term goal for deficit reduction – $4.6 trillion over ten years – isactually less than that achieved under Simpson-Bowles 1.0 or 2.0, according to figures from Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog.

Here’s what the “Path to Prosperity” does to government spending as a share of GDP:

-p.9

This gets back to what’s beneath the surface in the Ryan Budget – it’s a blueprint for Grover’s quest to shrink the American government until it’s small enough to drown in a bathtub.

From Nate Silver, here’s a chart that shows government spending as a percentage of GDP hasn’t been that low since the early 50s:

“…Bill Gross, bond-fund manager at PIMCO, estimates that we would need to cut spending or raise taxes by 11 percent of GDP (or $1.6 trillion) over the next five to ten years to keep our debt below a crisis level.” p. 15

It doesn’t help Ryan here that he cites an expert on bonds arguing for significantly less deficit reduction than he’s proposing. This begs the question, is deficit reduction really necessary given the persistent high levels of unemployment?

In economies with depressed aggregate demand, cutting government spending serves as a headwind to GDP growth. Unemployment has also been on the rise in indebted European nations, which embraced austerity or had austerity thrust upon them.

“Congress should pursue patient-centered health-care reforms that actually bring down the cost of care by empowering consumers.” p. 33

Patient-centered health-care reform is nothing more than a focus-group approved sound bite. It is worth mentioning that Ryan takes no concrete measure to guarantee that the cost of care will be brought down. The notion that consumers have a greater ability to bring about reduction in costs than federally imposed price ceilings or the government’s purchasing power through economies of scale, however, is downright farcical.

In Medicare, the federal government has tried to address cost pressures by cutting provider payments in ways that hurt quality and restrict access for seniors. -p. 37

Paul Ryan really wants to cut federal spending on health care. I think he’s proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Let’s use an admittedly simplistic example to examine federal health care expenditures to Medicaid, while keeping in mind the realities of an aging population. Assume the federal government spent $10 billion in 2012 to pay for 10,000 Medicare recipients to undergo back surgery. If 10% more people needed the procedure next year, spending can either go up 10%, or the federal government can force providers to accept payments that are about 9% and spend the same amount, but at a lower rate per surgery. Or, the federal government can choose to spend the same amount at the same rate, and people won’t receive the care they need.

A failure to scrutinize the size of provider payments signals Ryan’s unwillingness to examine measures which would curb the cost of care – instead, he focuses on the singular task of cutting government spending on health care.

“This budget calls for directing any potential Medicare savings in current law toward shoring up Medicare, not paying for new entitlements.” -p. 40

What Ryan’s actually doing here is simple: choosing a short-term continuation of the status quo for Medicare at the expense of Medicaid.

“Washington’s spending problem did not just develop in the last few years.” -p. 55

Too true. As I’ve written before, the deficit drivers have been the Bush tax cuts, two wars on the nation’s credit card, and an unfunded expansion of Part D to Medicare.

Paul Ryan voted in favor of all of those measures.

BONUS: One thing in the Ryan Budget you should pay more attention to…

-p. 30

He’s hit on something here in this chart, which illustrates a sad truth for lower income single-parent families: as income increases, government benefits are lost – in effect negating part of the impact of those extra dollars earned.

One thing this chart shows is how little Barack Obama’s proposed minimum wage hike would help under this scenario. If a mother with one child worked 50 weeks for 40 hours/week and saw her hourly wage go up to $9.00 from $7.25, the income increase would cause her family to lose government benefits and effectively serve as a high tax on her additional earnings. Very little would be retained after these additional expenses and taxes are incurred.

If Republicans began proposing tax reform that addresses the costs borne by impoverished individuals as they move up the income ladder, well, that’s a national conversation I’d enjoy having.

The Odd Connection Between Employees At The Department Of Defense And The Estonian Social Insurance Board

2013-02-12T12:58:00.000-08:00

En route to Florida for a cruise to begin my #funemployment, I had the good fortune to sit next to an official from the Department of Defense on a flight from JFK to Dulles.

We chatted about subjects all over the map – his 30 years of service in the Armed Forces, the two times he contracted dengue fever, the situation in Syria – but I was particularly interested in the specific intel he provided regarding how the DoD will implement the looming sequestration cuts.

(I’ll avoid giving this gentleman’s name. He didn’t provide it, but I caught a glimpse of his airline ticket sticking out of his suit pocket. I suppose this might pass for investigative journalism…but I digress. Instead, let’s call him Noel.)

The good news: he indicated that even in a worst-case scenario, general employees won't be fired.

According to Noel, nonmilitary DoD staff has already agreed upon involuntary, unpaid vacation in addition to pay and hiring freezes in lieu of layoffs.

General staff will rotate on these 3-week ‘vacations’ in the event of sequestration, which would slightly, though not substantially, impact the DoD’s operational capabilities.

Ironically, it appears as though the forced spending cuts would be implemented in a way nearly identical to austerity measures adopted by periphery Eurozone nations in response to the financial crisis.

A report financed by the European Commission, entitled “The wrong target – how governments are making public sector workers pay for the crisis” outlines how one Estonian agency used the same tactic to reduce government spending:

…the Social Insurance Board, which deals with pensions, required its staff to take 24 days unpaid leave (two days a month) over 12 months in 2010 (p. 12)

The use of unpaid, involuntary vacations for public sector employees (as a means of deficit reduction) has also been introduced in Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania.

Noel also revealed the DoD has been cutting back extensively on travel expenses – for nonmilitary staff, only travel specifically pertaining to war is maintained.

He went on to say that the American public should expect that the nation’s armed forces will be reduced by about 100,000 over the next few years – and that closing bases overseas doesn’t save as much money as you’d think, since foreign countries pay a substantial percentage of the costs borne by housing those soldiers.

The bottom line: state and local government cuts (read: reduction in public sector employees) have undoubtedly been a drag on the recovery.

The continuation of this farcical trend, through sequestration, will only serve to undercut the recovery, and potentially throw the U.S. economy back into recession.

Live-Blogging the 2012 Presidential Debate

2012-10-03T20:28:00.004-07:00

Howdy y’all – I’m back from a pseudo-vacation for a live-blog of the debate tonight. Grab your popcorn but keep this caveat in mind: studies show post-debate spin is more important than the actual debates themselves!

My drinking game words are “Bain” and “exceptionalism”.

As such, I’ll be crowd-sourcing spell-checking duties on the night.

9:03 – Ignored the rules, which I’m sure the candidates will also do. CNN has a speaking-time clock running. No surprise: Barack’s first mention is of his wife, Michelle, with whom he’s celebrating his 20th anniversary today.

9:06 – Obama runs a seamless two-minute drill: a summary of his stump speech, laying out where we’ve been, how far we’ve come and the work that’s still to be done.

9:08 – CNN Colorado undecided voters seem to be responding more to Obama’s opening plea than Romney’s — particularly women — and especially when Romney attacked Obama’s record as President.

9:09 – Obama pushes investments in K-12 and community college education, tax breaks for domestic manufacturers (as mentioned earlier in ITES: Manufacturing) and investments in alternative energy sources as key points to improving economic recovery.

9:11 – Jim Lehrer asks for specificity. Let’s see how far this gets…

9:13 – Mitt Romney once again repeats lies on overhead in federal programs. This after saying he doesn’t have a $5 trillion dollar tax cut, claims that it is revenue-neutral. Lie count for the night: two.

9:14 – Women don’t respond to “drill, baby, drill” line. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio polls reflect this.

9:15 – The face-to-face fight for the middle class has officially begun.

9:16 – Obama unravels Romney’s tax plan myths, hits him hard on which loopholes he’d close. Average middle class family would pay $2000 or more under Romney’s tax plan. Let’s see how this response goes…

9:17 – Romney basically calls Obama a repetitive liar — talk about the pot calling the kettle black. DOES NOT MENTION WHICH LOOPHOLES HE’D CLOSE.

9:19 – It’s arithmetic! Was wondering when that zinger was going to appear…

9:20 – Speaking of zingers…still no signs of any from Romney, who’s reportedly been practicing them on aides for months.

9:20 – Donald Trump as a small-business owner one of those great dual purpose lines. Red meat for the base, and a great reference point for independents.

9:22 – Romney tries to take ownership of Bowles-Simpson. Must just be going for general name recognition, or forgetting that the Commission recommended raising revenues…

9:23 – Obama ends the first segment by making the choice not between Obama/Romney, but Clinton/Bush. Consistently, female undecideds have held more favorable opinions of Obama than males.

9:26 – Romney loves attacking the moderator and demanding attention. CNN shows undecideds don’t appreciate his pettiness.

9:28 – Romney has scored points attacking Obama on debt, but none on his own policies to reduce it. Americans don’t like debt, but they like your plans even less.

9:30 – Obama outlines specifics: $2.5 in cuts for every $1 in revenue. Retakes ownership of the Bowles-Simpson Commission. Also hits Romney hard on his refusal of a $10 to $1 mix of cuts to revenues during the Republican primaries. Right-wing extremism does him in again.

9:32 – Romney: small business owners, small business owners, you’re raising taxes, small business owners.

9:33 – Romney: absolutely I’ve ruled out more revenue. Someone find him that poll where 67% of Americans favor a millionaires’ tax…

9:34 – Obama gets to take advantage of the fact that the Republicans bow to the altar of Big Oil, pointing out subsidies still enjoyed and their incentives to outsource wells. That’s an easy well to sell tax increases on corporations (which are not people, my friends).

9:37 – Obama continuing to hammer Romney on Medicaid. That’s cornering the Florida vote, FYI.

9:38 – Romney associates himself with Oil and Obama with alternative energy. This might work as long as the only company people know is Solyndra, but it’s a fading, archaic viewpoint. I’ll take those characterizations all day long.

9:39 –Romney: people and states are brilliant, federal employees aren’t.

9:41 – Obama’s anecdote about his grandmother compelling, rebuts Romney’s dismissal of the 47%. Key point: She was able to be independent under the structure and benefits provided by the federal gov’t. Millions of Americans are just like her — and America is the land of opportunity partially because of these programs that give all a fighting chance.

9:43 – Big lie count: 3. Romney repeats the false claim that Obama is “raiding” Medicare.

9:44 – Obama hits Romney on premium support (voucher programs). If you’re Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty looks like a much safer running-mate now that you’ve been hog-tied to Paul Ryan’s draconian budget.

9:46 – Obama: If you repeal Obamacare, seniors fall into the doughnut hole. To repeat myself: Romney won’t push your grandma off the cliff, but he WILL toss her into the doughnut hole.

9:47 – Romney: what I support is no change to Medicare. Big Lie Count: 4.

9:49 – Obama (to my eternal joy) finally calls out Romney’s lies on Medicare’s supposed inefficiencies.

9:50 – Romney claims the private sector provides a better health-care plan at a lower cost. Big Lie Count: 5. I’ll link some charts from G20 countries that prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt…

9:51 – Romney would “repeal and replace” Dodd-Frank. Common theme: not fully ever revealing what “replace” entails.

9:54 – Obama: does anyone out there think that there was too much regulation and oversight on Wall Street? If you do, vote Romney.

9:55 – Romney: I want better regulation than Dodd-Frank. But I won’t say what it is.

9:56 – Romney favors a cost-only consideration of helping the healthcare market, and a cuts-only approach to dealing with the deficit. Key link: BUSINESS PROFITS!

9:57 – Romney: best approach for healthcare is to do what I did. Did anyone remind him that Romneycare and Obamacare are the same thing, for all intensive purposes?

9:59 – Obama: Healthcare is a key piece of middle-class security, just like jobs. Undecided women go wild – like 14 year old girls at a Justin Bieber show. Links his plan’s future success to the how well Romney’s plan worked in Massachusetts.

10:02 – Romney: claims Romneycare didn’t raise taxes in Massachusetts. Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the ACA, you’ve got Big Lie #6.

10:03 – After Romney champions “bipartisanism”, Obama reminds him that the ACA (particularly individual mandate) was a Republican idea which has origins in the Heritage Foundation.

10:05 – Obama highlights best practices in healthcare, shows need to apply these on a national level. Makes great case for higher standards, more federal involvement in the healthcare market. Key phrase: institutionalize best practices.

10:06 – Obama calls Romney out on punting solutions to the states and a failure to offer a replacement to Obamacare.

10:07 – Romney says his plan includes popular aspects of Obamacare (keeping children on their parents’ plans, covering pre-existing conditions). Does not mention any other details. Big Lie #7 is on IPAB’s ability to dictate your health treatments.

10:09 – Romney: private market and individual responsibility always work best. Ezra Klein has done a great series on why this just isn’t the case because of some unique characteristics that are peculiar to the healthcare market (i.e. everyone must use it at some point).

10:10 – Obama echoes my 10:07 comments on Romney. Obama: my choices are the ones that benefit middle-class families – the crux of the election.

10:11 – have yet to hear ANY specifics from Romney. Side note: think Jim Lehrer’s done an awful job keeping this debate on track.

10:12 – Romney: my plan includes covering pre-existing conditions. FOR THE FOURTH TIME, WE ALREADY KNOW.

10:13 – Best question has been asked: on the candidates’ fundamental differences in their vision of the American government.

10:14 – Obama: Abe Lincoln knew there were some things we do better together to provide gateways of opportunity for all Americans.

10:15 – Romney: I love great schools. That’s the kind of vague generality that’s dictated his presidential campaign.

10:17 – To stick with vulgarities, Romney has solely referenced the Declaration of Independence in his vision of government. Thomas Jefferson used lofty phrases for a purpose: defining and creating a free democratic nation. Mitt Romney has another purpose: becoming President.

10:18 – Romney affirms his plan to strap federal dollars to student’s backs and let their parents choose where they go. The problem: if you don’t improve schools, this has little to no effect on education standards, particularly in closing the racial gap that exists in education.

10:20 – Obama: Ryan Budget wasn’t very detailed, and this seems like a trend.

10:21 – Obama notes how he’s cut out the middleman on student loans, helping provide an opportunity for higher education to thousands more students. Key point: Obama cares about students, Romney about profits.

10:24 – Romney: I suggest we grade our schools. Here’s a thought – I suggest we IMPROVE our schools. You know, maybe fix the dilapidated ones and improve the student/teacher ratio.

10:25 – Romney: as President, I’ll sit down with Democratic leaders and talk about challenges and solutions. I just don’t believe that, especially after Mitch McConnell’s #1 goal is to stop Obama from being re-elected. There just really isn’t much common ground to find in Congress these days.

10:27 – Both candidates have struggled on the question on how to end partisan gridlock. Long term prognosis for the nation: not good. Best part- Obama: sometimes compromise means knowing when to say ‘no’. Romney doesn’t know how to say ‘no’ to his base.

10:28 – Obama’s closing statement: where we’ve been – worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. How we’ve recovered so far – ingenuity, perseverance and inherent generosity of American workers. What will we do to continue – focus on domestic manufacturing, balanced approach to deficit reduction and smart investments in alternative energy and education: this gives the American middle class the ability to continue to grow and thrive. I’ll continue to fight hard for you.

10:30 – Romney’s closing statement: I’ll fight chronic unemployment and create 12 million new jobs. Paints gloomy picture of next four years under Obama. Repeats Medicare lie. I will not cut commitment to our military.

I think that’s foreshadowing an attempt to fight on Obama’s turf in the near future since Romney’s economic policy doesn’t seem to be resonating.

Conclusion:

John King seems to be handing this one to Romney. I don’t agree. CNN has an incentive to make this a “horse race.”

Obama didn’t really drill Romney on Bain & Bush enough for my and other progressive’s liking. Also preserved my sobriety. But he preserved his likability — and he’s the one in the lead. Let the ads hammer Romney, and let the President be the man above the fray.

Wolf Blitzer said Romney “held his own” tonight. But that’s simply not what he needed tonight. He didn’t do anything to win over new voters. It was a safe, gaffe-free debate — and all in all, that favors the leader.

Three's Not a Crowd

2012-09-08T11:45:00.002-07:00

A trio of new scribbles are on the chalkboard over at All Things Democrat.

Click on a title link to visit that article.

Scareflation

The GOP is simply making up an economic problem and transferring full blame for this nonexistent issue to the President -- with NO evidence. Romney's campaign slogan might as well be "It's the economy I SAY it is, stupid!"

Since my piece was first published, Romney has doubled down on the "prices are rising" argument, and William H. Gross, Managing Director at PIMCO, declared that "The age of inflation is upon us."

The Right's notorious message discipline coupled with apathy for the truth has been a toxic combination -- one that's really getting on my nerves.

The Simpsons and Politics

A light-hearted break from the slow, somber march of campaign season. Video clips include LGBT issues, immigration, education, unemployment and more.

Convention Hangover: Saturday Six-Pack

Six links from trusted cyber news sources, along with my added comments. Leftover thoughts for a couple DNC speakers not named Obama or Clinton, Romney's new strategic turn and snippets on domestic and international economic developments. On the economic front, the lack of monetary accommodation is causing a slight headache - the absence of fiscal stimulus is more of an inoperable brain tumor.

I'm continuing work on the "It's the Economy, Stupid" series, but pieces on class warfare (spoiler: the upper class is winning), our holy trinity of lingering debt issues (mortgage, credit card, student loans) and a preview of the Presidential debates are also on the docket.

As always, stay tuned.

In the meantime, you can follow me in the Twittersphere @LJKawa.

New Posts Up at All Things Democrat

2012-09-05T08:06:00.004-07:00

Howdy, folks.

My mouth's been on the mend from wisdom teeth removal so that explains the scarcity of posts. Wanted to let everyone know I've got two new posts up at All Things Democrat:

Counterfactual Conceptions with Ron Paul

Doesn't it bother you when politicians make outlandish statements whose truth is difficult, nay, impossible, to ascertain? Me too. I'm often accused of being a secret Paulite, so it's nice to finally put that rumor to bed.

DNC Recap: Day 1

A host of fine speakers - I may be biased, but these ladies and gentlemen are blowing their GOP counterparts out of the water on the messaging, enthusiasm and engagement fronts. And this was just the hors d'œuvre!

Lots of good stuff coming out of ATD and my head at the moment. Stay tuned.

Apology to Mia Love

2012-08-30T13:36:00.001-07:00

The British philosopher Antony Flew conceptualized the “No True Scotsman” argument in 1975. The presentation of this logical fallacy often takes an appearance similar to this exchange:

Paul: All Scotsmen wear kilts.

Lauren: My uncle, Duncan Machaggis, is a Scotsman and he doesn’t wear a kilt.

Paul: Well, all true Scotsmen wear kilts.

The latter party attempts to refute evidence against a universal claim in a manner that has no foundation in reason: by making the claim a prerequisite, or necessary qualifier, to the subject at hand.

So from the Left, I’ll offer an apology to Ludmya “Mia” Love.

Ms. Love is the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, and the GOP’s candidate in the state’s 4^th Congressional District. She is an African-American of the Mormon faith, and for those reasons her Wikipedia page was vandalized after her base-pleasing speech at the Republican National Convention.

The edited remarks in question were heinous – not something you’d say in front of your mother, your spouse or even as drunken banter in a barroom.

An aside – Ms. Love’s post-RNC money bomb is likely to be inflated as a result of this character assault. Thanks, guys. Way to help the team.

I won’t say no true Democrat would ever stoop to such levels – even though the Democratic Party's platform is a model of tolerance and inclusion. I will say the anonymous actors were cowards, operating behind the Invisibility Cloak of the Internet, and that they do not represent the party's views.

Regrettably, these vile attacks are not limited to the extreme Right of the political spectrum – and this is part of the larger problem. How can we expect our elected officials to reach solutions when we use epithets and slurs to criticize the opposition? Our civil discourse has degraded into uncivil disses.

The Left ought to embrace the policy chasm between the parties to iterate our argument. Use facts, numbers, quotes, studies, reports, evidence and reason. There’s more than enough on our side – believe me.

Here’s a taste:

House Majority PAC Ad

Partial transcript: “On the Saratoga Springs City Council, Love voted to raise property taxes three times, up 116 percent in one year, and allowed spending to nearly double. And as mayor, Love took a 30 percent pay increase. If you like how she raised taxes in Utah, you’ll love Mia Love in Congress.”

Some may note that I'm potentially making a “false equivalency” argument here – that while left-wing extremists vandalize Wikipedia pages, Republican extremists attend conventions, and, too often, occupy seats in Congress or run for the Presidency. But I digress.

The point is that there is no room in a just society for ad hominem assaults on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, creed and the like. By anyone, for any reason.

A Republican President freed the slaves.

A Democratic President signed the Civil Rights Act.

Both sides have been part of the solution in the past – Democrats should not become part of the problem, in any way, shape, or form.

Let’s return to the good old days when Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan would knock back a few beers, and the only peanuts thrown were shells on a barroom floor.

It's the Economy, Stupid: Manufacturing.

2012-08-29T11:02:00.000-07:00

The series comparing Obama/Romney's records and plans for different sectors of the economy continues with manufacturing - an industry I've got a lot more knowledge on than agriculture.

Available at:

http://www.allthingsdemocrat.com/2012/08/its-the-economy-stupid-manufacturing/

Future topics include:

-Energy

-Taxes

-Regulation

-Deficit Reduction

-Health Care

And anything else I can think of/care to write about. Feel free to comment and leave suggestions!

Atlas Debunked: Private Charity vs. Government Assistance

2012-08-27T15:49:00.001-07:00

On CNN’s Your Money this weekend, Christine Romans ran a segment attempting to reconcile the economic and philosophical views of Ayn Rand. Her guest, Stephen Moore, was palpably elated to be included in the discussion of his self-proclaimed favorite book. Moore took no issue with Republicans cherry-picking Rand’s economic views while denouncing her avid atheism. He characterized Atlas Shrugged as a contemporary to the state of our economy – struggling, and hemorrhaging from the stabs of a failing government pulling out all the stops trying to fix it.

Some brief background on Stephen (no relation to Michael):

Senior economist on team that developed the Armey flat tax in 1995;
Member of Wall Street Journal Editorial Board;
Founder of Club for Growth, which invented the “RINO Watch” list;
Co-Founder of Free Enterprise Fund, which lobbied to privatize Social Security and repeal the estate tax.

After his spiel, Romans deftly noted that Rand leaves no room for morality or God in her books. Moore’s response ventured into the realm of the unreal as he chimes a popular Republican talking point: private solutions work better than public ones.

Moore: “[…] conservatives believe you should help your fellow men, you should be charitable. The issue is whether the government should compel you to do it or whether government charity works better than private charity.

I would make the case, you know, give your money to the Salvation Army, not to the food stamp program.” (emphasis added)

Moore’s hardly alone in criticizing the efficiency of government-run programs. To justify turning Medicaid, food stamps, and housing vouchers over to the states (with funding cuts), Mitt Romney demonized the high costs added by Washington bureaucrats:

Romney: “[…]you have massive overhead with government bureaucrats in Washington administering all these programs. Very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them.” Meet the Press Debate, (01/08/12)

That’s odd. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities disagrees. Their report found that more than 90 percent of spending on Medicaid, SNAP, housing vouchers, Supplemental Security Income, school meals and the Earned Income Tax Credit. A graph from the CBPP below provides a breakdown of program expenses.

Full circle- this brings us back to Stephen Moore’s assertion that the Salvation Army deserves your money more than the food stamp program (SNAP). According to the CBPP, “94.6 percent of federal spending went directly for food” in fiscal year 2010. SNAP currently serves over 45.5 million Americans, approximately 15% of the population. By contrast, 18% of Salvation Army’s costs are related to overhead according to their expenses from fiscal year 2010 (shown below). Overhead is assumed to be the aggregate costs of both the “Management & General” and “Fundraising” expense items.

By no means am I denigrating the work done by the Salvation Army, nor any not-for-profit providing such services. However, conservatives need to acknowledge not only the breadth of government-run assistance programs but their efficiency, as well.

SNAP versus the Salvation Army is a microcosm of the larger debate about the role and proper function of government – a debate in which one of the sides believes that the free market always wins.

Well, in this case, as in many others…Atlas Debunked.

Introducing the Republican Party: Video

2012-08-26T10:23:00.001-07:00

Have you ever wondered why there’s never been an attack ad composed of the most asinine, absurd statements to come out of Republicans’ mouths, set to classical music?

Well, so did I. Harnessing the power of the late great Steve Jobs and a little elbow grease, I’m able to bring you one.

During the editing/producing stage of this whole endeavor I really grasped what a tough gig those campaign-marketing professionals have – but these were prime exhibitions of verbal diarrhea/Republican honesty. Very little editing needed – they can speak for themselves. Enjoy!

Credit to ABC News, CNN, Forbes, Fox, GETTY, Huffington Post, Now Public, Raw Story, Talking Points Memo, Washington Post and YouTube for video, images and content.

Cross-posted, along with a lot of other great stuff, at All Things Democrat.

It's the Economy, Stupid: Agriculture

2012-08-24T09:19:00.000-07:00

It’s the economy, stupid. This phrase, initially coined by James Carville as an internal message for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, has been revived en masse by conservatives seeking to make this election a referendum on President Obama’s handling of the economy.

Tepid growth, continued mass unemployment and a growing, crushing burden of debt – these are the charges laid at the President’s feet. Yet, the Romney campaign, which seemingly became more ‘substantive’ with the addition of Paul Ryan, has notoriously avoided specifics on economic matters.

The economy is a dynamic, multi-faceted and complex entity, and a winning economic vision and message certainly require more than a four-and-a-half word mantra. Moreover, the millions of Americans who deserve a better-functioning economy (and Washington) are entitled to compare the particulars of each candidate’s policies pertaining to different sectors of the economy.

Agriculture

President Obama has a laundry list of accomplishments for rural communities, including:

Record-high farm income
Record-high agricultural exports
Millions of acres enrolled in conservation programs
Agriculture is now one of the fastest-growing parts of our economy, creating one out of every 12 American jobs

Of these, Obama can take special credit for his extension of conservation programs and expanded exports, spurred in no small part by soybean shipments to China.

The most striking feature of Obama’s agriculture policy is that it is not, strictly speaking, solely related to agriculture. The President views rural farms not as islands unto themselves, but rather parts of their economic community. Growth of agriculture will not occur in a vacuum, but rather through initiatives to develop other profitable industries and rural infrastructure. As such, Obama has provided access to credit for 50, 000 rural small businesses which helped create over a quarter of a million jobs. The President also supports increasing access to broadband for previously isolated rural communities – something the private sector shies away from, as it offers limited opportunities for profit.

The Food and Jobs Act of 2012, a five-year omnibus known as the Farm Bill, passed the Senate in June. The President advocates the bill’s passage, which would reduce the deficit by $23 billion while providing crop insurance and food assistance programs vital to farmers and the impoverished, respectively. Although the Act includes modest cuts in SNAP, it eliminates approximately $5 billion in direct payments made to farmers per annum, which primarily benefitted Big Agribusiness, in favor of subsidizing crop insurance for farmers.

President Obama filled out a survey for the Iowa Corn Growers’ Association (IGCA) outlining his positions and earned a grade of B – the same grade received by his opponent, Mitt Romney. However, Romney declined to fill out this questionnaire, forcing the IGCA to cobble together his stance on agricultural concerns including ethanol, trade, EPA, and farm programs based on prior statements. In two areas – federal crop insurance and conservation programs – the IGCA deemed that there was no information available with which to formulate Mitt’s position.

A lack of disclosure has been the Romney campaign’s staple thus far (re: tax returns), with the candidate often referring the press to “Believe in America”, his 160+ page economic blueprint, for specific policy details. However, the word ‘agriculture’ is used sparingly –once by ex-CEO and failed gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman in a section on Human Capital, and by Governor Dave Heineman of Nebraska in a portion dealing with trade. By contrast, China is referenced 59 times. Romney’s announcement of a “Farmers and Ranchers for Romney” failed to contain any policy details – talk about putting the cart before the horse! However, Chuck Conner, a former Department of Agriculture staffer in the Bush administration, was happy to offer a few future ‘Day 1’ actions made by President Romney to promote agriculture:

Expand trade opportunities
Repeal the estate tax
Restrict regulatory authorities

Substantively, Mitt Romney seems to have a plan for agriculture that is as vague as Mark McGwire at a hearing on steroids. Nor are these aforementioned details relevant or specific to agriculture. After investigation, his plan for agriculture seems to be the same as his one for health care/small business/the economy at large: cut taxes and let the free market handle the rest.

We don’t have to take his spokesperson’s word as the iron-clad truth, but as most political observers know, it’s difficult to pin Mitt down on any one position. For instance, in January 2012, Mitt championed his support for farm subsidies, stating that domestic food stability was a “national security issue.” Three months earlier, he had hinted at cuts to crop insurance programs, saying that he’s “not running for office based on making promises of handing out money.” Like his running mate Paul Ryan, Mitt seems ready to let farmers take the heat – no pun intended – for the drought and ensuing ruined crop.

Since he’s not helpful, we’ll have to do what the ICGA did, and piece together Romney’s agriculture stances ourselves. Remember, Mitt only needs be able to handle a pen to be Grover Norquist’s dream President. Therefore, the best – and only – place to start is the farm bill proposed by House Republicans, who purposely failed to hold a vote on the Senate’s Farm and Jobs Act before vacation.

The House Republicans’ proposal isn’t a bill – it’s an assault on the social safety net. It cuts SNAP by $16 billion – four times the amount of cuts contained in its Senate counterpart. Despite a commanding majority in the House, the GOP has been unable to pass its own measure because many Republicans remain philosophically opposed to subsidies in general.

I’d love for Mitt Romney to clarify his stance on agricultural issues, but first, he’d have to present some. Barack Obama seeks to strengthen rural communities, enable farmers and rural small businesses to access funding and ensure safe standards in food production.

For rural communities, the choice is clear: there’s a man with a plan and another without a clue. You can bet the farm on it.

Chain of Fools

2012-08-15T18:48:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, Joe Biden made a small gaffe when speaking to a crowd of supporters in Danville, Virginia. He indicated that listeners would help the Obama-Biden ticket carry North Carolina – not Virginia – another 2012 battleground state. However, another Biden off-the-cuff comment has elicited a manufactured outrage from conservatives for his alleged racially loaded language. The comment in question:

BIDEN: He said in the first hundred days he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules. Unchain Wall Street. They’re going to put y’all back in chains.

To anyone with a modicum of common sense, Biden is using a metaphor to express the notion that deregulation which favors the financial sector necessarily subjugates Main Street. Such analogies using ‘chains’ or ‘shackles’ in reference to economic matters are common fare by politicians. Soledad O’Brien, hosting Anderson Cooper 360, showed a reel of GOP lawmakers from John Boehner to Paul Ryan using similar expressions to describe the effects of tax increases or regulations on free enterprise by the Obama administration.

Nonetheless, the backlash from the conservative community was swift and condemnatory. Romney’s National Press Secretary, Andrea Saul, released the following statement in response to the Vice President’s comments (emphasis added):

After weeks of slanderous and baseless accusations leveled against Governor Romney, the Obama Campaign has reached a new low. The comments made by the Vice President of the United States are not acceptable in our political discourse and demonstrate yet again that the Obama Campaign will say and do anything to win this election. President Obama should tell the American people whether he agrees with Joe Biden’s comments.

I’ve been paying pretty close attention and have yet to witness any slanderous or baseless accusations made against Governor Romney, which the exception of Harry Reid and his inside source. Romney pays a lower tax rate than the average working American. Bain Capital was a pioneer in outsourcing. The Salt Lake City Olympics relied on public, government funds. Romney uses the Cayman Islands as a tax shelter and has held a Swiss bank account. These are facts that refute the artificial persona being built around St. Willard of Success, and a fair and integral part of the campaign.

The setting of Biden’s speech may have played into the overreaction from the Right. Danville was the last capital of the Confederate States, featured a boycott of white merchants in 1963 during the Civil Rights movement and has a population evenly divided between African-Americans and Caucasians. The Romney campaign is no stranger to racially tinged appeals. Washington Monthly’s Ed Kilgore accuses the campaign of race baiting in its factually errant focus on Obama’s welfare revisions. As Kilgore notes, this particular tactic of dividing the electorate into the industrious haves and the lazy have-nots was popularized by RIchard Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

Despite extensive coverage, CNN has done this dispute a disservice by turning it into a prime exhibit of false equivalence. The ‘chains’ controversy was featured not only on360, but also the Situation Room, OutFront, and Piers Morgan Tonight. Yet none of these programs showed, or even mentioned, the explicitly racial and offensive comments made by none other than Colonel Allen West, Representative from Florida’s 22^nd District. Speaking at a campaign rally on July 1, Col. West made these remarks (no emphasis needed):

REP. ALLEN WEST, R-FLA.: He does not want you to have the self- esteem of getting up and earning and having that title of American. He’d rather you be his slave and be economically dependent upon him.

Is it fair that Col. West escapes media scrutiny for these remarks because he is an African-American? I’ll let the reader decide.

In the meantime – to Col. Allen West, the Romney campaign and the mainstream media, this one goes out to you. Take it away, Aretha!

Revisiting Ryan's Right-Wing Manifesto

2012-08-14T17:59:00.000-07:00

With the selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, Mitt Romney, the polygamist of policy stances, has married himself to the Ryan Budget whether he likes it or not. Not surprisingly, within a day of the announcement, Mitt had already taken multiple positions on his commitment to his running mate’s plan. Immediately after the announcement, the campaign released a statement indicating that Romney would present his own budget and plan for deficit reduction as president – in effect preemptively divorcing himself from the Ryan Budget. However, in the Romney/Ryan joint 60 Minutes interview, Romney indicated that as VP, Ryan would take the lead in certain issues where his passions and expertise lie. Unless Mitt plans to let Ryan attempt to privatize Social Security again, Ryan’s areas of expertise are undoubtedly the budget and deficit reduction.

Paul Ryan has explicitly stated what the GOP fears: that he means for his budget to be the basis of an election. The introduction of his Path to Prosperity states that “Americans, not Washington, deserve to choose the path their nation takes, and this budget presents a clear choice.”

Summaries of Paul Ryan’s budget are as plentiful as they are damning. His transformation of Medicare into a voucher system has received the most attention, but his plans to turn SNAP (also known as food stamps) and Medicaid over to the states have been condemned. Catholic nuns and bishops alike denounce Ryan’s disregard for the poor and needy in favor of tax cuts for the rich.. Nonetheless, his 96-page budget plan reveals many more unpalatable policy priorities and intellectual dishonesty that demonstrate he is unfit to be one heartbeat removed from the Presidency.

On Monday’s Out Front, CNN reported that Ryan’s plan would not cut military spending, whereas President Obama’s proposed budget would cut nearly $550 billion, if combined with the sequester mechanism, over a period of ten years. CNN is correct, but incomplete. Ryan would counteract these cuts by spending $6.2 trillion on national defense spending over the next ten years. His justification? “A safer world and a more prosperous America go hand in hand.” This so-called intellectual leader of his party fails to provide any empirical evidence to support his argument.

Ryan’s budget denounces Obama’s alleged crony capitalism, particularly his investments in green energy which “allow the government to play venture capitalist with taxpayers’ money.” Absent from his rhetoric is the recognition of generous subsidies enjoyed by Big Oil. Ryan prefers to promote private development of nuclear, wind, and solar energy. If so, the American solar industry will remain behind global leaders, such as China, and domestic solar manufacturing will be perpetually crippled in favor of domestic solar retailers who purchase less expensive foreign solar panels.

Like Romney at Bain Capital, Ryan’s plan for the economy promotes outsourcing. He disagrees with the current approach whereby US multinationals are taxed at foreign rates on profits earned abroad, and taxed at US rates on the repatriated profits. This system is designed to keep this money in the US to begin with and discourage foreign investment by companies whose headquarters are in the United States. Instead, Ryan wants US multinationals to pay foreign taxes, and nothing more – a policy which fundamentally incentivizes outsourcing.

Ryan’s antipathy to the poor has been well documented, as previously mentioned, and is reflected in his attitude towards the expansion of SNAP in response to the recession. He decries the “additional funding to the states if they achieved higher enrollment levels.” Simply, Ryan thinks it is a bad idea for people to get food in times of dire need.

The American agricultural sector is currently in a very precarious state, as sweeping droughts have ruined most crops. Ryan is indifferent to the plight of farmers, and wants “agricultural producers to assume the same kind of responsibility for managing risk that other businesses do.” Without government-supported crop insurance, many farmers would be immediately impoverished due to the poor yield. Ryan thinks they should take responsibility for the weather. In addition, his budget cuts fixed payments to farmers. This portion of Ryan’s budget has received minimal attention, and should be trumpeted by rural Democrats en masse as the election campaign progresses.

Ryan’s misguided priorities, reflected in his budget, are matched only by his intellectual dishonestly. Examples include:

§ Ryan critiques the Obama administration for ignoring the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, while omitting that he voted against the very same proposals.

§ Ryan states that “government spending is no substitute for a true recovery led by the private sector” when no recovery in American history has ever been led by the private sector.

§ Ryan claims that marginal tax rate increases decrease economic output, blatantly ignoring the growth experienced during the Clinton era.

§ He believes the recovery is hampered because “borrowed money and debt is fueling uncertainty for businesses and job creators, who know that today’s deficits are tomorrow’s interest rate and tax increases.” If that were the case, businesses would invest now to avoid higher interest rates in the future. The problem is that there is not sufficient demand to meet an expanded supply, if it were to occur.

President Obama has a poignant, concise, and correct diagnosis of Ryan – a decent man, a family man, but a pioneer and spokesman for a vision fundamentally at odds with American values and detrimental to the development of an American Dream that you don’t have to be asleep to believe.

Why Ryan?

2012-08-11T13:38:00.000-07:00

Saturday morning, standing in front the USS Wisconsin, Paul Ryan – Mitt Romney’s newly announced running-mate – delivered an impassioned speech to conservative supporters. Now, I find it difficult, if not painful, to listen to the Right for any longer than it takes to make Ramen noodles. Somewhere after Ryan’s declaration to small business owners that “You did build that!” – the GOP’s answer to “Yes, We Can!” – my analysis of the man’s added value began.

A brief biography – Paul Ryan served Wisconsin’s 1^st District for seven terms, developed the budget plan that contains the heart of the GOP platform and is part of the trio of House Republicans leaders who call themselves the “Young Guns.” Like Romney, Ryan lacks any foreign policy experience – besides supporting high levels of defense spending. Romney’s deficiency in this area belied the need for a running mate with a strong foreign policy record according to conservative pundits like Matt Drudge, who concocted a movement to have General Petraeus as Romney’s right-hand man. However, the rationale and necessity for the Ryan VP pick are abundant.

Youth + Enthusiasm

At 42, Ryan serves as an injection of youthful energy to a flagging campaign. On the campaign trail, Vice Presidents typically take the role of the attack dog. Ryan offers strong-handed criticism of Obama’s with a charisma that far surpasses Mitt Romney. Then again, that bar is harder to limbo under than step over. Many pundits claimed that Mitt Romney would not select a running mate that would overshadow him, but he did – which reinforces the narrative that Mitt’s stump speech has thus far failed to sway the electorate.

A Conservative

The past two elections, the GOP nominee has selected a running mate which galvanizes the base. Paul’s conservative bona fides far surpass those at the top of the ticket – though he wasn’t always such a fiscal hawk during the Bush administration – without the embarrassment of any Momma Grizzly comparisons. The Tea Party and right-wing activists have found their white knight, as recounted by Erick Erickson.

A House Republican Leader

This selection reinforces the common belief that Mitt Romney, the weather vane, is beholden to the conservative wing of the GOP. It is no coincidence that Mitt chose his running mate from the House of Representatives, where the influx of Tea Party representatives who have controlled the party since 2010 are concentrated. Mitt will faithfully rubber-stamp the Ryan Budget – or for that matter, any piece of legislation sent to him by a Republican-controlled Congress.

Wisconsin

Mitt’s handlers know the electoral math, like his tax plan, just doesn’t add up. Karl Rove has written about Romney’s 3-2-1 path to the White House. The plan is, simply, that after taking all red 2008 states, Romney needs to win:

3-Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia – traditionally Republican states that went to Obama

2-Florida and Ohio, the two battleground states

1-Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, or WISCONSIN

No doubt, the re-election of Gov. Scott Walker in the WI recall along with the most recent Rasmussen poll, which shows Romney trailing Obama by three percentage points in Wisconsin, has emboldened Republicans to believe the state is on the table. However, whatever value added by Paul Ryan in Wisconsin may be negated by his impact in Florida, where a high population of senior citizens will surely hold him responsible for his budget, which ends Medicare as we know it.

Favorability

Mitt Romney has taken it on the chin recently, seeing his favorability ratings plummet in the past month. Though a third of voters express no opinion on Ryan, his net favorability rating is +14. Mitt barely polls that well within his own family. In his speech, Ryan denounced the mud-slinging tactics of the Obama campaign which appeal to the lowest common denominator. The selection of Ryan is a sign that the GOP will attempt to “go positive” to appeal to voters. However, Mitt’s record has taken a beating, so what is left to go positive on but…

The Issues

Undoubtedly the most important implication of Paul Ryan is that his presence signals an abrupt turn to policy. No longer can Romney campaign on his record at Bain and success as a “job creator.” Colleagues describe Ryan as wonkish and an intellectual leader. Ryan needs to be that and more, for he has a daunting task ahead of him. It will be his job to champion the conservative policies of deregulation, tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy and inadequate health care – because the GOP, and Romney, its standard-bearer, have nothing left to run on but their past failures.

Piece originally published at All Things Democrat.

The Right to Bear AR-15s or Whatever You Please

2012-08-09T20:53:00.000-07:00

The recent mass shootings at a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado and a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee have reignited the discussion on the optimal methods to provide domestic security, and more specifically, the role of guns in promoting and perpetuating such heinous crimes. Despite the attention paid to these atrocities by the media, gun control – a polarizing subject – is likely to be a non-issue in this election campaign. That being said, an investigation into both parties’ stances on domestic security and gun control is no doubt warranted, as is a historical analysis of the language and intention of Founding Fathers in crafting in Second Amendment.

The Republican Party is, on principle, against any restriction on the sale of firearms to Americans, with the exception of sophisticated military-grade weaponry. To the GOP, gun control laws are a case of legal adverse selection – law-abiding citizens are most likely to be compliant and are therefore endangered, as a higher percentage of guns will be in the hands of violent criminals. This line of reasoning has merit, but the Republican claim to be the party of law and order certainly does not. A party of law and order would take all domestic security matters seriously.

In the interest of public safety, the GOP elects to practice the new-age McCarthyism of Michele Bachmann. Rep. Bachmann suggested Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Hilary Clinton, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood through an associate of her late father and has called for an investigation into the matter. Given that the constitution fundamentally guarantees all people the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, this degree of racial profiling is not only an affront to American values but is also a blatant disregard for the totality of credible threats facing the nation.

The Republican safety plan is, substantively, a comprehensive war on Islam. In 2009, John Boehner blasted the Department of Homeland Security for investigating white supremacist domestic terror groups instead of focusing on al Qaeda.

Peter Bergen of CNN and the New America Foundation reports that since 9/11, there have been more attacks on US soil by right-wing extremists (9) than by Islamic terrorists influenced by al Qaeda (4). Including the massacre at the Sikh temple, the death toll by these different organizations is similar: 15 by right-wing terrorist groups, and 17 by Islamic terrorist groups.

Democrats, on the other hand, lack the political will, capital and consensus to advance gun control legislation. In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration would pursue a renewal of the assault weapons ban signed by Bill Clinton in 1994, which expired in 2004. Recently thereafter, 65 House Democrats signed a letter to Holder opposing the ban. Obama will look to protect Democrats running for Congress from being unduly targeted by the NRA and other pro-gun groups and avoid the issue in order to preserve party unity. At least the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have investigated all terrorist threats thoroughly during the Obama administration.

The lack of public consensus for gun control measures makes advancing legislation on the matter politically unviable. A Pew Research Center poll conducted July 26-29 illustrates the split in opinion, with 46% of Americans prioritizing the need to protect right to own guns, and 47% favoring more control over gun ownership. A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines of ammunition, which would have a significant impact in preventing or mitigating the fatalities in mass shootings, enjoy a strong majority of public support according to a CBS News/New York Times poll conducting shortly after the Tuscon shooting in early 2011. The reality is that the majority of homicides by firearms are perpetrated with handguns. However, not only does the public oppose a ban on handguns by a ratio of 2:1, but the Supreme Court has also ruled that such bans are unconstitutional.

Within the past four years, the Supreme Court has issued a pair of landmark rulings demonstrating its interpretation of the Second Amendment. In Heller v. D.C. (2008), which struck down the city ban on handguns, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right that enables people to carry “all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” The implication which can be inferred is that society and Congress get to define what comprises a bearable arm. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) is a related case where the Supreme Court ruled that city’s handgun ban was unconstitutional. The ruling stresses the importance of protecting an individual’s right to self-defense through the Second Amendment, vis-a-vis handguns. Prior to these judgments, U.S. v. Miller (1939) did not affirm the Second Amendment as an individual right, but rather through the collective right of each state’s ability to maintain a militia. Thus, ownership of a firearm could only be restricted on the basis that the weapon in question had no connection to military activity, and as such fails to provide for common defense. The Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment has evidently changed drastically over the past 75 years. Therefore, a review of the amendment’s language and the purpose for which it was developed is justified in order to judge the Court’s fidelity to the Constitution.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The rationale for the Second Amendment is deeply ingrained in the Declaration of Independence – the ability for free men to take up arms against a tyrannical government. George Washington once remarked that:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

This celebration of firearms and their guaranteed place in the Constitution is, in this light, a partial homage by the Founding Fathers to themselves for their accomplishments during the American Revolution.

Explicit statements made by several Founding Fathers assert that the Second Amendment is intended to promote a strong militia. The quartering of British soldiers (forbidden by the Third Amendment) and the revenues raised by the Stamp Act to pay for standing armies were primary causes for the Revolution. As such, the Founding Fathers were wary of standing armies, especially in peacetime, though they recognized their pragmatic necessity, especially since the young America was surrounded on all sides by foreign powers. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson blatantly state the intention of the Second Amendment – as a safeguard for individual citizens to protect themselves against the standing army of a tyrannical government.

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…”

- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 29

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

- Attributed to Thomas Jefferson

These men intended for the militia, which in that era referred to all white men able to operate a firearm, to be superior to any standing army. Gun control advocates will note that the Second Amendment calls for a “well-regulated militia” and that this language implies that the government can impose restrictions on militias. However, in Federalist Paper No. 29, Alexander Hamilton indicates that “well-regulated” means, simply, well trained:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. (emphasis added)

Adding all this up shoots a few holes in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. The founders did not intend for individuals to have bearable arms for their own personal defense, but arms that enabled them to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Thus, the array of weaponry owned by citizens should necessarily equal the sophistication of weapons carried by the government’s standing army. AR-15s? AK-47s? RPGs? Nukes? Under a strict constructionist view of the Second Amendment, all of these weapons are legitimate and legal for US citizens in order to match the force wielded by the State. To read into the intent of the user and the thoughts of what constitutes a “bearable arm” for self-defense, as the Supreme Court rules, is an exhibition of judicial activism that ignores the desires and intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Reality changes. Technology changes. Hell, even the meaning of the words in the Second Amendment has changed.

If we, as a country, swear blind and eternal fealty to the original Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the wishes of the Founding Fathers, rather than treating the lot as living, breathing documents, sometimes the results may seem incorrect, out-of-touch, and downright dangerous to the public.

We can continue indiscriminately following the wishes of the Founding Fathers – who agreed that black men constitute three fifths of a person – or maybe it might be time to update the 221-year-old how-to manual on the rules for governing a Republic.

QE3 or not QE3? Monetary Stimulus and the Economy's Referee

2012-08-07T20:59:00.000-07:00

Being a Federal Reserve Chairman must be a lot like refereeing in the NFL. The experts –with the most knowledge and superior vantage points – are perpetually harassed and critiqued by amateurs on the sidelines, most of whom are just searching for a scapegoat to blame for their teams’ failures. To extend the analogy, in an election year with high stakes this is nothing short of a Super Bowl setting for the Fed. Though the Federal Reserve is an independent, autonomous organization, it is still subject to scrutiny – most frequently from Ron Paul, chairman of the Subcommittee for Domestic Monetary Policy.

Along with this scrutiny comes political pressure, which Democrats and Republicans claim has become the impetus for the Fed’s actions, or lack thereof. Mitt Romney, along with many congressional Republicans, is on the record opposing further monetary stimulus – a stance that is sure to change should the Republicans win control of the White House and Congress in November.

Boston Federal Reserve President Eric Rosengren has recently advocated for aggressive accommodating monetary policy. He calls for the Fed to continue its purchases of bonds until economic recovery is evident and robust. Rosengren does not believe the Fed’s action should be inhibited by expectations of criticism that such action is intended to benefit Obama – helping the economy is his only concern.

Vincent Reinhart, chief U.S. economist for Morgan Stanley and former influential colleague to Ben Bernanke, concluded that Fed typically stands pat in election years with a tendency towards inaction. 1996, Clinton’s reelection year, stands as an example: the federal funds rate was not changed after January. However, examining the past few presidential elections paints a much different picture – that the Fed, like an NFL referee, makes its decisions based on what is correct, in context, whether it is the Super Bowl or a pre-season game; a Presidential election year or a midterm.

In 2000, the Federal Reserve had to contend with the impending burst of the dot-com bubble. Poor policymaking was partially to blame for the extent of the bubble, as the Fed failed to raise rates in advance to slow the glut of investment in the stock market. In addition, on March 21, 2000 the Fed noted that economic conditions remained “essentially the same” despite the fact that the dot-com bubble burst mere days earlier. Nonetheless, the Federal Reserve took appropriate action to cool an overheated economy and raised interest rates in February, March, and May. Containing inflation constrains demand, and adjusting interest rates is the typical, conventional policy tool used by the Fed. The central bank maintained the same federal funds rate from mid-May through the election until the following January.

George Bush’s reelection in 2004 was preceded by a period of meager-to-adequate growth and low inflation. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan committed to accommodating monetary policy to support economic growth, and kept the federal funds rate at 1% for the first and second quarters. On June 30, the Fed raised the federal funds rate moderately and noted the “policy accommodation can be removed at a pace that is likely to be measured.” In English, this means that one can expect future interest rate increases, which occurred in August and September before the election, and after in November and December of 2004.

2008 will be synonymous with monetary stimulus just as 1848 is with European revolutions. The Federal Reserve emptied its toolbox, with measures that ranged from traditional (lowering the federal funds rate) to unprecedented (TAF, TSLF, PDCF, etc.). The federal funds rate was cut drastically multiple times in January, and such reductions continued through April. Abruptly, and a little absurdly, the Fed had false confidence in the effectiveness of its expansionary monetary policy, and rates were unchanged from June to September. Evidently, the Fed dissuaded from action during this period by the political pressures that come with an election year. The central bank cut rates substantially two times in October, just prior to the election. Thus, pundits who claim the Federal Reserve is gun-shy during an election year have surely misread the Fed over the past three elections.

Image by David Parkins

Likewise, Ben Bernanke will not be deterred from action by a year that features February 29. In a previous post, I briefly outlined some reasons why the Fed has been silent lately: to save tools for potentially adverse events on the horizon, and to maintain the attractiveness (and safety) of US Treasury bills and bonds. Economists predict a third round of quantitative easing (QE3) in September to lower long-term interest rates, which encourages consumer purchases of durables and makes mortgages more affordable. No doubt, the Right will scream that the continued monetary stimulus is a contrived attempt to hand the presidency to Obama, the Left will clamor that more monetary expansion is required, and that Bernanke has tilted the playing field towards Romney. Both will be off-base.

The effects of policy changes by the Federal Reserve after May will not manifest themselves before November. Time is necessary to consumers to alter their behavior in a response to interest rate changes and for the Fed’s intended results to materialize. This time period is known as the monetary lag. For instance, if the Fed raises its target for the federal funds rate, it takes time for open market operations to be executed so this target is reached. In addition, the rational consumer, when faced with a rise in interest rates, will not necessarily forego a major purchase if he or she anticipates interest rates will rise again in the short-term future. Thomas Hoenig, the Kansas City Federal Reserve President, claims that the monetary lag is 6 to 9 months (at times, 1 year) before implemented policies reach their peak impact. If the Fed were interested in manufacturing a victory for Obama, the time to act would have been from September of 2011 through the first quarter of 2012 in order to give monetary stimulus appropriate time to achieve demonstrable economic effects.

Side Note: ironically, Operation Twist fits this description mildly well. This policy, whereby the Fed sells short-term bonds and buys bonds of a longer maturity in an attempt to drive down long-term rates, was instituted September 21, 2011, two days after GOP leaders urged the central bank to take no action to stimulate the economy.

Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher, a consistent inflation hawk, displayed ignorance as to the role of monetary lags by suggesting inaction, as a way to avoid raising “the political tension that surrounds the central bank.” Meanwhile, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) called the Fed “the only game in town” in the election year, beseeching Bernanke for more monetary stimulus. Criticism of the Fed’s (in)action in the months leading up to an election ignores the reality of monetary lags. So too do calls for Federal Reserve action to stimulate the economy out of dire need and poor conditions – this misplaced blame fails to recognize the true culprits for the paltry recovery.

The Federal Reserve cannot and should not be the scapegoat for the 112^th Congress, which has enacted just 151 laws. In comparison, the 110^th Congress passed 460 laws despite divided control of the legislative and executive branches. The Tea Party conquest of Congress has engendered partisan gridlock through the GOP’s aversion to compromise and blind commitment to ideology.

The Republican party deserves the lion’s share of the blame for why fiscal and monetary stimuli have not been instituted. The GOP’s fanatical desire to return us to a Galtian world necessarily entails massive cuts in spending in all areas not ending with “ilitary.” The Ryan budget is an exhibition of contractionary fiscal policy, otherwise known as austerity.

Economics 101: fiscal and monetary policy are most effective when they are working hand-in-hand.

Until November, expect business as usual for both fiscal and monetary policy – far from hand-in-hand, they’re waging a vicious thumb war.

The Veil of Ignorance: Windsor v. DOMA

2012-07-20T15:21:00.000-07:00

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, has long been the bane of LGBT activists. This law, of course, defines marriage as between one man and a woman. Section 3 of DOMA bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions, even if said unions have been legalized by individual states. As well, this law determines that the word ‘spouse’ in all legislation shall be defined narrowly as a partner of the opposite sex. 1,138 federal programs have marital status as a criterion in determining eligibility for benefits, according to the Government Accountability Office. Thus, same-sex couples are unable to jointly file taxes or declare bankruptcy, and are ineligible for certain social security benefits and access to health care.

John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice, introduced the concept of the “veil of ignorance.” He wrote that when formulating policy, one must remove all personal biases and consider the policy from the perspective of the lowest strata of society – those that will be affected these decisions.

The Obama administration, recognizing the explicit discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation in Section 3, announced on February 23 that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the law’s constitutionality. The President noted two cases in particular that changed his perspective on the DOMA. One case is not only a convincing legal argument, but also contains a poignant human back-story that fully exhibits the costs unjustly borne by those adversely affected.

Edie Windsor and Thea Speyer met in 1963 in Greenwich Village – an era when public attitudes towards homosexuality were more hostile than the present day. From all accounts, they went together like peas and carrots. In 1967, Thea popped the question and Edie accepted. However, opportunities for these two women to have their union officially recognized were limited – in the same country that embraced the Kardashian/Humphries sham and Britney Spears’ (among many others) short-lived Vegas marriage.

Complicating the matter was the deterioration of Thea’s health. At age 45, Ms. Speyer developed MS, after which she was confined to a wheelchair. Edie took on the role of primary caretaker for Thea in addition to that of a supportive partner. In 2007, the pair married in Toronto, putting a capstone on their relationship after an engagement that lasted 40 years. A short movie about their mutual devotion, relationship, engagement and marriage was made: “Edie & Thea: A Very Long Engagement.” New York State recognized their marriage, but the federal government did not. Sadly, Thea passed away in 2009 due to progressive paralysis brought about by MS. Deprived of her partner, Edie suffered a heart attack shortly thereafter, and was diagnosed with a chronic heart condition.

Naturally, Thea left her estate to her lifelong partner and wife. Under federal law, a spouse does not generally owe estate taxes on his or her inheritance from the deceased. However, the federal government levied estate taxes in the amount of over $363,000 against Edie in accordance with the Defense of Marriage Act.

Edie refused to take this penalty lying down and had the fortitude to take up her own cause. With her movie and extensive documentation, she is certain that the federal government will affirm her partnership as what it was: a marriage. Ms. Windsor filed suit to recover the estate taxes she paid, plus interest. Her most recent legal victory occurred on June 6, when the District Court from the Southern District of New York found the DOMA to be unconstitutional.

The court’s ruling rested on a straightforward constitutional amendment and tenet of basic human decency. The Fifth Amendment provides equal protection under the law, and is violated by Section 3, which overtly discriminates, with a real economic impact, on the basis of sexual orientation. Sometimes, I really wonder if conservatives stopped reading the Bill of Rights after the Second Amendment…

Even the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, commissioned by House GOP leadership to defend the DOMA, conceded the obvious: if Speyer had been married to a male, the estate would have passed to him without a federal tax.

Since the June 6 victory, Edie’s legal team – which includes the firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, the ACLU and the NYCLU – has petitioned to have the case heard by the Supreme Court instead of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Edie’s health remains fragile, and she fervently desires to have her questions answers and taxes returned before she passes.

The petition makes several compelling arguments and counter-arguments to the opposition. The DOMA represents the first time the federal government sought to regulate a marriage’s validity, a matter traditionally left to the states. As well, the DOMA has no impact on heterosexual couples, so it can hardly be viewed as a disincentive to heterosexual marriage. The contraception debate, where a bunch of men determined policy affecting women’s reproduction and health, shows the extent to which flawed rationale proliferates. Courts have produced different results in Section 3 DOMA lawsuits, with six courts equally split between affirming and denying the law’s constitutionality.

The most artfully argument employed by Edie’s team is to cite a quote that Chief Justice Roberts also referenced in his ruling on health care. The Chief, and in turn Ms. Windsor’s team, cited an excerpt from an opinion from 2010, which argued that while “legislative novelty is not necessarily fatal,” sometimes “ ‘the most telling indication of [a] severe constitutional problem . . . is the lack of historical precedent’ for Congress’s action.” Imitation is the highest form of flattery, or in this case, irony.

After recognizing the inherent inequities in Section 3 of the DOMA, President Obama's support for the LGBT community has not abated. On Good Morning America, he declared that he believed couples of the same sex should be able to get married. He credited the open-mindedness of his daughters, whom have friends with homosexual parents, as a reason for his evolution. In addition, he spearheaded the repeal of DADT, which allows gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

The upcoming election is a choice, not a referendum, and decisions will be made on matters other than just the economy. In the spirit of comparative disclosure, let’s investigate which positions Mitt Romney has held on this issue. In 1994, he promised LGBT that he would “fight for full equality” more than Ted Kennedy. As Governor, he sought to block gay marriage after it was ruled legal by the state’s highest court, yet managed to alienate both sides, simultaneously displeased with either his lack of tolerance or lack of bigotry. During the primary season, Mitt championed the need to enforce DOMA and announced his support for an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage. However, he has recently referred to gay marriage as “a state issue.” The GOP nominee has also signed the National Organization’s for Marriage stringent five-part pledge which holds gay marriage as anathema.

Bottom line: he’s no friend to equality. He lives behind a veil of ignorance of an altogether different nature than the one Rawls championed.

And he’s no friend to Edie.

Potential Veeps Write the Darndest Things

2012-07-06T17:19:00.001-07:00

Bobby Jindal just couldn’t help himself. While burnishing his veep credentials on a shadow campaign (along with Tim Pawlenty), he made the most of Independence Day by posting an op-ed diatribe on RedState. This particular piece – besides sounding like a macho Mitt Romney selection – serves as a right-wing list of talking points in regards to the ACA, so I’ll include most of Jindal’s text while picking it apart. Emphasis added by yours truly.

As we celebrate our nation’s birthday this week, it is important to remember and teach our children the Founding Fathers were declaring our independence, not creating a culture of dependence. (They also protested unfair taxation, but that is another story for another day.) This is an especially important lesson, given the Supreme Court’s ruling last week on Obamacare.

The reality is that the Founding Fathers were doing a LOT of things, not blindly and repetitively trumpeting their love of freedom. I find it particularly annoying that Conservatives get away with claiming some sort of inviolable link to the Founding Fathers in the same manner by which each Pope succeeds St. Peter. The truth of the matter is that the Founding Fathers said a lot of things, many of which don’t seem to resonate with GOP talking points:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

-Thomas Jefferson

“There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by … corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

-James Madison

Funny how that part of the Founding Fathers’ message failed to make its way into the GOP platform…Back to Jindal:

The ruling was both a disappointment and a blow to our freedoms. As we get further away from the ruling, reality will dawn on people, and we will be right back to where we were. The American people did not want or approve of Obamacare then, and they do not now.

Earlier this year, Jared Bernstein, economist and Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, wrote a fine piece discussing the difficulty of ascertaining public opinion on such a complex piece of legislation. Notwithstanding, 85% of Americans agree on coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, 68% approve of children remaining on their parents’ plan until age 26, and 77% believe that the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap should be eliminated – all provisions of ObamaCare. Moreover, the Kaiser Foundation has found that a majority of Americans want the attention of politicians to return to more urgent, economic matters.

The President promised us our premiums would go down $2,500 per family per year if we passed his reform; family premiums increased 9 percent last year...

The President promised us he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle class families making less than $250,000 a year; Obamacare raises taxes on health plans, medical devices, prescription drugs, and employers, and 75% of the individual mandate tax will fall on the middle class. Over 20 million individuals will remain uninsured, and health care spending will be higher than it would have been if the law had not passed.

To blame the ACA for an increase in family premiums before the law has been fully enacted is ludicrous. It’s simply not applicable. This strategy to blame Obama for things that cannot possibly be construed as his fault is prevalent in the modern GOP. Exhibit A: Romney condemns Obama for job losses that took place in his first few months in office – well before his policies went into effect.

Where Jindal gets the notion that 75% of the individual mandate tax will fall on the middle class is unknown, but it is certainly misleading. Chief Roberts, in his majority opinion, noted than an estimated 4 million people would pay the penalty by failing to get insurance. This number is certainly insignificant compared to the vast number of Americans that will receive coverage under the terms of the ACA.

07/10/12 Update: Politifact has rated the claim that "75% of individual mandate tax will fall upon middle class" as false.

The Governor’s chutzpah in recognizing that ObamaCare fails to cover the entire population is hypocritical to the core. Jindal is refusing the Medicaid expansion that will allow for more citizens of Louisiana who need care to receive it. In addition, the GOP has continued radio silence on their health care plans, giving no brainstorms as to how more coverage will be attained.

Amazingly, facing the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression, President Obama chose to create a new entitlement program when we cannot afford the ones we already have. Republicans like to go on television and say we are borrowing from our children’s and grandchildren’s future. We can throw those talking points out; we are hurting ourselves now. You know we are in trouble when the German Finance Minister rebuffs President Obama and basically tells him to clean up his own mess before offering advice to others. Even the Europeans feel they have the moral high ground to tell us to tackle our own debt problems; that’s like the town drunk telling you that you have a drinking problem.

Labeling ObamaCare as a new entitlement program makes for a crisp sound byte, but fails as an appropriate characterization of the law. The ACA does not meet the parameters of an ‘entitlement program’ such as Social Security. While we’re on the subject, the negative connotation associated with ‘entitlements’ is startling. Entitlements are earned benefits that people deserve after paying into these systems over the course of their employment.

Jindal’s attempt to claim the economic high ground by referencing the German Finance Minister is equally obtuse. Republicans continue to champion the same austerity measures embraced by the European Union, particularly Germany, that have ravaged Euro zone economies.

Opposition to Obamacare will escalate for one simple reason; Obamacare is the most unpopular when people are thinking about it. Then-Speaker Pelosi said they had to pass the 2,000 plus page bill so we could find out what is in it. The President promised it would become more popular the more people learned about it.

I’ve already discussed how Jindal’s assertion as to the unpopularity of the ACA lacks a solid factual basis, so there’s no use beating that dead horse. However, this excerpt is especially telling since Jindal seems to implicitly prioritize popularity as the basis for a socially beneficial law. Is popularity really the priority of health care reform, or is it the betterment of costs and outcomes of the system?

The Supreme Court should have protected our constitutional freedoms, but remember, it was the President who forced this law on us. I congratulate the Supreme Court on one thing; they were far more honest about Obamacare than President Obama was. They rightly have called it what it is – a tax. The Supreme Court has done something new; they have declared that President Obama can use the taxation power of the federal government to compel behavior. The federal government can even tax the lack of behavior. What’s next? Taxes on people who refuse to drive Chevy Volts or eat tofu?This is ridiculous.

To wade into the realm of technicalities – technically, the Supreme Court did not call ObamaCare a tax. The individual mandate penalty was not even defined by the Court as a tax. Rather, the SCOTUS upheld the mandate by way of Congress’ ability to tax – a small distinction, but one worth noting, all the same. In fact, the Chief Roberts stated that if the penalty were higher than the cost of purchasing insurance, the mandate would be unnecessarily coercive and act so as to compel behavior.

Jindal then rehashes an argument propagated by Justice Scalia, and in turn, dismissed by Justice Gisburg: the broccoli horrible. This comparison, which seeks to compare the market for health care and the market for tofu, is not analogous and irrelevant. One is a market in which all individuals have to enter into at some point in their lives, and the other is a market frequented primarily by vegetarians and other groups of hippy liberals.

Success used to be measured by how many people we could get off the government dole, but now, under President Obama, we measure success by how many people we can get on government programs. Indeed, food stamp rolls have increased by 70 percent since 2007, and yet the government is spending millions of taxpayer dollars on advertising and encouraging parties to enroll even more.

Food stamp rolls increased as a result of the recession. To most reasonable people, this would seem logical. Yet again, Jindal seeks to lay blame for the utilization of necessary benefits during an economic downturn at the President’s feet. People need government assistance program when the economy slides and they lose their jobs. What is Jindal’s solution?

We have to decide whether we want to revive our economy by growing the private sector or expanding the public sector, to continue our culture of self-reliance versus a culture of dependency, to provide our children with opportunity or a sense of entitlement, and to pursue the American model or give in to the European model.

During the Great Depression, the American model was that the government is the spender of last resort. Keynes preached and FDR implemented stimulus that enabled an American economic recovery. When businesses are sitting on record amounts of profits, yet are not spending, the government needs to fill the gap. Otherwise, periods of meager growth will be the best-case scenario. Sound familiar?

Here is the crazy part – the federal government cannot pay for our existing entitlement programs.

Earth to Jindal: Social Security is fully solvent until 2038, and afterwards projects to pay out 75% of its benefits.

Democrats are already attacking Republicans for turning down free health care. Here is a news flash. All of this government spending is not free. It is our money they are spending; it is our future they are destroying; and it is really not that far into the future.

The Governor overlooks that this is money that is being spent on the health of the residents of Lousiana. For the first five years of the ACA, this Medicaid expansion is funded fully by the federal government at no cost to the states.

I’ll accept the point that government spending is not free, but in the United States, the government spends money. Are the nation's health and wellness not worthy expenditures?

Clearly, Jindal is willing to draw his line in the sand just to make a point at the expense of the health of his constituency.

ACA Aftermath and the Bitter Tears of Victory

2012-07-03T10:54:00.000-07:00

“One more such victory will utterly undo me” – King Pyrrhus of Epicurus (279 BC)

There is no more succinct summary of Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act than the above quote.

On Thursday, the SCOTUS upheld the ACA by a slim 5-4 margin, with Chief Justice Roberts serving as the surprise swing vote. The cost of this victory may well be the presidency, legislation from the New Deal and Great Society eras, and future progressive attempts for government solutions

The nuances and legalese employed by the Court’s conservative justices set unprecedented limits on the role of the federal government and inappropriately re-brand the individual mandate in a manner that distorts its essence and intention.

The Court ruled on four matters in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. The first issue was whether the case could even be heard under the Anti-Injunction Act, which holds the constitutionality of a tax/penalty cannot be challenged until such a time when one must pay it. Another question answered by the court was the legality of the Medicaid expansion found in the ACA.

The undisputed heart of the case concerned the individual mandate. On this matter, the court issued rulings on the constitutionality of the mandate and whether or not it could be removed from the law with other parts remaining intact – the mandate’s severability.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of this landmark case, joined by liberal Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan. Surprisingly, the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce, did not serve as the rationale for the mandate’s legality. Rather, the mandate was found to be constitutional under Congress’ broad power to tax to fund social welfare programs. As such, the mandate represents a tax on the microscopic percentage of Americans who will choose to forego purchasing insurance though they can afford it.

Prior to this judgment, Obamacare was attacked as a coercive socialist policy and gross overreach by big government, criticisms sharply directed at the individual mandate. Four conservative justices (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) certainly agreed, voting that the mandate was unconstitutional and that the ACA (including Medicaid expansion) should be rejected in its entirety. The dissent, authored by Scalia, decried the ACA as inflexible health-care regulation that is inoperable without the (unconstitutional) mandate. Justice Kennedy, thought to be a possible swing vote, wrote in a separate dissent that the rewriting of the mandate as a tax is an unprecedented move – interpreting the statue in something other than Congress’ wording.

Precedent. Wouldn’t it be nice if the dissenters showed some respect for it in their rulings?

In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause enabled the federal government to limit the amount of wheat grown for individual consumption by a farmer. Yet, Chief Roberts used a slippery slope argument to justify the unconstitutionality of the mandate under the Commerce Clause. In the Chief’s eyes, if the federal government can force you to buy health insurance, a future Orwellian Vegetarian Party may mandate the purchase of broccoli – an affront to all patriotic, red-blooded, red meat-eating Americans. Of course, this is the Roberts Court – which ignored precedent regarding the limitation of corporate political expenditures – so we ought not expect too much of them.

The net result is that a majority of the Court found the mandate to be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Chief Roberts' ruling implies that federal government overstepped its authority by requiring Americans to purchase health insurance. This question was at the political heart of the case, and the decision depicts a “rigid reading of the Clause [that] makes scant sense and is stunningly retrogressive” according to Justice Ginsburg.

Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence (also a partial dissension) dissects the dissent of Scalia and the Chief’s unwillingness to recognize the Commerce Clause as a basis for the ACA’s legality. Simple summary of her argument:

The health-care market has distinct characteristics of interstate commerce. Spending on health care accounts for nearly twenty percent of the US economy and is set to double within the next decade. As well, this is a market that everyone is guaranteed to enter. Simply, everyone gets sick and needs to see a doctor – this is an inevitable fact of life. Uninsured Americans are not refused care, and their costs are borne by all those who do have insurance, accounting for $1000 of premiums for family plans per annum.

While conservatives mourn Roberts' ruling, inquisitive minds recognize the Chief’s shrewdness. Public approval of the Roberts Court currently rests at 44%, down from 80% during the 1990s. Another threat to this court’s legitimacy: three quarters of Americans believe their votes are motivated by political ideologies.

Chief Roberts was afforded – and took – the opportunity to preserve the image of his court by siding with the four liberal justices. But his ruling did not demonstrate his sudden conversion to logic and precedent. A more appropriate analogy would be that Roberts is preserving his judicial capital in the manner in which Muhammad Ali used the rope-a-dope strategy to preserve his energy for the inevitable counterattack on George Forman. The next season of this legal saga – ‘Revenge of the Roberts’ – is likely to star retrogressive rulings on gun control, voting rights, campaign finance, and even the Civil Rights Act. Sadly, these cases and decisions will receive much less media coverage than the ACA.

Making the assumption that Roberts’ ruling was (indeed) politically motivated – while additionally serving as a façade of his court’s legitimacy – it is instructive to consider the political ramifications. The unconstitutionality of the ACA would’ve been a double-edged sword for the GOP. Invalidating Obama’s largest – but by no means only – accomplishment would have been demoralizing to liberals, but conservatives would then have to reveal their plans for healthcare, which, um, do not seem to have captured the hearts, minds, or even the attention of the electorate. Wonder why that is?

It is unlikely, given Governor Romney’s manic obsession with the economic management of the country, that health care will be an important topic in the presidential election. Congressional races are a completely different story, especially considering that the Ryan Budget vs. ACA question featured prominently in special elections over the past few years. In all likelihood, the ceasefire on health care on the presidential level may negatively impact Democrats’ chances in the House and Senate, for polling shows that a majority many support individual aspects of the act, but also reject it as a whole. Messaging (as always) from the left on health care has been a failure.

Tax. No word, not even flip-flopper, carries a more negative weight in American politics. By re-labeling the individual mandate as something that it isn’t, Roberts enables the right to attach this toxic three-letter political epithet to President Obama. The individual mandate as a tax is not only a beneficial GOP talking point, but also has relevance to the repeal process. Taxes can be repealed through a simple majority through the reconciliation process rather than a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.

The final word: despite the court’s reprieve, the ACA relies on a Blue November to be fully enacted.

If not, at least all those smarty-pants moving to Canada to protest the Supreme Court’s ruling might go back home…

John Thune, Immune from Fact

2012-06-25T13:31:00.000-07:00

Senator John Thune’s recent op-ed on CNN was an exemplary study in intellectual dishonesty. No stranger to the realm of the unreal, Thune has previously claimed Social Security “is headed for bankruptcy.” Social Security is fully solvent for over 25 years, rendering Thune’s claim analogous to the assertion that a precocious pre-schooler is headed for his or her doctorate. He’s also stated that the ACA would cause 800,000 job losses, rated ‘mostly false’ by Politifact.

Senator Thune (R-SD), member of the Senate Budget and Finance Committee, did take full advantage of the opportunity to lambaste President Obama on his economic stewardship. He remarks that Obama promised unemployment below 6% by April 2012, and remains above 8%. He bemoans Joe Biden’s claim that 250,000 to 500,000 jobs would be created per month.

In the interest of full disclosure, the private sector has created approximately 160, 000 jobs per month since the recovery began. Republican intransigence stifled the American Jobs Act and continues to hinder the economy. Paul Krugman suggests that if the public workforce grew at the same rate under Obama as Bush, unemployment would be near or under 7%.

Thune makes no mention of these mitigating circumstances. Undoubtedly, the recovery would be much more robust and in line with Biden’s projection if the Republicans did not embrace contractionary economic policy at the federal and state levels.

The senator has no problem laying the meager economy, in its entirety, at the feet of Barack Obama to demonstrate the focus-tested talking point: the President is an incompetent, ineffectual leader unable to keep his promises.

Thune confidently asserts that “It doesn't take an economist to realize the president's economic policies have spectacularly failed to make things better.” This claim is evidently an appeal to emotion – not reason. The need for stimulus deemed essential to growth in recessionary periods is derided by Thune as an explosion in debt. Absent from Thune’s op-ed is George W. Bush, who inherited a $236 billion surplus and left office with a deficit over $1 trillion.

Thune further alleges that regulations have crippled business confidence. Notwithstanding the easy answer – deregulation facilitated the most recent recession – here are my feelings on regulations:

The Left has a significant messaging shortfall when addressing this topic. Regulations ought be viewed as the inherent responsibility of capitalists to ensure the humane treatment of workers in regards to their health, safety, and economic needs. Product standards should reflect their responsibility towards the health, safety, and economic well-being of not only employees, but all current and future citizens. Thus, regulations are framed more effectively as a built-in code of decency and morality in the economy.

Thune bravely suggests that it is time for Americans to try something new – presumably referring to the GOP. Unfortunately, Alexandra Franceschi, Specialty Media Press Secretary of the Republican National Committee recognized that the Republican platform are the Bush policies, merely updated. Mitt Romney’s proposed tax reform disproportionately benefits business owners, and the wealthy reduces the tax burden for business owners Try something new, indeed.

Shame on CNN – a pillar of the MSM – which should know better than to serve as a launching pad for the proliferation of opinions which lack a factual foundation. But besides that, Thune’s was an excellent piece, if one-sided arguments with little supporting evidence are your kind of thing.

Ben Bernanke: Evil, Space Cadet, or Shrewd?

2012-06-13T10:27:00.002-07:00

I’m as much of a fan of hyperbole as the next pundit, but some of the articles and comments on Ben Bernanke lately are a bit outlandish. In Eschaton blog, Bernanke is condemned as ‘evil’ for his apparent lack of economic stewardship as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. All of the comments are brimming with vitriol, though some are also mildly humorous. For instance, the commenter that suggested the Chairman change his last name to ‘Dover’ made me giggle. On the heels of his testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, progressives feel betrayed by the inaction of Bernanke, who did not signal for more monetary stimulus to aid the stalling recovery.

Image via NYT

Bernanke himself has written papers on the unprecedented measures that can be applied once central banks have reached the zero-bound. Some current recommendations include more attempts at quantitative easing and setting a higher future inflation target. The latter incentivizes people that hold money to spend it now with the expectation that their cash will be worth less in the future.

Bernanke seems to be going out of his way to combat inflation and appears to be ignoring the other half of his mandate – unemployment. He even disregards advice he gave to Japan to avoid their ‘lost decade’, prompting economists such as Paul Krugman to ponder why Professor Bernanke is at such odds with Chairman Bernanke.

The reality is that the economies and their situations are not identical. Bernanke needs to ensure that he has not fully played his hand of monetary stimuli in the event that financial conditions in the Euro zone continue to worsen. The financial crisis of 2007 has passed, but the Euro zone crisis (of 2012? 2013? Ever?) looms on the horizon. The interconnectedness of financial systems ensures that American banks, investors, and the economy at large will suffer if that crisis fully materializes.

In addition, the short-term effects of abandoning the 2% implicit inflation target are potentially as perilous as persistent unemployment to the economy. A key to avoiding a financial Armageddon in American necessitates that US T-bills and T-bonds maintain their reputations as liquid, safe options. This allows for the government to continue accumulating debt as the economy’s actor of last resort, stimulating demand through expansionary fiscal policy.

The ability to accumulate this seemingly insurmountable debt is rooted in strict observance of inflation targeting. Creditors hate inflation – it lowers the real burden of debt. US debt is so attractive that even after the S&P’s downgrade the yield on Treasury bonds actually went down. T-bills and T-bonds are the safe haven for institutional investors and nations alike, and an inherent liquidity preference in holding US bills (or financial instruments) exists, which artificially suppresses their yields.

Bernanke isn’t evil – he’s addressing America’s foremost economic concern and leaving himself a few bullets in the chamber in the event that Euro zone defaults threaten the stability of the US financial system.

Forecasting from Arizona

2012-06-12T11:52:00.000-07:00

Today, a special election in Arizona determines the fate of the House seat previously occupied by Gabby Giffords. The race pits Ron Barber (D) against Jesse Kelly (R), with a marginal third-party challenger on the left. Barber is a former aide to Giffords who was also injured in the shooting, and Jesse Kelly is an Iraqi War veteran and construction-industry businessman who failed in his bid for the House in 2010.

Aaron Blake has an informative synopsis which astutely observes that the same strategies are being employed by both parties that were used in the 2011 special elections in upstate New York and New York City. Despite this, Blake warns against “trying to draw broad conclusions based upon the results” of the special election. Public Policy Polling shows Barber leading Kelly by a 53 to 41 percent spread, yet also cites the limited relevance this election has to any other later in the year.

Gabby Giffords’ favorability ratings (67%-24%), as well as those of Barber (54% to 38%), measure up quite well against Kelly’s (37% to 54%) and are cited as the key determinants of victory. Democrats represent just three of eight House seats from Arizona and neither of its two Senate seats. The state legislature is stoutly Republican, red before the 2010 midterms and currently distinctly crimson, as the GOP enjoys a 21 to 9 and 40 to 20 advantage in the State Senate and House, respectively.

Because similar parallels exist, this race will give us a glimpse into November. Polls currently show Mitt Romney with a marginal net favorability rating (43% to 41%), while a recent Fox poll gives Obama a 52% to 42% spread. Thus, the presidential election mirrors the special election in this regard: it pits a personally well-liked candidate with a favorability advantage against an opponent who supports the Ryan budget and the destructive policies of the Bush era. This election is also emblematic of a larger theme for 2012 – how Democrats respond to the spread of the Tea Party, and the latter’s relevance in the future of national politics and policy.

Fearless Presidential prediction: the 8^th district will vote three to five points less for Obama in November that they do for Barber today.

Mitt Romney's Tom Barrett Problem

2012-06-11T11:19:00.000-07:00

Last post, we discovered how an enthusiasm gap was instrumental to Tom Barrett’s defeat at the hands of Scott Walker. The recall election has caused many predictions about the landscape in November – notably Reince Priebus’ assertion that Wisconsin is now in play – yet the shared characteristic between Barrett and Romney receives little discussion.

The GOP primaries have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt the lack of enthusiasm for Willard. The Anyone-But-Romney movement saw Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich all enjoy mass amounts of popular support amongst Republicans sympathetic to different elements of The Crazy. Granted, since becoming the presumptive nominee, there has been a coalescing around Mitt Romney, as indicated by his ability to out-fundraise Obama over the latest cycle. However, Romney’s assumed electability has been his saving grace to Republicans unsure whether he is really ‘severely conservative’ or, as feared, the ‘etch-a-sketch’ whose positions form to suit his audience.

CNN exit polls from the Badger State show Obama likely to prevail in November despite Walker’s victory. It strikes this pundit as odd that a state that once again selected a Tea Party darling as governor would also support a so-called socialist for the presidency. This dichotomy illustrates a few (sad) truths about American politics.

General public comprehension of policy must be close to non-existent. If this is an election primarily about the economy, how can one person possibly support Obama’s relatively centrist view of the economy and Walker’s approval of austerity? The nearly thirty percent of union members in Wisconsin voted against their own economic interests. Illogical.

Maybe Scott Walker himself had the perfect answer. On CNN, he cited his willingness “to make the hard choices” as a key to his win; something that resonated with voters. Perhaps this qualification is a higher priority than policy for most of the electorate. In that case, Obama ought be seen as a man of action on several fronts (healthcare reform, evident progress in eradicating Al Qaeda, repeal of DADT). Can Romney make that same claim? Or is he the candidate who will faithfully rubber stamp his party’s legislation – and nothing more?

By campaigning on the notion that November is a referendum on Obama the GOP is employing the same strategy that failed for Democrats in Wisconsin. They’ll rely on surfing a wake of anti-incumbency to the shores of the presidency by means of negative campaigning, while failing to emphasize and explain the particulars of their vision for the country. Thus, a Mitt Romney presidency means that the influence of the Tea Party has outstripped that of organized labor.

Short of the Mayans being correct, I fail to see a more disturbing conclusion that could be proved during 2012.

Why Walker Won

2012-06-07T18:15:00.000-07:00

There is a reflex reaction amongst left-leaning pundits to overstate the role money played in the Wisconsin recall. Admittedly, Scott Walker outspent Tom Barrett by a ratio of over 2.5 to 1, and about 80% of state legislative candidates with the monetary advantage won their election bids from 2002-2008. Rather than making a snap judgment on the causes of Barrett’s loss, it may be instructive to delve into the opinions of Wisconsin’s electorate to discern reasons for the Democratic defeat.

CNN exit polls reveal a crippling enthusiasm gap for Mayor Barrett in relation to Governor Walker. A recall election, by its nature, necessitates a certain amount of anti-incumbency amongst the electorate, but the opponent also needs to inspire voter enthusiasm. As shown below, Barrett dominates amongst voters who disliked the other option, and his share of this group accounted for slightly over 21% of the total electorate. Among Wisconsinites who were primarily voting for their candidate, Barrett accumulated support from just 23% of the total electorate.

In contrast, Scott Walker was the choice 67% of the voters who selected primarily for their candidate. This figure represents nearly 47% of the total electorate. That 67% is more than double Mayor Barrett’s support amongst that group, and that 47% is more than Mayor Barrett’s total percentage of votes. Simply put, more Wisconsinites enthusiastically voted for Walker than for Barrett and against Walker combined.

A few reasons can be given for this lack of enthusiasm for Bennett – especially the late Democratic primary – but one wonders about the wisdom of Wisconsin democrats in selecting a candidate who had already failed to defeat Walker. This is particularly relevant given the rarity of successful gubernatorial recalls.

If money played a large role, one would expect to see that a barrage of robo-calls and ad buys in the days leading up to the election. This was the case in the Senate race where Joe Ricketts essentially bought the Nebraska Senate GOP primary for state Senator Deb Fischer.

However, voters who decided in the past month were decidedly pro-Barrett. The mayor, it appears, was simply on the wrong side of a stark ideological divide. In addition, exit polls demonstrate resistance to the notion of a recall election amongst portions of the general electorate.

Thus, in the aftermath of the recall elections, we have a Case of the Pundits who Cried Big Money.

And Scott Walker still looms, big and bad, in the Wisconsin wolfpack.

Elements of the Elusive Establishment

2012-06-06T22:55:00.001-07:00

A recent piece in Washington Monthly’s “Ten Miles Square” blog by Jonathan Bernstein

decried the use of “Establishment” to describe elements or factions of the Republican Party.

However, careful scrutiny of the GOP identifies these perceived nameless faces, revealing their

effects and continued influence on the party.

Several existing definitions of the elusive “Republican Establishment” have been

propagated. David Brooks professed the belief that it is “anyone who knows what Newt Gingrich

is really like.” Dan McLaughlin explains that the Establishment differs from the new,

Tea Party-infused brand of conservatism in its willingness to preserve the status quo in regards to the size of government. Though partially instructive, these definitions fail to pinpoint the people and personalities that comprise and characterize the true Establishment: the Established Republicans, Moneybags, Media, Pseudo-Intellectuals and They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

The simplest way to define a party’s establishment is by recognizing its longest-serving and influential members of Congress. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who if re-elected will be the longest serving

current GOP senator, best exemplifies this brand. Consistently pro-military, this founder of the Federalist Society has often introduced a balanced budget amendment yet has also voted for

numerous debt-ceiling increases. Chuck Grassley (IA), Jeff Sessions (AL) and

Lindsey Graham (SC) are also stringent anti-environmentalists who promote national defense. Graham’s case is especially instructive of the modern GOP – he once supported climate change legislation but later flip-flopped in order to accommodate offshore drilling. Sessions, for his part,

would like to see the Bush tax cuts become permanently enshrined in law.

The Moneybags are a facet of the Establishment that facilitates the election of Republicans sympathetic to their causes by monetary means. Karl Rove is representative of this label but serves as the tactician to bring about the Moneybags’ agendas. This honorific title goes to gentlemen such as Edward Conrad, Louis Moore Bacon and Paul Edgerly, gurus in the world of finance. As well, the construction moguls such as H. Gary Morse, Howard Groff and Bob Perry – best known for his generous donation to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth – are longtime GOP donors. No list of Republican donors would be complete without energy-sector billionaires such as Robert Rowling and Harold Simmons, who built a radioactive dump for waste in Texas that cannot be filled due to existing regulations on nuclear waste.

A number of prominent journalists and intellectuals play a role in formulating and

articulating expressions of the Establishment. George Will – who has infamously compared the

GOP Establishment to the Loch Ness monster – is undoubtedly a card-carrying member. In 2009,

Will misstated evidence from the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, claiming

that global ice sea levels in 2009 were identical to those in 1979. This fabrication fits into the widespread denial of climate change that has festered in the modern GOP. In addition, the aforementioned Brooks has been referred to as neoconservative in Salon for his writing in support

of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

The Pseudo-Intellectuals differ slightly from the Media, consisting of well-educated

individuals who head advocacy and research organizations of a certain ideological slant. The

most prominent example is Harvard graduate Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax

Reform, whose Taxpayer Protection Pledge has handcuffed Republicans running for Congress to

the Bush tax cuts. Norquist, also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, endeavored to

build a center-right coalition to pull out of Afghanistan, but only after public opinion had turned

against war.

Finally, there exists a secret part of the Republican Establishment – the ones they hope

you don’t know about: They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Company.

This group implemented all essential elements of Establishment dogma and was held in contempt by a vast majority of Americans after doing so.

Why are they so ignored, even by members of the Republican Establishment?

Because the Establishment is composed of old dogs with no new tricks who are relying on

American amnesia in hopes that they can reinstitute their agenda once they regain the reins of power.

The GOP and the Gelding Of Paul

2012-06-06T12:44:00.000-07:00

Pundits believe that Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee, is the physical

embodiment of the GOP’s win-at-all-costs mentality. This handsome, successful businessman

and former Governor of Massachusetts appeared the safe choice and inevitable victor from the

commencement of the nomination process. However, the weathervane has fealty to certain core

conservative doctrines that are prioritized over victory in November. It is these principles that

will deprive the Republican Party of the candidate that provides the best chance of delivering the

Barackout blow.

Enter Ron Paul: the should-be GOP nominee.

In the interest of full-disclosure, I am a Democrat – one who bleeds blue more than a

Kentucky Wildcat fan. I applaud Paul’s tenacity, perseverance, and consistency, but reject his

economic policy, which manages to be simultaneously naïve and archaic. However, that’s a

subject for another article. Back to the issue at hand.

First, let’s examine a little-discussed phenomenon for the GOP in the presidential election:

its steady floor. The generic Republican who led Obama in late 2011 was indicative of not only

the President’s vulnerability but also proof of the high, reliable floor the party can expect this

election year. This phenomenon explains the 2010 midterms: the Tea Party movement served as a full-throated reaction against Barack Obama (and Big Government). Some nights, RNC

Chairman Reince Priebus must sleep easy. Bastions such as Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, and

Texas will remain securely Republican in 2012 regardless of the eventual nominee – as long as

he isn’t a Kenyan dog-eating socialist who happens to be black.

Ron Paul has made headlines from Nevada to Massachusetts for his supporters’ aggressive accumulation of delegates. The crux of Paul’s strategy is that his supporters have managed to infiltrate state conventions disproportionately, act with a high degree of grassroots organization and discipline, and elect like-minded Paul backers as delegates. The composition of these delegates often does not reflect the results of the primary (dismissed by Paulites as the ‘beauty contest’). Nonetheless, exit polls from these contests prove Paul to be the ‘Barbie’ of the 18-29 demographic, with high levels of support amongst Independents, disaffected Democrats, and lower-income voters. Despite these efforts, Paul will not reach the number of required delegates (1, 144) by the GOP Convention. Lest we forget, tangible grassroots enthusiasm and youth voter turnout were two driving forces behind Obama’s historic election. Paul is able to effectively neutralize these advantages- a factor that amplifies his odds of

thwarting Obama’s quest for re-election.

Abruptly, the terms of discussion change from the GOP’s floor to its ceiling. Beltway

knowledge (whose reliability falls between common sense and Bachmann blathering) holds that

Romney, the nominee-in-waiting, has a narrow path to the nomination and little room for error.

The Huffington Post, for example, currently predicts 257 Electoral College votes for Obama

compared to 181 for the Massachusetts moderate, leaving Romney with as much of a chance of

winning the presidency as, say, marrying Ric Grenell.

The success of the Paulites, and in particular the states in which it has occurred, deserves

special consideration from the MSM as well as the RNC. Blue states such as Minnesota, Maine,

Washington, perennial toss-ups like Colorado, Iowa, and Nevada, and conservative stalwarts

Louisiana and North Dakota are all states where Paul has claimed or plans to gain a majority of

delegates in time for Tampa. Minnesota, with the exception of Nixon in ’72, has not gone to the

GOP nominee since Eisenhower. Maine is a historically red state that left for bluer pastures after

George H.W.’s first term. Nevada voted with Reagan as well as all successful Bush presidencies.

Historically, the Granite State has voted with the Grand Old Party, though went to the Democrats

in three of the past four presidential elections. Iowa, a true swing state, has been blue in the

recent past but is typically Republican. Paul’s ceiling lies within success in these states, while

Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will remain toss-ups. Make no mistake:

Romney will not concurrently deliver youth turnout, disaffected Democrats, and Independents in

high enough quantities to peel off blue states.

Thus far, the messaging strategy for the GOP is a straight-forward, simple approach. This

election is a referendum on Obama and his failed policies. The key question posed –Are you

better off than you were four years ago? – could be asked by any Republican. In the same manner

that Priebus is touting Romney’s managerial experience, he could be praising Paul as the

‘economic visionary who wants to restore freedom now – to the markets and to you as an

individual’. The GOP would have the high ground on the bailout, and Paul passes conservative

litmus tests on social issues like abortion. In addition, Paul meshes well with congressional

Republicans and their fanatical obsession with budget cuts and lowering taxes.

Ron Paul is in a unique position to both decry the military industrial complex like Dwight

D. Eisenhower and best represent Reagan’s nine most terrifying words. The ability to resurrect

the ideals of two Republican legends while appealing to large, diverse swaths of the electorate

that were critical to the incumbent’s victory should make Paul an establishment darling- but why

hasn’t it?

The answer lies within Paul’s policies and GOP priorities. Throughout the nomination

process, only Paul has put forth non-interventionism as a foreign policy solution, and calls for

immediate withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. These positions fly in the face of

the neocons and war hawks that still dominate the party even as a majority of Americans, in

hindsight, believe that we should have stayed out of Iraq.

Paul’s catchphrase and 2009 book –“End the Fed” – also disqualifies him from the

Republican nomination. Economically, hard money can aid in lessening the magnification of

effects of the business cycle, but it reduces the flexibility of a nation’s monetary policy and

ability to respond to crises. That, however, is far from the minds of the GOP establishment. The

ideological issue with Paul’s position is that hard money inherently reduces the upper limit of

financial development and the profitability of that sector.

In an election almost certain to be decided by turnout and enthusiasm among key

demographics, it makes no sense to avoid Ron Paul. He retains the Republican floor, gnaws

away at the support of key Democratic voting blocs, is no slouch in the fundraising department,

and has shown his proficiency in practicing retail politics in a bottom-up manner.

Sadly, the GOP nomination process has revealed who the ‘true conservative’ is and why:

Mitt Romney, for his loyalty to multinational corporations and financial institutions. Crony

capitalism emerges victorious once again.

More disappointingly – can anyone contend that the Democratic Party does not pander to these

groups as well?