100 Days

Today marks the 100th day of Obama’s Administration. His success or failure is completely subjective. Republicans will tell you that he has failed. They will say he has weakened the country by banning torture, closing Gitmo, and going on an apology tour in Europe and the Americas. Republicans will say he is a tax and spend liberal on steroids, leading this country to bankruptcy and socialism. Democrats will take all the same facts and spin them in a different direction. Democrats will say that he has restored America’s moral leadership in the world from changing the Bush policies of foreign and wartime relations. They will also say that we are now investing in essential infrastructures in the US that will enable us to flourish more than ever. I am going to tell you what I think.

I am sitting here listening to Obama answer his first question at his 3rd primetime conference. Is it just me or does he look tired? I don’t blame him. Has done more in these 100 days than Bush did in his 8 years. One of his very first actions was to begin the closing process of closing Guantanamo Bay along with banning “enhanced interrogation techniques” aka torture. For a country that’s rhetoric suggests we are nation governed by our high standards of morals this is an important step. There is a current debate whether torture leads to reliable information but there is no debate that torture was the number one recruiting tool for terrorists of all sects. Those in the military and intelligence communities that are opposed to torture argue, with merit, that important information can be extracted by humane methods. This coupled with the fact that terrorist recruitment will drop, will keep America safer than increasing the waterboarding spa treatments as posed by the right wing.

Obama went on tour of Europe and the Americas to prove that America can listen and is understanding of America’s mistakes. The old adage that you can learn more from your mistakes than your successes is not lost on our new President. Whether it is our economic failures he is combating or our foreign policy mistakes that have led to nuclear advancements in North Korean and Iran; Obama is listening and acting as not only a scholar but also a leader.

This Presidency has begun to invest in our country. Leading economists agree (despite what Republicans believe) that in order for an economy based on consumption to get out of a recession, the government will have to spend when the private market is not. Obama is giving tax cuts to the largest purchasing power in the world; the American middle class. Obama has also quickly passed a stimulus bill of more than $700B to help jump start the economy with infrastructure measures that will hopefully put people back to work. This will hopefully be the spark that the markets need to get restarted towards positive growth. Obama has also begun investing in the future of our healthcare system. Medicare and Medicaid are major consumers of federal money. Much of this consumption is waste. His investments hopefully will increase efficiency and draw more people into the system. Lowering healthcare costs for all and increasing citizen care will increase disposal income for consumers to further inject into the market.

But are these successes to other besides me? Polls and politics in general suggest that, yes, he has been successful. Some polls show that Obama and the Democrats have a 63% and 51% favorable opinion by the public while the Republicans lag at 39%. Obama is personally more liked than his policies but his popularity gives political strength in passing legislation.

In politics, Obama’s success can also be seen. Tedisco vs. Murphy in NY was a special election to fill the seat of the representative called up to fill Hillary’s seat in the Senate. Murphy (D) narrowly won the election but it was a telltale sign for the Democrats and Obama. The election was during the very stressful time of budget and stimulus package votes. This can be read that even though New Yorkers are divided by Obama’s agenda, they are still willing to put another chess piece on the table for the Democrats. This followed by the switch of Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party further note the country’s move towards the left. Specter was in trouble to win re-election as a Republican in Pennsylvania and his move is most likely selfish in nature. The move does shoe that the Republican Party is beginning to shun and push away moderate Republicans. Specter was one of three Republicans to vote for the stimulus package and now he has switched parties, surprisingly, much to the delight of the Republicans. Specter has realized that his best chance of winning in 2010 is to switch parties. While this is selfish, it is smart. The political tide is moving left and he has recognized this.

In summary, the Democrats, myself, Arlen Specter, Murphy, and the polls easily show that Obama has been very successful in his first 100 days. (to say that any of this policies have been successful is a little presumptuous at this point!)

Ps. Sorry if this was not completely coherent and laden with errors. I did this on the fly. No editing or re-thinking!

Cao vs. Cao

In New Orleans on November 4th 2008, approximately 146,000 voters went to the polls to send Barack Obama to the Whitehouse with 70% of the vote (margin of 88,000 votes over McCain). On the same day, William Jefferson, with pending allegations of corruption, won the primary runoff. The fight for the congressional seat would be settled in December. On Saturday, December 6th 2008, 64,418 residence of New Orleans 2nd District showed up to vote in Joseph Cao (R) removing long time incumbent William Jefferson (D) by 1,826 votes. Voter turn out dropped by approximately 55% from the Presidential election to the general election for the House representative. The emotional drain of the Obama election coupled with the lack of excitement for a possibly corrupt incumbent and a Saturday special election date caused the low voter turn out. William Jefferson won Orleans Parish (the heart of New Orleans) by almost 3,000 votes. Cao was able to pick up the bulk of Jefferson Parish which was enough to sneak by Jefferson. The last Republican to hold this seat was Hamilton D. Coleman in 1891.

These factors by no means scream Cao was a shoe in to win New Orleans. Thanks to a perfect storm for New Orleans’ democrats, Cao snuck in. Cao should know this very well and do what is necessary to try to hold on to his seat in 2010. So far it is not looking good. During the first quarter of his tenure, Cao has proven to be a poor fundraiser, raising only $143K of which he only has $61K left. Fundraising is a learnable art; however, his dollar amount is substantially lower than the other freshman Republicans from Louisiana. Being a republican in a sea of democrats doesn’t help. His voting record is not prompting much local financial support. Politico reported that during the economic stimulus package vote in D.C., Cao was noticeably bullied into voting “no” by minority deputy whip, Kevin McCarthy. Before the vote, Cao was recorded as leaning “yes” as his district would benefit greatly from the stimulus as his community is still struggling from Hurricane Katrina. Cao is undoubtedly viewed as a fluke in the New Orleans area; a fluke who is voting against the best interests of his constituents.

If Cao wants any chance of keeping his seat in 2010 he must represent his constituents and not his party. This will be a lose-lose scenario for fundraising. Representing his constituents will boost local contributions; however, bucking the party will hurt his current support from Newt Gingrich and minority leader John Boehner who aided in fundraising in the area on March 17th and 26th respectively. Bucking the Republican Party will gain him nationwide name recognition as well as show his loyalty to New Orleans. His current voting record will only strengthen his Democratic challenger, currently thought to be Cedric Richmond, who will enter the election as the strong favorite. (It should be noted he has voted with Democrats on children’s healthcare (SCHIP) and the Lilly Ledbetter bill for women’s wage equality).

The Democratic Party knows Cao’s weakness and he is on their short list of obvious targets. It would be surprising to see the Republican Party or the Democratic Party contribute much to the LA 2nd District election in 2010 due to the all but certain Democratic victory. Cao’s only hope is to begin voting with the Democrats on more issues that will benefit his district, draft/co-sponsor New Orleans bills, or if all else fails, switch parties.

Socialism?

In the past few months, the term “liberal” has been substituted with the term “socialist”. Paul Krugman feels that “liberal” was not scary enough but “socialist” still holds that memory of the Cold War. Recently, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R) of Alabama says he has a list of 17 members of Congress who are socialists. That is a bold statement. But what is a socialist? Glenn Thrush of Politico.com writes that the left feels the word is “begnin- if outdated” “interventionist government that prioritizes economic security over the unfettered freedom of the marketplace.” The right considers it “Soviet-style Communism or a leap toward a hyper-regulated European brand of capitalism that stifles innovation and hikes taxes”. Neither party seems to look at is as a compliment. But what exactly is socialism? Is the government really moving towards socialism?

“Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation”-Wikipedia

Socialism is; however, largely undefined. There are different types of socialists, some who support meritocracy and other of a more egalitarian mindset. Socialists, for the most part, do agree that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth and restrains all citizens from partaking in an equal opportunity for success. Socialists do not agree how and to what extent the State should intervene to rectify the perceived problem. Socialists that follow the Russian model favor nationalization of all production, exchange and distribution with a centrally planned economy. Market socialists (Chinese, Yugoslavia, Hungary 1970s/80s) promote a mixing of co-operatives and state ownership along with free market pricing and exchange. Social Democrats favor mixed economies with tax-funded welfare programs and market regulation. Libertarian socialists reject state ownership and believe industry should be collectively owned by the workers. Critics of socialism note that state control will inhibit development and growth which are fueled by capitalist profit hunger, as well as, decrease socialism economic and political freedoms.

Is the US a capitalist nation? The US economy is in fact a mixed economy leaning towards capitalism. The majority of the market is privately or jointly owned and free to make government free decisions aside from government regulations that protect the public. The US government does intervene to protect the public from laissez-faire capitalism which almost no “free market capitalist” would sanely want to abolish. The government (state and federal) provides many services that otherwise would have to be provided by the free market. Infrastructure projects would likely be overlooked by private industry due to the lack of profits and lack of the average Joe’s monetary support by free will. The Government provides many services that the public would not willingly pay for however much they actually need; which is the premise of capitalism. Taxes therefore are needed to provide the public with services needed. It would be scary to see our police departments if they were funded only with optional community contributions.
Governments also currently control our markets directly which is against the principles of capitalism and resemble aspects of socialism. Currently the government provides subsidies to the agriculture sector to ensure that food prices remain low. Is this socialism? The government provides subsidies to the oil industries as well to keep gas prices low? Is this socialism? The answer is yes. The people demand socialist actions (without knowing it) when prices are too high as seen this past year with gas prices. The government can control the markets by injecting money into the system (often in the form of huge tax breaks). In a true capitalist market, supply and demand would control agriculture production and prices. In the oil industry, the government acts to protect the consumer from being gouged at the pump. Renewable energy should be allowed to compete without Government intervention in a capitalist market. The Government keeps gas prices falsely low inhibiting renewable energies from effectively competing. Often times the Government supports renewable energies financially at the same time as supporting the oil industry; which is like betting on both red and black. Government interaction manipulates the competition; socialism (mixed economy).

The emerging debate over “socialized” medicine is interesting. The Obama healthcare reform plan does not nationalize the healthcare industry. Doctors will not become federal employees and the neither will the pharmaceutical companies. The Government will not mandate or micromanage patient/doctor decisions anymore than insurance companies currently do. The Government will; however, invest in new methods and technologies to increase efficiency (computerized records) as well as help encourage insurance enrollment and provide a public plan affordable to all; all should lower healthcare costs. The Government will be investing in the current system to improve it, not micromanage or control it. Healthcare will not be nationalized. Helping lower the cost of healthcare in this country is no more socialist than providing subsidies the oil and agriculture industries to keep their costs to the public low. The Government (taxpayer backed) should be looked at as become an investment partner with the savings in healthcare costs benefiting the public. (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf)


Another hot topic is redistribution of wealth. Taxing the rich and giving the poor (whether it be a welfare check, welfare programs, or any benefit for the poor that the rich don’t receive that comes from federal dollars). The foundation of socialism is that capitalism unfairly distributes wealth, benefiting the rich and powerful more than those in need. It is true that the majority of the income tax is paid by the top earners in the country and that some of this money is then passed to those in need in the form of welfare. But why do people complain when federal dollars transfer from rich to poor and not from California to Wyoming? No state receives the exact dollar amount to which their citizens pay the federal government through taxes. California pays more into the system than Wyoming; however, Wyoming receives benefits from a collective pot. Interstate support is why we are considered a country and not independent nations.

Why not people? Those people who currently receive welfare are spending the vast majority of their money on food, clothing and shelter. There will always be stories of welfare check receivers with cable TV and XBOX, which may be considered abuse; however, this is not the case for all. If it is looked at as a percentage, rich pay a smaller percentage of their total assets than the poor. A rich man is accumulating wealth while paying only a percentage of a single year’s earnings. A poor man usually does not have the ability to create wealth through a savings account, long term stocks, and other appreciating assets. Meaning most of all of a struggling person’s money goes towards consumption and taxes. Therefore; welfare stimulation goes directly back into the economy and government income. Welfare checks do not spread wealth, the spread opportunity and help families survive. Any successful system is constantly being scrutinized improved and welfare programs should be as well to minimize abuses and wasteful Government spending. If a team is only as strong as its weakest link, why wouldn’t the country want to help the progress of those in the most need? Welfare programs help boost the country’s overall capabilities by helping the weakest links become stronger and more productive. Abandoning social and welfare programs would further strain the system by adding to crime and punishment costs which is the least effective tax expenditure for strengthening the country. Redistribution of wealth implies others are becoming wealthy; which it is obvious that the current system does not do and should not do. The current system attempts to spread opportunity through progressive programs that develop citizens as well as monetary support to give individuals more of a chance to better themselves and their families by lightening the load.

The current welfare system and the direction the Obama administration wants to take the country is not any more socialistic than our current system. It is an investment in making the American dream more attainable for all citizens. The Government is not nationalizing industry; however, they are putting direction on their investments. Healthcare will see investments to increase efficiency and other measures to help drop costs so people can afford their own insurance or enroll in public insurance. Healthcare costs will be lowered but healthcare decisions will not be controlled or curtailed. We are not a socialist nation. We are a capitalist nation who’s Government protects its citizens from the evils that come along with capitalism. It is not socialism, it is smart governance for a stronger future for all.

“No, No, No. Dig up stupid!”—Chief Wiggum and the GOP

Today there were two great pieces in the NYTimes Opinion section. Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist dedicated his piece to the childish actions of the Republican Party. As the current minority, they are orchestrating Tea Party demonstrations in the streets all over the country to represent their anti-tax principles. The GOP has succumbed to “socialist” name calling and theatrics like the Tea Parties in response to the actions to likely be taken by the Obama administration. Tax rates for the rich (over $250K) will return to pre-Bush rates; which are 10% points lower than the tax rates under the GOP Jesus, Ronald Reagan. Krugman states that these Tea Parties and other Obama attacks are not grassroot movements as presented but products of Freedom Works, a rightwing group run by Dick Armey, former majority leader, and promoted exaggerated by Fox News. Krugman goes on the point out more immature rhetoric such as Rove’s insistence that Democrats want to repay the terrorists for 9/11 with “therapy”. Childish actions such as questioning Obama’s Hawaiian birth and stating he is a secret Muslim do nothing to expand on legitimate policy differences the opposing parties may have.

The childish responses of the Republican Party have also been characterized by a failure to learn from mistakes. They have failed to realize that raising taxes can be a necessary “evil” in some cases. Bush Sr. learned this; however, his broken promise of “read my lips: ‘no new taxes’” led to his reelection loss in 1992. Bush Sr. had to break his tax promise and GOP plank partly in response to the lack of government revenue caused by Reagan economics. Part of the reasons that we are currently in the economic mess that we are in is due to the GOP mantra: deregulation and tax-cuts. Republicans have also failed to see their failures and grow in regards to foreign policy. A second piece in the NYTimes by Roger Cohen has shown that lack of communication in the past 8 years with Iran has resulted in an increase in nuclear centrifuges from “a few dozen to close to 5,500 centrifuges and 1,000 kilos of low enriched uranium.” The past administration failed the entire Middle East by not communicating with one of the region’s major players because they were considered part of the “Axis of Evil”. We worked with the Russians in WWII, why not the Iranians during the Iraq War? Lack of direct communication with the North Koreans has also resulted in numerous testings in violations of international agreements. Actions of Iran and North Korea are not the result of a poor foreign policy but a lack of any type of foreign policy at all. How can America help direct nations that we deem need direction towards American and international goals unless we work directly with them? Republicans must realize that ignoring problems don’t make them go away, yet during the 2008 presidential campaign this was their stance. If they do not agree with Democrats on foreign policy, they need new ideas not the same old ideas that have proven ineffective.

The GOP has not learned from history or from their mistakes and they continue to dig deeper and deeper. The Republicans have not learned from the 2006 and 2008 elections that have taken them out of control. The country is currently turning left in response to 8 years of moving hard right. This does not suggest Republicans should jump the fence and play for the Democrats but it should show them that the country wants them at least closer to the center. They cannot successfully continue to present the same ideas of the past 20 years and expect a different outcome or expect the public to support them. Obama is wildly popular and Democrats are posed to pick up more seats in 2010. A moderate improvement in the economy will solidify Whitehouse supporters in congress while destroying non-constructive nay-sayers. The Republican Party needs to take heed of all the signs and give a little more if it is reelection they seek. If they legitimately differ in ideology they should have new ideas and concrete alternatives, instead of empty budget plans as submitted by the House Republicans last month (another example of childish politics). Working with the majority does not mean go along with every desire of the Democrats or President Obama; however, they should be able to realize that failure to concede that they are solidly in the minority and cannot completely have their way could very possibly cost them the next election results

Newt Gingrich and the GOP gamble

Newt Gingrich and the GOP are playing a very dangerous game. The POTUS has only been in office for 3 months and has put a lot on the table. If the president's measures prove successful, the GOP and Newt will lose all the chips they have put on the table, and they have put them all up. Obama is currently very popular and the economy, which is today's number 1 issue, will eventually rebound. In all likelyhood it would have turned around with or without the measure taken by the Obama administrations. The new administration's actions; however, will hopefully quicken the turnaround and direct the nation's path towards the future. The inevitable turnaround will be credited to Obama by the American people (whether deserved or not is irrelevant; it is all about perception). The likely success cannot be shared with the GOP or Newt who is, believe it or not, already running for president in 2012. They have not cast a single vote (aside from the 3 GOP senators in re-election trouble from the northeast where Dems and Obama arefavored) to support the presidents measures. If/when the economy rebounds the GOP will have to pick issues such as national debt and fear mongering to persuade voters to side with them. These intangible ideas will be much weaker than the Dems' arguement of a dying Bush/Republican economy fixed by the Obama/Dems (again, whether deserved or not is irrelevant). Those in power receive the glory and the blame. This is the true reason the Republicans don't want Obama to succeed. The midterms in 2010 will be most exciting and very telling of Obama's perceived success or failure. The economy will more than likely have started to make its comeback by election season and, if the public senses that, there will be no saving the Republicans.