Monday there was an article on Politico.com about how David Vitter, Republican Senator from Louisiana enjoys a 60% approval (73% amongst Republicans) and feels confident about his re-election in 2010. He has raised more than $2.5M and so far his most notable challenger is an ex-porn star, Sunny Daniels (this is not a joke!). In 2006, Vitter was nationally exposed for his patronage of a Washington escort service.
Vitter seems to have escaped ANY repercussions. The first and most important note is that he did not lose his wife. During the Clinton-Lewinski scandal Vitter’s wife said that she did not agree with Hillary’s decision to stay with Bill and that she would have “pulled a Lorena Bobbit” on Vitter if he were to cheat. But at the press conference where Vitter admitted his wrong doing and apologized, his wife remained by his side to support the family. Understandable hypocrisy when the shoe is on the other foot.
Politically speaking he has suffered even less. After two weeks, a new story had developed and quickly inundated the media and the public. The American public has a short attention span and demands something new to get in an uproar about every few weeks (i.e. Tea Parties, Sotomayor, Palin’s wardrobe etc).
Vitter is not the only one to have fallen to carnal temptations. Larry Craig was caught soliciting sexual favors in an airport bathroom in 2007. Bill Clinton was “caught” having sexual relations with an intern. John Edwards possibly fathered a child with his mistress. Eliot Spitzer chose the same path as Vitter and spent thousands on escort services.
However, they all succumbed to different fates. Larry Craig at first said he would retire early. He then decided to stay his remaining year in office and not run for re-election in 2008. Gay sex is an enormous scandal for someone who was considered a staunch conservative, but Larry Craig realized he only needed to ride it out a couple weeks before the media moved on. No one had the power to throw him out.
Bill Clinton also chose to ride it out. Being President of the United States this was the biggest sex scandal ever seen. He was not able to run for re-election and did not face criminal charges so he had nothing to lose by riding it out and fight off the impeachment trials. Clinton was not removed from office solely because the political makeup of Congress at the time was not enough get the votes and he most likely knew this before he decided to fight. Bush ran on restoring honor to the W.H. which probably got enough votes to help him pull a couple of states. (I like to think it was not Nader who lost the election for Gore, but Monica Lewinski; and therefore, she should be blamed for being the initial cause of the Bush presidency’s destruction that ensued!!!)
John Edwards’ political career is most likely completely over. It was easier for him to disappear since he was not currently in office.
Eliot Spitzer chose to resign and avoid being thrown out by NY legislatures (assuming they had the legal means to do so).
Because Vitter had a heterosexual affair, kept his wife, and was not the head of a political body as both Clinton and Spitzer were; he was able to keep his job and even run for re-election. His affair was yesterday’s news. It will have happened 4 years before his re-election campaign in 2010, which in political years is an eternity (political years are much shorter than dog years!). His challenger will most likely rehash this scandal; however, it will have little power since it is such an old story and has lost its effectiveness. His challenger is going to have to find something more current, and in such a red state like Louisiana it is going to have to be something juicy.
This blog entry could have very well addressed the hypocrisy of the whole situation. The Republican Party (politicians and citizen supporters) wants to eat alive all Democrat politicians who cheat on their wives, but when one of their own does it, it is not necessarily forgivable, but it seems to at least be forgettable. Louisiana is a staunchly conservative state with “family” values. Yet they cannot even come up with a challenger to run against Vitter in the primaries. Hypocrisy is at the core of all things political. Democrats do the same thing. Nonetheless it is always surprising when it is as obvious as the Vitter re-election.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
What are you so scared of?
What are health care insurers so afraid of? Are they afraid of socialism or are they afraid of capitalism? One of the three top priorities of the Obama administration is to bring health care reform to the United States. Insurance, pharmaceutical, and general health care costs are out of control and costing the country and the consumer billions annually. Along with increased efficiency through electronic record keeping and medical infrastructure improvements, Obama wants to offer public plans for citizens to purchase through the Government. The American Hospital Association and the lobbying firm, America’s Health Insurance Plans, have offered their support for reigning in health care costs. However, lobbyists are at work to persuade Congress to not allow for the public plans. Blue Cross and Blue Shield has begun to re-use Harry and Louise style ads to scare the public into thinking that Government run health care would be disastrous. Harry and Louise ads from the Clinton era told the public that Government health care would result in immovable patient lines and the Government telling the patient which doctors they can see. Contemporary insurance providers could run the attack ads against themselves for denying coverage for certain procedures, disgustingly confusing bureaucracy, and stipulated covered doctor.
Are health care insurers trying to protect the people from socialism or are they trying to protect themselves from capitalism. First and foremost, the Government will not be nationalizing current health care insurers nor controlling health care decisions. The current providers are on-board with Government assistance to control prices and increase efficiency but they are not comfortable with Government insurance plans. They aren’t legitimately sacred of socialism.
Health care insurers are scared of capitalism. The private sector fears their possible lack of capabilities to compete with a Government run insurance plan. The proposed Government actions are expected to lower all private insurance plans as well as provide for tax breaks to employers who provide private health care to employees. These should help BRING consumers to the private insurers. Lower insurance costs should also soften the blow of a likely increase in taxes to pay for this and other programs. It can be assumed that private costs will be more expensive than Government plans; however, the private should have nothing to worry about if they feel they can provide superior coverage as they insinuate in their TV ads. Those who are currently happy with their providers will most likely not switch to the public plans.
The proposed actions provide another option for Americans, specifically those who need something more practical for their financial situations. Current insurance providers will not be controlled by the Government and they will be open to internal change to compete with the Government plans. If they cannot compete in price, they can compete in quality. Are they afraid that Government health care will actually be well run and no one would want private insurance any more? As long as the people have a choice, this is capitalism. Capitalism is a legitimate fear if you are on the losing end, but they have no one to blame but themselves.
Are health care insurers trying to protect the people from socialism or are they trying to protect themselves from capitalism. First and foremost, the Government will not be nationalizing current health care insurers nor controlling health care decisions. The current providers are on-board with Government assistance to control prices and increase efficiency but they are not comfortable with Government insurance plans. They aren’t legitimately sacred of socialism.
Health care insurers are scared of capitalism. The private sector fears their possible lack of capabilities to compete with a Government run insurance plan. The proposed Government actions are expected to lower all private insurance plans as well as provide for tax breaks to employers who provide private health care to employees. These should help BRING consumers to the private insurers. Lower insurance costs should also soften the blow of a likely increase in taxes to pay for this and other programs. It can be assumed that private costs will be more expensive than Government plans; however, the private should have nothing to worry about if they feel they can provide superior coverage as they insinuate in their TV ads. Those who are currently happy with their providers will most likely not switch to the public plans.
The proposed actions provide another option for Americans, specifically those who need something more practical for their financial situations. Current insurance providers will not be controlled by the Government and they will be open to internal change to compete with the Government plans. If they cannot compete in price, they can compete in quality. Are they afraid that Government health care will actually be well run and no one would want private insurance any more? As long as the people have a choice, this is capitalism. Capitalism is a legitimate fear if you are on the losing end, but they have no one to blame but themselves.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Obama's Hypocrisy
This will be my first criticism of President Obama. I first saw it in The Economist in an article “An Offer You Can’t Refuse” . Then I saw George Will sight the same article in The Washington Post. George Will takes it to a level I am not going to touch because I believe it raises a Democrat/Republican hypocrisy that I just don’t want to get into. I just want to discuss Obama’s policy hypocrisy.
The purpose of the bank bailout is to start the flow of credit once again by cleaning up the current mess. This country’s economy is based on credit which is essential to investment and economic development. Business owners rely on credit to increase internal investment acting to increase production, labor and numerous other methods to develop their business. Consumers rely on credit to borrow the money they need to purchase various expensive goods (i.e. houses, cars, education etc.). Consumer credit and business credit are essential to one another. Without this flow of credit, economic and consumer growth is stunted. The Obama administration has spent billions of dollars in order to clean up the largest banks in America, hoping to free up capital for lending. The Federal Reserve has also dropped interest rates to a record low to promote borrowing. Borrowing and lending money is the primary goal of the administration to get the economy moving.
The auto industry bailout by the Obama administration seems to be counterproductive for promoting industry investment. Chrysler’s secured creditors will be receiving 28 cents to the dollar for a claim totaling $7 billion. These secured creditors supplied cheaper funds to Chrysler for more secure claims if the company were to experience difficulties. The United Auto Workers union will receive 43 cents on the dollar with claims totaling $11 billion. The union members will receive a greater return even though contractually, the secured creditors were to have a stronger guarantee.
I feel George Will is correct by saying this is corruption. Unions can usually be tied to Democrats and I think there is something a little fishy about Obama’s decision. George Will’s article mainly discusses Obama over-reaching his power and abandoning the Constitution. (The hypocrisy of George Will’s criticism at this point in time while remaining relatively silent during Republican years is mind blowing and I can’t even begin to write about that whole issue!). Personally I think this issue is more significant for its ideological hypocrisy. Confidence in the system is a major component for this economic recovery. If lenders cannot have confidence in contractual obligations, they will be less likely to lend. When the Government favors one group over another (common) by braking contractual obligations (uncommon), confidence in our system is damaged. It is important to remember that lenders are not necessarily rich fat-cat individuals but actually commonly an investor representing everyday people and families trying to get involved in the investment markets. The administration’s decision to break and misconstrue Chrysler’s obligations has directly impacted the confidence and pocketbooks of Chrysler’s secured lenders, but more importantly he has indirectly hurt the confidence of lenders everywhere.
Disclaimer: I feel like I need to add a disclaimer here. I by no means am an economist. I do not pretend to understand every aspect of the bailouts, neither bank nor auto. But I do have confidence in Barack Obama. These articles point out that he is not going to be perfect and that shady actions are going to take place, I just hope he doesn’t do so many questionable things without full explanation to the people.
The purpose of the bank bailout is to start the flow of credit once again by cleaning up the current mess. This country’s economy is based on credit which is essential to investment and economic development. Business owners rely on credit to increase internal investment acting to increase production, labor and numerous other methods to develop their business. Consumers rely on credit to borrow the money they need to purchase various expensive goods (i.e. houses, cars, education etc.). Consumer credit and business credit are essential to one another. Without this flow of credit, economic and consumer growth is stunted. The Obama administration has spent billions of dollars in order to clean up the largest banks in America, hoping to free up capital for lending. The Federal Reserve has also dropped interest rates to a record low to promote borrowing. Borrowing and lending money is the primary goal of the administration to get the economy moving.
The auto industry bailout by the Obama administration seems to be counterproductive for promoting industry investment. Chrysler’s secured creditors will be receiving 28 cents to the dollar for a claim totaling $7 billion. These secured creditors supplied cheaper funds to Chrysler for more secure claims if the company were to experience difficulties. The United Auto Workers union will receive 43 cents on the dollar with claims totaling $11 billion. The union members will receive a greater return even though contractually, the secured creditors were to have a stronger guarantee.
I feel George Will is correct by saying this is corruption. Unions can usually be tied to Democrats and I think there is something a little fishy about Obama’s decision. George Will’s article mainly discusses Obama over-reaching his power and abandoning the Constitution. (The hypocrisy of George Will’s criticism at this point in time while remaining relatively silent during Republican years is mind blowing and I can’t even begin to write about that whole issue!). Personally I think this issue is more significant for its ideological hypocrisy. Confidence in the system is a major component for this economic recovery. If lenders cannot have confidence in contractual obligations, they will be less likely to lend. When the Government favors one group over another (common) by braking contractual obligations (uncommon), confidence in our system is damaged. It is important to remember that lenders are not necessarily rich fat-cat individuals but actually commonly an investor representing everyday people and families trying to get involved in the investment markets. The administration’s decision to break and misconstrue Chrysler’s obligations has directly impacted the confidence and pocketbooks of Chrysler’s secured lenders, but more importantly he has indirectly hurt the confidence of lenders everywhere.
Disclaimer: I feel like I need to add a disclaimer here. I by no means am an economist. I do not pretend to understand every aspect of the bailouts, neither bank nor auto. But I do have confidence in Barack Obama. These articles point out that he is not going to be perfect and that shady actions are going to take place, I just hope he doesn’t do so many questionable things without full explanation to the people.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Rush to finish
Over the past few days there has been talk of the Republican “listening tour” in Virginia. The “listening tour” was spearheaded by Eric Cantor of Virginia’s 7th District. The “listening tour” was headlined by himself as well as Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. All three of them several times have acknowledged the importance of the “listening tour”. Why do I keep saying “listening tour” and using quotes? Because now the language is changing. Rush Limbaugh on his radio show said that the Republican Party does not need a “listening tour”, but instead a “teaching tour”. He says that instead of the party listening to its constituents and adapting; it should instead be informing the constituents of true Conservative principles. For a party that was up in arms, yelling that Obama was “preachy” and “professorial”, I hope they are quick to see that it has now become a Conservative plank to “teach” and not to “listen”.
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you should be offended when a party leader says elected officials of the party shouldn’t be listening to their constituents to better address the needs/wants of the people. But this type of language is safe for Rush to use since he is not an elected official. Eric Cantor, just as other GOP leaders have in the past few months, has backpedaled and bowed down to the party leader Rush Limbaugh, saying that the “listening tour” is not really a “listening tour” (hence the quotation marks). Why are the Republican officials listening to Rush, a talking head, and not their constituents? Rule No. 1 for a politician should be that when their constituents are not being represented to their liking, they risk loss of support and may be removed in the next primary election or, even worse for the party, the general election.
The United States is a republic where officials are elected to represent the people. The people elect their officials to make decisions in the best interest of the constituents. NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE IDEOLOGY. Defending an ideology to the death risks losing both the ideology and the party. I personally would rather be alive with only one leg than dead with both. It is doubtful a “listening tour” would turn these hard Conservatives into bleeding heart liberals, but it is highly likely it would increase the Republican base, promote reelection, and keep their ideology and principles alive. A small change now would prevent the even larger change that will be needed if the party and people separate much more.
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you should be offended when a party leader says elected officials of the party shouldn’t be listening to their constituents to better address the needs/wants of the people. But this type of language is safe for Rush to use since he is not an elected official. Eric Cantor, just as other GOP leaders have in the past few months, has backpedaled and bowed down to the party leader Rush Limbaugh, saying that the “listening tour” is not really a “listening tour” (hence the quotation marks). Why are the Republican officials listening to Rush, a talking head, and not their constituents? Rule No. 1 for a politician should be that when their constituents are not being represented to their liking, they risk loss of support and may be removed in the next primary election or, even worse for the party, the general election.
The United States is a republic where officials are elected to represent the people. The people elect their officials to make decisions in the best interest of the constituents. NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE IDEOLOGY. Defending an ideology to the death risks losing both the ideology and the party. I personally would rather be alive with only one leg than dead with both. It is doubtful a “listening tour” would turn these hard Conservatives into bleeding heart liberals, but it is highly likely it would increase the Republican base, promote reelection, and keep their ideology and principles alive. A small change now would prevent the even larger change that will be needed if the party and people separate much more.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
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!
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!
Monday, April 20, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
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.
“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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
