Category: The 2012 Election

Looking Back at the First Term

You didn’t notice, but I have not posted anything since the election. (Gloating is so rude.)

To ease back into the political world, this entire post is merely hoping you take a look that this article (a chart, really) from the New York Times.

It is a blunt and fair assessment of the President’s first four years. He deserves much credit for, among other things, saving us from a full-blown Depression, ending two horribly costly wars, and beginning the difficult task of fixing our notoriously antiquated health care system .

And he clearly stumbled as well, particularly, in my view, in his handling of the housing crisis and Wall Street Reform.

Let’s hope the “New Obama” we saw at yesterday’s glorious Inauguration festivities carries through on his promises, explicit and implied, over the coming four years.

Who Are YOU Aligned With?

OK, one last shot.

Let me be blunt — If you vote for the GOP you are aligning yourself with some of the most radical, hateful, and ill-informed people in our country. Here is just one TINY example. Today I received an email from the Traditional Values Coalition (I have no idea how I got on their list, but I’m glad I am). And here are a few choice quotes from the frantic email…

I won’t bore you with the details of the last four years — you know them all too well: Obamacare, the HHS mandate, “religious toleration” replacing religious liberty, the bombshell discovery of how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds and fuels the radical left, four years where Islamists have been able to freely build radical mosques and entrench shariah in our neighborhoods and communities, the suspension of “don’t ask don’t tell” and the crackdown on our military chaplains.

A few paragraphs later…

Nowhere does the issue of friendly liberal judges have greater momentum within the homosexual and transgender left than with the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

This pet bill would — at a stroke — put transgenders in the classroom, in our small businesses, and in our government as a legally protected class… taking the legal protections for disadvantaged minorities such as women or African-Americans and appropriating them for when Marvin decides he wants to become “Mary.”

Got that? Forget about fixing the economy, protecting women’s rights, ensuring clean air and water, ending wars and helping veterans.  Ignore our failing infrastructure, growing income inequality, protecting Israel and stopping Iran from getting the bomb.

You fools! Don’t you see that our really big problem is … transgenders in the classroom! Oh, how could I have been so blind?!

Dear readers, that ridiculous email is the smallest tip of a massive iceberg. The GOP depends on “low-information voters.”  Vote for the GOP and you reward their massive campaign deceptions, widespread and despicable efforts to suppress voter turnout (in Democratic strongholds), and you are voting, absolutely, to turn back the clock to the disasters of the Bush years.

And you align yourself with climate change deniers, virulent and violent anti-choice groups, gay bashers, covert and overt racists, and proponents of “creationism” and other hard-core anti-science belief systems.

Why in the world would you do that?

Please vote with your head, and please urge other to do the same.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

“The Economist” Picks Obama

Here’s what you need to know about The Economist  magazine.

  1. It is based in London and is considered the world-wide paper for serious examination of economic issues,
  2. It leans right … as do most of their readers.

True, they endorsed Obama four years ago, but clearly they are not Obama fans. In fact, their endorsement article knocks the President for a number of what they see as failings. (And truthfully, I agree with a few of them.)

Nevertheless, they look at Mr. Romney and come to the conclusion that he is a far worse alternative.

Here’s just one of the damning paragraphs (emphasis added):

Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises. Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.

The full endorsement article is here.

And in case you didn’t notice, in the past two days General Colin Powell (Secretary of State under George W. Bush) and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (billionaire businessman, former Republican and now Independent) have endorsed Barack Obama.

Finally, to my fellow citizens in the North East – I hope you and your loved ones survived Sandy and are safe and dry.

Please vote! It IS important.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

Have a comment? Please post it on the blog! Thanks.

It Should Have Been a Knockout.

As great as the President did in the second debate, it should have been a knockout.  The case for four more years is rock solid. Yet the Dems don’t seem able to match Repubs when it comes to pithy sound bites.

Here’s what I mean about going for knockout punches. At one point Mitt turned to the President and asked about oil production on Federal lands. (Yawn.)

In the same way, President Obama should have asked these questions…

“Governor Romney, thanks to the Bush tax cuts you paid only 14% in Federal taxes. That saved you millions of dollars. Please tell us how many jobs you created with those extra millions? How did your personal savings – much of which you sent overseas – help America in any way? “

“Governor Romney, when you ran for office in Massachusetts you campaigned as a ‘moderate.’ During the primaries you said you are ‘severely’ conservative. Which are we to believe?”

“Governor Romney, your position on abortion changed so many times that Ted Kennedy labeled you ‘multiple choice’ and you have continued to bounce from one position to another. Isn’t it true that you change your position just to get elected?”

“Governor Romney, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center said your tax cuts will cost the government $5 trillion over the coming ten years. You say you will offset those colossal tax cuts mainly by eliminating deductions and closing loopholes. That would be a massive shift in tax policy and vast numbers of Americans must feel the pain of those changes. Tell us specifically, who will feel the pain?  Homeowners? Students? Business owners? Charities? The middle class? WHO?”

“Governor Romney, for the past six years you have done nothing other than campaign for president. You had plenty of time to form your thoughts. Yet a few months ago, when you were speaking to other wealthy people, you disrespected almost half of all Americans.  That was no quick flub — you spoke at length about how you can’t be concerned with those people. Since you didn’t know you were being recorded, wasn’t speaking dismissively of 47% of Americans how you really felt?”

“Governor Romney, the main thrust of your campaign is that you know how to create jobs. Yet when you ended your one term as governor (with very low approval ratings) why was your state ranked third worst in the nation for job creation?”  (All fact checkers confirm that Mass. ranked 47th. Why is that not hammered home?!)

“Governor Romney, one of the TV ads your campaign runs the most claims that I gutted welfare reform. You approved that message. But governor, every fact checker in the country has said that ad is blatantly false. Why do you keep lying to the American public? How can we believe anything you say if you personally approve an ad that is 100% false?”

 President Obama, and all the other Dem talking heads, should be labeling Mitt a “Master Flip-Flopper.”  That phrase should have been repeated thousands of times. Mitt says only what needs to be said at the moment. He has no core beliefs. He has flipped on abortion, gun control, Afghanistan, healthcare, access to contraception, tax policy, and on and on.

And the President should come out aggressively and say, “Yes, as a matter of fact, you are much better offtoday. “ And then he should elaborate…

  • The stock market is up strongly and interest rates are down sharply.
  • Before any of my policies could take effect unemployment went all the way up to 10%. Now it is down to 7.8%.
  • Hundreds of thousands of our soldiers and their families are together tonight because I ended the war in Iraq … and we are winding down the war in Afghanistan.
  • Millions of students have (or will have) more financial help, at lower rates, than ever before.
  • Millions more Americans will have health insurance, and none of you will get jerked around by insurance companies.
  • As Joe Biden says, General Motors is alive and Bin Laden is dead!

And above all, the President and all Democrats must pound home the message that the Romney/Ryan plan of lower taxes for the rich and reduced regulation is exactly the same as George Bush and ALL Republicans – and those are the policies that brought us to the brink of a second Great Depression.  We CANNOT go back to those disastrous policies!

Romney Debates Himself

Character counts.

During the debate last week Mitt Romney looked into the camera and flat out lied. That is not an opinion.  During the entire campaign, Mitt has been saying over and over that he will reduce taxes for everyone. Obama must have been flabbergasted to hear his opponent suddenly declare “I will not reduce the taxes paid by high income Americans.”

The following video has been viewed more than a million times.  It would be funny if the stakes were not so serious.

Watch the one minute video. http://youtu.be/cPgfzknYd20  Then come back and read the transcript. Both the video and transcript are from the wonderful Daily Kos web site. And because you’re busy, I’ve added my own emphasis.

Mitt Romney, 10/3/12: I will not reduce the taxes paid by high income Americans.

Mitt Romney, 2/22/12: There were so many misrepresentations in there it’s going to take me a little while. Number one, I said today that we’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by twenty percent—including the top one percent.

Mitt Romney, 10/3/12: The key to great schools? Great teachers. So I reject the idea that I don’t believe in great teachers or more teachers.

Mitt Romney, 6/8/12: He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government.

Mitt Romney, 10/3/12: Actually, it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.

Mitt Romney, 3/27/12: If they’re 45 years old and they show up and they say I want insurance because I’ve got heart disease, it’s like: “Hey guys, we can’t play the game like that.” You’ve got to get insurance when you’re well, and then if you get ill, then you’re going to be covered.

It’s mind boggling. This man is running for U.S. President. I have no idea how any of this is defensible.

Mitt vs. Mitt is a recurring theme. He was a “moderate Republican” when he ran in Massachusetts, but now he swears he is “severely conservative.” He spoke back then with passion about a woman’s right to choose; now he holds a radical right anti-abortion stance.  And of course, he argued with skill about the merits of Obamacare, back when it was Romneycare.

Character counts. He won’t release his tax returns because, as Ann Romney said, it will provide “ammunition” to his opponents. (The gold-standard for transparency regarding tax returns when running for president was set by Gov. George Romney, Mitt’s father. George released 12 years of returns.)

Please, please pass this on to others. Or at least send the video link to people you know who will vote. Here’s the link again…

http://youtu.be/cPgfzknYd20

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

Have a comment? Please post it on the blog! Thanks.

Do The Math!

Ah, the debate. Those of us who support Mr. Obama were shocked by his apparent lack of combativeness in the first debate. But then I thought back to what I learned when going for my Master’s degree in Communication years ago: at the time of the very first televised debates, voters who watched on TV (the majority) gave the clear victory to Kennedy. Those, however, who listened on radio gave the edge to Nixon.

Now, I am not going to compare our current president with Tricky Dickey. But in reading excerpts of the recent debate, it becomes clear that Mr. Obama did land some body blows.

Specifically,  let’s focus on the sword play around the “$5 trillion tax cut.” The president said that’s how much Mitt’s tax cut plan would reduce revenue over the next decade, and independent non-partisan studies back up that claim (well, they actually come up with “only” $4.8 trillion, but a little rounding is permissible).

The former governor says his proposal is “revenue neutral.” That means while the federal government would be taking in much less money via taxes, his plan will “pay for” those reduced revenues by having the government spend much less. In other words, one dollar less in tax will be offset by one dollar not spent. This is the crux of the issue.  But HOW will he pay for those tax cuts? If he cannot offset those tax cuts, he explodes the deficit.

Mr. Obama pounced: “He is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he’s been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn’t been able to identify them.”

That is correct. In TV and radio interviews, in press interviews, both Mr. Romney and Rep. Ryan sidestep the specifics. They want us to trust them. They have some secret sauce that will magically close deductions and loopholes, and the Congress will happily go along.

For anyone who knows anything about real-world politics, this is insane.  Armies of lobbyists would swamp Capitol Hill fighting furiously to preserve their favorite tax break.  And they will win many of those fights, just as they always have in the past.

Mitt gave a great performance at the first debate. But that’s all it was – a performance.  The more his script is analyzed, the more we see that it was a sad charade.

For a balanced look at how the math does and doesn’t add up, check out this article from Bloomberg News.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

Abortion Weirdness

Of all the political issues that separate Democrats from Republicans, few make the GOP look wackier than the discussion about abortion. The specifics in a moment.

First, let’s get the terminology right.

The battle over abortion is divided into two camps: pro-choice and anti-choice. No Democrat should ever use the term “pro-life.” Everyone is pro-life. Those who want to mandate what a woman can do inside her own body are “anti-choice.”

Next, let’s accept the fact that unintended pregnancies will always be with us. No contraception method is 100% effective, and not everyone uses contraception regularly and correctly.  As a result, studies show that an astonishing 4 in 10 pregnancies are unintended.

Children whose births were unintended are (from Wikipedia, with links to sources):

  • likely to be less mentally and physically healthy during childhood,[11]
  • at higher risk of child abuse and neglect,[1][12]
  • less likely to succeed in school,[13]
  • more likely to live in poverty,[13]
  • more likely to need public assistance,[13]
  • more likely to have delinquent and criminal behavior.[13)

Pretty depressing, don’t you think?

The solution, of course, is to provide women (and men) with practical sex education, make contraception affordable and easily obtainable, and, as a last resort, make abortion services, as Bill Clinton used to say, “safe, legal, and rare.”

Now here’s the wacky part: the GOP is not only against abortions, they also want to reduce or eliminate the laws and agencies that help prevent unintended pregnancies. What could be dumber?

Mitt Romney and most of the GOP proudly proclaim they would eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood. Why? Isn’t preventing unintended pregnancies – which is the main purpose of Planned Parenthood – the smartest way to prevent abortions?

Romney also says he would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. He says abortion is a “states’ rights” issue. That is frightening nonsense. (The last time we heard about “states’ rights” was during the fight against segregation.)  Can you imagine 50 states debating a woman’s right to choose?  At best, it would take many years to resolve and hundreds of thousands of women would be forced to bear children they don’t want!

Women of means will always be able to get abortions, so outlawing them drives the less wealthy to take desperate measures. In the days prior to Roe vs. Wade, thousands of women suffered injury or death when they put themselves in the hands of “back street butchers,” or tried to induce the abortion themselves.

Perhaps worst of all, Republicans don’t care about fetuses after they are born (aka children). Their mantra is that we are a nation of individualists. “You’re on your own, kid. Too bad about being born into a low-income family with five other kids. You should have thought of that before being born. Good luck getting medical care, dental checkups, or a nutritious meal at school.”

The best that can be said about the GOP on this issue is that they are pro-birth. It’s the Democrats who fight to give women a choice about abortion, and to give children of unintended pregnancies a good life. Democrats, by that yardstick, are the true pro-lifeparty.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

 

One Term More, A Song Parody

Song parodies are a silly waste of time. Anyone can do them.

Yet today I am sending you a song parody. The reason? It’s just too good to miss!

Set to the music of Les Mis, the lyrics are both clever and devastating. Even better, the voices are glorious. I hope you can listen through a decent set of speakers.

I could easily write paragraphs expanding upon each line of text in the performance. If you follow the headlines you will understand most references; if not, ask me. The link here takes you to the version that includes subtitles so that you don’t miss a word.

http://www.onetermmore.com/video_subtitles.html
(UPDATE: something changed and the link seems to have stopped working. But if you go to the upper right corner, you can still click on the Watch Video tab and it will play.  Unfortunately, the version with sub-titles seems to stay locked.)

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

Debunking Obamacare Myths

No need for a big preamble here. Simply, this NY Times column does a spot-on job of debunking the major myths about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Pay particular attention to the section, “OBAMACARE IS A FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF HEALTH INSURANCE.”  That is exactly what Mitt claimed minutes after the Supreme Court decision came down upholding the ACA.  I watched him say that, looking directly into the camera, and I wondered, “what am I missing?”  Nothing, it turns out. But facts seem to be irrelevant in the GOP anti-health-care campaign.

And just for fun … but with a tremendously serious message, check out this clip from The Daily Show; it hilariously exposes the truth about Mitt’s slippery effort to take make us believe he was able to “retroactively retire” from Bain when it suited his political needs. He wants credit for good stuff Bain did, but none of the blame for the bad stuff.

Be sure to watch both segments.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

 

Big Win for Obamacare — and the U.S.!

 Yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court to uphold all of the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) surprised just about every pundit out there.  As with those who predict the stock market, it’s all just so much hot air.

A few hours after the decision was announced I received an email with the link below. I assumed it was an analysis of the decision, but it turned out to be the actual Court documents! It’s dense and boring, but I scanned it nevertheless.

For those who wonder why the AHCA has the “individual mandate” which requires virtually all Americans to buy health insurance, read this excerpt I’ve conveniently cut out for you. I’ve even highlighted some of the most relevant lines.

It’s all there in black (and red) and white. And it leaves little wiggle room for arguments against the mandate.

By the way, Romney said yesterday “Obamacare puts the Federal government between you and your doctor.”  No it doesn’t. I fervently hope reporters will call him out for that outrageous statement.

https://www.sentinelgroup.com/main/SentinelBenefits/media/Sentinel-Benefits/Documents/SCOTUS-Opinion.pdf

Page 70

Federal and state law, as well as professional obligations and embedded social norms, require hospitals and physicians to provide care when it is most needed, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. See, e.g., 42 U. S. C. §1395dd; Fla.Stat. §395.1041(3)(f) (2010); Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§311.022(a) and (b) (West 2010); American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics, Current Opinions: Opinion 8.11—Neglect of Patient, p. 70 (1998–1999 ed.).

As a consequence, medical-care providers deliver significant amounts of care to the uninsured for which the providers receive no payment. In 2008, for example, hospitals, physicians, and other health-care professionals received no compensation for $43 billion worth of the $116 billion in care they administered to those without insurance. 42 U. S. C. §18091(2)(F) (2006 ed., Supp. IV).

Health-care providers do not absorb these bad debts. Instead, they raise their prices, passing along the cost of uncompensated care to those who do pay reliably: the government and private insurance companies. In response, private insurers increase their premiums, shifting the cost of the elevated bills from providers onto those who carry insurance. The net result: Those with health insurance subsidize the medical care of those without it. As economists would describe what happens, the uninsured “free ride” on those who pay for health insurance.

The size of this subsidy is considerable. Congress found that the cost-shifting just described “increases family [insurance] premiums by on average over $1,000 a year.” Ibid. Higher premiums, in turn, render health insurance less affordable, forcing more people to go without insurance and leading to further cost-shifting.

And it is hardly just the currently sick or injured among the uninsured who prompt elevation of the price of health care and health insurance. Insurance companies and health-care providers know that some percentage of healthy, uninsured people will suffer sickness or injury each year and will receive medical care despite their inability to pay. In anticipation of this uncompensated care, health-care companies raise their prices, and insurers their premiums. In other words, because any uninsured person may need medical care at any moment and because health-care companies must account for that risk, every uninsured person impacts the market price of medical care and medical insurance.

The failure of individuals to acquire insurance has other deleterious effects on the health-care market. Because those without insurance generally lack access to preventative care, they do not receive treatment for conditions—like hypertension and diabetes—that can be successfully and affordably treated if diagnosed early on. See Institute of Medicine, National Academies, Insuring America’s Health: Principles and Recommendations 43 (2004). When sickness finally drives the uninsured to seek care, once treatable conditions have escalated into grave health problems, requiring more costly and extensive intervention. Id., at 43–44. The extra time and resources providers spend serving the uninsured lessens the providers’ ability to care for those who do have insurance.

 

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

Please pass this message on.

And if you know of someone who should be reading these messages, please provide their email address.