End of Year Wish

In this season of PEACE+GOOD WILL {BIPARTISANSHIP} maybe the legislature could put eight days of good legislation together so that Democrats, Republicans, Independents and all people can celebrate the coming year.

Personally, I would settle for one good day. Even that would be a blessing.

Immigration - A Solvable Problem

At the present time there are two opposing factions.

The first believes that all illegal immigrants should be deported.

The second believes in giving illegals amnesty.

Neither idea is the solution but neither side really wants to assume the responsibility of solving it.

I offer a start.

We go by time in our country. We take those who have been here the longest - those who have a job here, worked here and contributed taxes to the city, state and country, and put them in line with legal immigrants. Obviously if they have contributed to the good and welfare of their community for a length of time they have proved that they can and want to be citizens. This way we prove to the illegal immigrants that we do want to solve the problem and get their cooperation.

We owe nothing to those who have never contributed to the country they want citizenship in - they have proved that they only want to return to their own country. If they can prove that they have contributed in other ways such as volunteer work it should be entered into the equation.

This is just a start. There are probably many ways to solve the problem, but you have to start somewhere.

The GOP and the 'free' market

Last night's GOP presidential debate had two mantras.

1. The problem with Obama is he refuses to let the market work. It
seems to me that President Bush allowed the market to work and all that did was make for the malaise we are in now. Deregulation has been a GOP idea since Ronald Reagan sang its praises. Unfortunately, letting the market work - without any checks - took away the things that might have protected the middle class. (Disaster).

2. The Federal Government does not allow the market to work. It seems
to me they leave out the part that the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch are also part of the problem. Some of the people running for the office of the President created many of the problems.

The market only works when the people responsible for overseeing the markets give everyone a fair chance in the market. When legislators make special deals on behalf of certain corporations or industries at the expense of others, or the
middle class, the market is great for some (those with lobbyists) but not for others. We have to go back to the days when monopolies were against the law. Monopolies destroy by their power.

"Move Your Money" is a bad solution

The group urging folks to "move your money" from big banks to small ones says that such moves will show the banks you mean business. Nonsense.

That may have been true many years ago when the government realized that allowing monopolies to exist was bad for the economy. It was also before people like Mayor Bloomberg fought to do away with regulation of the banks , Wall Street, the real estate industry,credit card issuers and the utility companies.

It was also before the Supreme Court decided that corporations were people.

Let us assume you take your money out and put it in a small bank. There is nothing to stop a big bank from buying out the small
bank, and you're back where you started - but worse. Now there are fewer small banks and more people unemployed.

This business of "A" bank becoming "B" bank getting bought out by "C" bank is ridiculous. Each bank changes its rules and you have to play the game of "Do you know where your money is?" Someone like Elizabeth Warren might have brought some common sense to banking regulation but she was never given a chance - forced out by bank lobbyists.

The tale of the campaign button

While looking for something the other day, I came upon a button. It said 2008, had a profile of Obama with the following words. "HOPE. ACTION. Change We can Believe In."

After eight years of being Bushwacked it was refreshing to get a change. Obama promised to change health care. Make it simpler, fairer, and more encompassing. He promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He promised more transparency. He promised the usual campaign battle cry to fight against "Special Interests."

So far the only change I see, is the change in Obama. From a Sir Galahad we got a Don Quixote. From a fighter we got a dreamer.

Now the apologists have gone to bat for him. Even James Carville, who was slightly critical of the President has now started to say "Think of the Alternative."

While it is true that the alternative would be devastating, why do we have to have such choices. It is like asking someone would they rather be shot or poisoned. Why can't we insist on the Obama we voted for?

While I am disappointed I have not given up hope for him. Even Rip van Winkle came out of a deep sleep after 20
years. But we have to stop excusing his failures and demand he shape up. Do not use the "Think of the Alternative" argument as an excuse.

Maybe if we insist on a better Democrat we might even get some better Republicans.

The skinny on the GOP field

My thumbnail sketches of theGOP presidential field:

Bachmann: How can we get inoculated against whatever she's carrying?

Huntsman: Another Mormon? Too nice a guy for the Republicans to show him big love.

Santorum: Preaches a form of Christianity with which Jesus would be unfamiliar.

Gingrich: Too smart to actually believe the nonsense he spews.

Paul: If they can't pay for insurance let them die.

Cain: Former CEO of Godfather's Pizza has an offer I can refuse.

Perry: Makes the previous governor of Texas look like a Mensa member.

Romney: His claim to fame as a governor is the successful Obamacare style program he instituted in Massachusetts which he has now decided would be bad for America.

The GOP and Jobs

Forty-two years ago a group of record dealers were sitting around and listening to President Nixon give the usual speech as to how the small business community created more jobs than the large corporations - that the small business community deserved the government's help in order to expand.

A few of the dealers got angry and said they could not get help from the Small Business Administration to expand. I was president of the Association of Record Dealers at the time and the group told me to find out why. I wrote President Nixon about the issue and the reply I received said that if I really wanted to help small business I should join the newly formed SCORE and ACTION.

I did just that. At the beginning I had the feeling I was helping small business, in conjunction with the SBA, which gave out loans. Then Congress decided it was too expensive and lessened the money given to the SBA and forced it out of the loan business. They turned the matter over to the banks and guaranteed a large portion of the loans. Unfortunately, the banks were more interested in making bad loans, bad mortgages and foreclosures than than they were in loaning money to small businesses.

I heard the same nonsense in the last GOP debate. How can you be concerned about small business and not want to fund the Small Business Administration?

If the Democrats also give lip service to small business, where do these job creators have to turn for help?

Entitlers, entitlees and the entitled

Congress is both an entitler and an entitlee. It makes the laws about entitlements and at the same time votes itself a raise in salary and perks whenever it feels like it. While many Americans are losing their pensions, members of Congress are pensioned at the taxpayers' expense.

Other entitlees are the wealthy who make their money by the work of the entitled. They are rewarded by big breaks on taxes, because they are the large contributors to campaign money for Congress. They have also been given help with the "Estate Tax" decline. They make their heirs entitlees by use of the trickle down theory.

The entitled are the working stiffs, who paid taxes into the Social Security and Medicare funds. This gave members of Congress more money for earmarks and pork so they could keep getting elected. Then Congress decides it does not have enough money for even COLAs and some members of Congress want to emasculate both successful programs. These programs are advertised as only benefiting seniors but they are actually good for young people also because they give them some security for when they can no longer work (and the pension they were hoping for is gone and their 401K money has tanked in the stock market). Medicare also gives them health care in spite of outrageous health costs.

Since the wealthy have largely made their fortunes off the investments and purchases of those who will be dependent on SociaI security when they retire, it is only fair that the wealthy pay higher taxes so that the money taken from the Social Security fund can be returned to it.

The myth of bipartisanship

A few days ago I watched C-SPAN again and was treated to a fictional account of what bipartisanship is all about.

Here is the scenario: The President starts from a weak position as he did in the health care issue. He makes speeches that say that he will not sign any law that does not include taxing billionaires.

The Tea Partiers believe that in the interest of compromise and bipartisanship, he will cave in.

I listened to the House Republicans and some Democrats thanking the president and the other Democrats for their bipartisanship approach to a deal.

The president was like the parent of a kidnapped child forced to pay ransom. "Give us what we want or we're going to let the government default," the Tea Partiers wrote in their ransom note, and the president and moderate Democrats gave them the satchel full of unmarked bills and the getaway car.

It may be that in acquiescing the president in acquiescing is playing politics. He may believe that the Republicans have again over-reached and have hurt their chances in the next election with their tactics.

While I do not believe the deal was a good deal. I do not think there was much choice. 2012 will tell us if the poor, middle class and seniors are going to be willing to take another stand for their interests or of they've given up the fight and will allow the Tea Party to take greater control and begin the dismantling of Medicare and Social Security and continue the widening of the gap between the rich and everyone else.

TV Shows

I was watching one of my favorite, but most annoying, TV shows the other day. It was on C-SPAN. For the first time I realized I was watching a new concept to go with our sports shows, sitcoms, shopping shows and reality shows.

This was a non-reality show.

The segment was called, "Cut, Cap and Balance." It had a large cast and under normal circumstances might be called a spectacular, but this one was more of a spectacle.

Or a debacle.

It was seemingly scripted by people called whips and majority leaders and all the performers had pretty much the same lines.

Although listening is a key to a believable performance, these performers read their words without listening. Here were well-spoken adults speaking as if what they were saying meant something. I have seen High school debates that made more sense.

It was all a tease though, because the outcome was a vote with everyone knowing what the outcome would be. It was not even well acted. In other words, a total waste of time and money.

Words spoken and unspoken

The Republican strategy is that they are for tax cuts and only tax cuts create jobs. But if tax cuts created jobs why were so few jobs created during the Bush administration?

These are the words I want to hear from President Obama: "I will not sign any law that continues the Bush Tax cuts."

Previous administrations have used the Social Security fund as a piggy bank for spurious earmarks and unnecessary spending. Before they put Social Security on the table for cuts, I want those funds restored. Then and only then can we discuss Social Security.

Republicans talk about cuts in spending, but some of the programs they want to cut will end up costing middle- and lower-income tax payers more out-of-pocket cash. To me that is the same as raising taxes on those groups. It is one of the fallacies of the Republicans' argument that the government wants to redistribute wealth. The government HAS been redistributing wealth - from the poor and middle class to the rich. What Republicans don't want is for that redistribution to go the other way - to the people who need the money and spend money when they get it.

The problem with big $ politics

It has become obvious that the present campaign reform proposals will reform very little. They are filled with loopholes and will be opposed by the media, who depend on political advertising for a huge source of revenue.

The obscene cost of campaigning has given growth to an entire industry built around fundraising. If you are a computer user I am sure that every day your In Box has numerous requests for donations. While they ask for as little as $3, these requests are repeated almost every day and you are asked to sign petitions which which put you on more lists soliciting more donations.

Lobbyists are a large part of this obscenity. They raise money to disperse to candidates and elected politicians so that they can get favorable laws for their clients. The Supreme Court has compounded this problem by giving corporations the same rights as individuals when it comes to donating money. This has raised the stakes further by forcing politicians to spend ridiculous amounts of time fundraising and promising favors to everyone with a big checkbook.

Unfortunately, when it comes to buying influence, the middle class cannot compete with the corporations. That is why our government is being bought and sold by Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, etc.

The reason why campaign reform won't work is simple. No one benefits except the little guy - and no one cares about the little guy.

Politicians need the big money to run for office. Lobbyists need access to the big money to buy influence and keep their jobs. The media needs big money in the game to pay for all the advertising.

Many of our elected officials are so cosy with the huge dollars of the lobbying industry, they use their elected positions as a stepping stone to employment as lobbyists when their time in office is up.

We need to stop the madness. Between partisan politics and a Congress on the payroll of corporate America, there is almost no chance for meaningful legislation to help the poor and middle class.

Taxes and reality

It sounds so logical to hear the average citizen call for increasing corporate taxes to make for a fairer taxation policy. Unfortunately that system does not work as long as the corporations can raise the prices so that you end up paying the increase.

Who do you think paid the taxes levied on phone companies? Who do you think paid the higher prices at the pump on the taxes to the oil companies? Who do you think pays the real estate taxes? The home owner, the co-op buyer and the renter. Whenever a company's real estate taxes go up, the consumer pays. The mortgage companies, the banks, your cable companies all raise their fees, and the list goes on and on.

Trickle down economics work if you're a corporation. Whatever costs are levied on companies at the top, are trickled down to the consumer at the bottom. But increased profits? They usually go to increased CEO salaries, cash reserves or stock buybacks. The cash rarely trickles down.

The fairest way is to close the loopholes on income tax benefits to incentivize companies spreading their wealth around instead of concentrating it at the top and to eliminate special tax benefits for companies who take their money and jobs out of the country,accounts out of the country.

It is obvious the present tax policy only benefits the wealthy. No matter how much they complain about their tax burden, the disparity between rich and poor keeps growing.

The 2012 presidential election

It is early, but I will make a prediction as to what I believe will happen in the 2012 presidential election.

Obama will win.

Does he deserve to win based on his accomplishments up to now? I am not sure. Do I approve of what he has done? I give him a a 6.5 out of 10.

He was given a chance to fulfill his promises of change. but what has he changed? Very little. He had a chance to be a statesman and settled for politician.

He has allowed the Republicans to dictate the agenda, by not going to the public with candor as to why he has not achieved the changes he said he would fight for.

He did not fight for single payer health reform, although all the polls showed the public favored it. He was lukewarm on the health care issue all along. The openness of the government has not come to be. He has not brought to the table the gun and ammunition issue and the NRA is still dictating gun policies. He promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and has not really explained why he cannot achieve this goal. It is possible he may have a valid reason, then have a fireside chat and explain the reason.


He has decided he has the progressives in his pocket, so he has to go to the middle of the road.

So why does he win if he has not done the great job everyone expected?

He wins because when the voter realizes what the opposition has offered and done, enough of them will come to their senses.

He wins because I do not believe the Tea Party has gotten the attention of disaffected Democrats or Independents. What the Tea Party has done is taken disaffected Republicans into their corner. These are votes they had in the last election.
They did not win then.

The disaffected Democrats have no choice but to vote for what might have been and may still be.The Independents also are too smart to go along with the Republicans who were more interested in defeating President Obama than making some of the things they disagreed on more palatable.

And one other reason Obama will win: After 2012 he can't run again, which will free him up to do more of what he believes in without having to deal with political fallout.

The most powerful politician is the one with nothing to lose.

Bribery

Our elected officials are in a position of trust.

Bribery is money, favor or promises to a person or persons in a position of trust to influence their judgment or conduct. Bribery is a form of corruption. I always understood bribery of an elected official to be a crime.

If that is true why haven't the Koch Brothers been indicted?

Banks, oil companies and other major corporations are all guilty of this practice as are the lobbyists who work for them. But it is up to the attorney generals and district attorneys to bring these cases to justice.

Some unions have given unions a bad name by being as corrupt as politicians, but good unions have raised the standard of living for the middle class, and along the way helped make many people rich. Isn't it absurd that billionaires who've gotten rich off the system are now blaming the system and finding fault with the middle class union workers who've been asked for wage givebacks and risk losing a piece of their pension - a pension that they negotiated for with their employers in good faith. Isn't it absurd that politicians who get the best healthcare plan our money can buy, who make sure they get their own pensions and who use their expertise and influence as politicians to later work for the industries they helped legislate are blaming the middle class union worker for the nation's budget ills.

Who's the problem here? The billionaires who've bought the system or the working class trying to live within it? Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has said his state faces a $3.6 billion shortfall for the next two years. Now think about the fact that the Koch brothers, who helped fund his campaign, helped fund the Tea Party, are behind his move to break the unions and may soon end up running a Wisconsin public utility (as a present of privatization), are worth, according to Forbes, over $40 billion by themselves.

Really, it's the school teacher who's the problem?

Not every elected official is on the take - there are some good ones - but until we can get bribery out of public life we will never have honest government and we will never have government that works for the working class majority instead of the wealthy minority.

Rating "The State of the Union"

If I were giving points on delivery it certainly deserves a nine-and-a-half. The oratory was great and even had spots of humor.

On substance i would give it no more than a 7.

It sort of reminded me of the fantastic speeches Mario Cuomo used to give for a progressive agenda, but when push came to shove his agenda was watered down. He spoke Democrat , but pushed a moderate Republican agenda. That is if there is such a thing as a moderate Republican.

Obama's speech also reminded me of Mayor Bloomberg's speeches. Mayor Bloomberg talks middle class values then pushes an agenda that favors his Wall Street friends, his real rstate pals, and his insurance buddies, to name a few.

Based on performance up until now, I don't want to hear good speeches, I want to see good results. You should not go to the middle of the road at the expense of the progressives. The middle of the road is where the independents should go. You can win Independents' votes by having a sensible well thought out plan, and follow up. It may be possible to win the so called moderate Republican, if there are some.

I will still support Obama if there is no progressive who can win puts his hat in the ring. A "Conservative" like our previous president almost brought us to bankruptcy .

"States rights" or wrongs

For many years now the National Rifle Association has pleaded the case of "States Rights." They have argued that the way they read the Constitution the state has the right to have a militia. They've further argued that this allows an everyday citizen to arm himself or herself.

As Seth Meyers joked on "Saturday Night Live," however, when the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution, the arms in question were not Uzis or Glocks, but muskets. It's not that easy to kill a man with a musket and even if you do it, you can't kill too many at once. You couldn't conceal a musket, couldn't sneak up on anyone with your musket.

There's no evidence that the founding fathers, who couldn't possibly envision the firepower of today, would have wanted everyone to carry any type of weapon they could get their hands on - and also be able to hide them in their pockets.

It's ridiculous, therefore when the NRA argues that sane people should have the right to have a gun that can shoot thirty shots or thirty rounds. Such a gun is not a means of protection it's an offensive weapon. It's not to defend, it's to kill. I find it inconceivable that if Representative Giffords, the Federal Judge and all the people shot that day in Arizona would have been protected if they had more weapons in their hands. Who would have fired first? How many more people would have been shot in the crossfire.