In John Dean's book, Conservatives without Conscience, he attempts to explain why so many present-day conservatives are just down-right mean. He concludes that it is because they are not conservatives as much as they are authoritarians. He has a chapter on how Cheney and Bush have used the "politics of fear" to govern and keep the Republican Party in power.
If you stop and think about it, a lot of the appeal of the Republican Party is based on being afraid of something or someone. Whether it's fear of terrorists, fear of gays, fear of blacks, fear of strong women, fear of liberals, or fear of the popular culture, fear is used by Cheney and Bush to keep power. The message is this: "You are afraid of _______ (fill in with approriate Republican bogeyman). Vote for us and we will protect you from this danger."
There are several reasons why this tactic works. First, there is a significant portion of the population that responds to this sort of appeal. According to a social psychologist cited in Dean's book, approximately 25% of the population is comfortable with authoritariansim. So appeals based on fear work with such individuals. Second, and this is something that we tend to forget, one of the main purposes of government is to provide security for the governed. In times of perceived danger, when people are more worried abut security, ( say America after the 9-11 attacks), appeals based on fear find more fertile ground. Finally, such appeals are simple to understand. In a world of increasing bombardment of information, political messages that are simple to understand have a better shot at cutting through the static.
Compounding the problem is that the media is either complicit in the peddling of the politics of fear, (for example, Fox News), or refuses to recognize that such peddling is occurring. An example of this was the refusal of most of the major news outlets in this country to critically examine Bush's claims that a war in Iraq would enhance America's security. From the New York Times on down, most American news outlets allowed Bush's claims to go unexamined until we had invaded Iraq and had not found any WMDs. By that time, of course, we had 140,000 American soldiers mired down in what is looking increasingly like a low intensity civil war.
So how do we counter the politics of fear? We can, of course, practice the politics of fear ourselves. There are several legitimate claims that we can make about this administration's drive to push Americans into economic insecurity. Proposals such as privatizing Social Security, taxing earned income at substantially higher rates than unearned income, turning over Medicare's prescription drug plan to the drug companies, trade agreements that allow American companies to ship American jobs to third world countries, eliminating aid to college students, the list goes on and on. Creative ads could be devised that point out how the Bushies want to create insecurity at home while wasting American lives in the sands of the Middle East.
Another way to counter the politics of fear is to realize it is happening and point out to the media that it is happening. Often we assume that when reporters anc commentators don't critically examine the Bush Administration it is because of their complicity when actually it is often because of their lack of knowledge. We have an obligation to make them aware by writing letters to the editors and, perhaps more importantly, by emailing them information countering the misinformation put out by Bush and his supporters.
A third way to counter the politics of fear is to point out to the American public that it is being practiced. Very few Democratic politicians do this. Most of them are so busy fighting each radical proposal that comes out that they don't have or take the time to look at the big picture. Yet, if they would do so, they could tell American voters what is happening and counter it with the politics of hope.
The politics of hope seeks to unite, not divide, Americans. The politics of hope plays on Americans' dreams, not their fears. The politics of hope takes advantage of the good nature of the American people. The politics of hope was the politics of FDR, JFK, the pre-Viet Nam LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. It has been behind every successful Democratic campaign for the presidency since 1932. Why? Because it works. Because ultimately Americans would rather hear the voices of hope than the voices of fear.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Political Psychology 101-The Politics of Equality
In the post that appears below called Political Psychology 101, we make reference to a paper called Political Conservatism as Socially Motivated Cognition. That paper points out that studies show that more a person leans to the right on the political spectrum, the more they share certain traits. Among these traits are an intolerance for ambiguity and a tolerance for inequality. The post below talks about the need some conservatives have for non-ambiguous situations. This post wants to talk about the fact that conservatives aren't all that concerned about inequality and, indeed, many prefer that our society remain unequal.
Since the founding of America, there has been a constant expansion of equality in our society. At first only white men with property could vote. Then it was extended to white men without property. Next, with the adoption of the 14th Amendment, came the theoretical extension of the franchise to black males. Following that came the extension to white females. Finally, in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson redeemed the promise of the 14th Amendment and got Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, which extended political equality to black citizens in states of the Old Confederacy and backed up the extension with Federal coercion.
While the struggle for political equality went on, there was also a battle for social equality in our society. Women and minorities battled to open up educational, business, and professional opportunities to all Americans. The battle continues to this day.
In all these battles, conservatives opposed the drive for equality. Conservative voices didn't want non-landowning people to vote, didn't want blacks freed or voting, didn't think that women should be seen outside the home taking part in the political life of our nation, didn't want the Federal government to back up the drive for equal rights with force.
This is the eternal conflict between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe in extending equality of opportunity, conservatives do not. If you look at almost every major battle between liberals and conservatives on the domestic side, that conflict will appear. It dictates which sides people take in budget battles, in Supreme Court nomination fights, in battles over tax policy.
If liberals are asked "how are you different than conservatives", the answer should be that "I believe in using the power of the government to extend equality of opportunity to all Americans, conservatives do not." Only after establishing that baseline is it then possible to engage in a discussion of particular policies. _________________________________________________________________
MCDAC hereby gives authorization for reprinting of the above without attribution.
Since the founding of America, there has been a constant expansion of equality in our society. At first only white men with property could vote. Then it was extended to white men without property. Next, with the adoption of the 14th Amendment, came the theoretical extension of the franchise to black males. Following that came the extension to white females. Finally, in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson redeemed the promise of the 14th Amendment and got Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, which extended political equality to black citizens in states of the Old Confederacy and backed up the extension with Federal coercion.
While the struggle for political equality went on, there was also a battle for social equality in our society. Women and minorities battled to open up educational, business, and professional opportunities to all Americans. The battle continues to this day.
In all these battles, conservatives opposed the drive for equality. Conservative voices didn't want non-landowning people to vote, didn't want blacks freed or voting, didn't think that women should be seen outside the home taking part in the political life of our nation, didn't want the Federal government to back up the drive for equal rights with force.
This is the eternal conflict between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe in extending equality of opportunity, conservatives do not. If you look at almost every major battle between liberals and conservatives on the domestic side, that conflict will appear. It dictates which sides people take in budget battles, in Supreme Court nomination fights, in battles over tax policy.
If liberals are asked "how are you different than conservatives", the answer should be that "I believe in using the power of the government to extend equality of opportunity to all Americans, conservatives do not." Only after establishing that baseline is it then possible to engage in a discussion of particular policies. _________________________________________________________________
MCDAC hereby gives authorization for reprinting of the above without attribution.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Political Psychology 101-The Politics of Clarity
In 2003 an excellent article was written called Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. The article was written by several psychologists. They surveyed over 50 years of results of psychological studies to determine what traits political conservatives shared. They found that political conservatives were people who didn't like ambiguity, were tolerant of inequality, wanted cognitive closure, responded to appeals based on threat of loss, and were not open to new experiences. They went on to postulate that political conservatives were receiving psychological benefits from the way they voted. Voting for conservative candidates was not just being done because it was in their own self-interest, it was being done because, for want of a better ten, it "made them feel good about themselves."
If you stop and think for a moment about the above paragraph, it is easy to see why conservatives responded to Bush's 2004 campaign. One thing that Bush isn't is ambiguous. As he once said "I know what I believe and I believe that what I believe is right." Bush also apparently doesn't question his decisions once they are made, and, in fact, there is little evidence that he engages in any intellectual curiosity about the impact of his decisions while he is making them. He gives his supporters both cognitive closure and no ambiguity when he uses phrases like bringing bin Laden back "dead or alive" or telling the insurgents in Iraq to "bring it on."
Contrast his certainty with the ambiguity of a lot of liberals. It sometimes seems that liberals want to talk every problem to death, that they can find a lot of reasons why the other side has good arguments, and they seem to take special pleasure in recognizing the other sides point of view. In short, they don't portray an image of decisiveness, but rather one of indecisiveness.
When John Kerry said in 2004 that he had voted for the Iraqi war budget before he voted against it, the election was lost. In a country that leans more to the right than to the left, such a statement wasn't going to come across as studied and nuanced, it was going to come across as trying to have it both ways. It looked like he didn't have the courage of his convictions.
What we need are for liberal Democrats running for office to do the following:
1. Articulate clearly and unambiguously what they stand for;
2. Be non-apologetic about what they stand for;
3. Be forceful in pushing for the adoption of their positions; and
4. Be unapologetic about pursuing power.
All of this doesn't mean that you have to be rude, or uncivil, or personally disagreeable. It is possible, contrary to what wingnuts like O'Reilly and Limbaugh believe, to disagree with someone without be personally insulting. What it does mean, though, is that you have to know what you believe and unapologetically want to advance your beliefs. It means that you have to be unapologetic about the pursuit of political power.
A political campaign isn't a debate, it isn't a lesson in civics, or a lesson in campaigning. A political campaign is about winning so your side can accomplish certain objectives. Its way past time for liberal Democrats to understand that the only purpose of a political campaign is to get and keep power. If you don't want the power, don't run for the office. If you don't know what you will do with power, don't run for office.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC will be glad to send you this article on request. Please send your email address to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org and put "political article" in the subject line. MCDAC hereby gives permission to use the above without attribution.
If you stop and think for a moment about the above paragraph, it is easy to see why conservatives responded to Bush's 2004 campaign. One thing that Bush isn't is ambiguous. As he once said "I know what I believe and I believe that what I believe is right." Bush also apparently doesn't question his decisions once they are made, and, in fact, there is little evidence that he engages in any intellectual curiosity about the impact of his decisions while he is making them. He gives his supporters both cognitive closure and no ambiguity when he uses phrases like bringing bin Laden back "dead or alive" or telling the insurgents in Iraq to "bring it on."
Contrast his certainty with the ambiguity of a lot of liberals. It sometimes seems that liberals want to talk every problem to death, that they can find a lot of reasons why the other side has good arguments, and they seem to take special pleasure in recognizing the other sides point of view. In short, they don't portray an image of decisiveness, but rather one of indecisiveness.
When John Kerry said in 2004 that he had voted for the Iraqi war budget before he voted against it, the election was lost. In a country that leans more to the right than to the left, such a statement wasn't going to come across as studied and nuanced, it was going to come across as trying to have it both ways. It looked like he didn't have the courage of his convictions.
What we need are for liberal Democrats running for office to do the following:
1. Articulate clearly and unambiguously what they stand for;
2. Be non-apologetic about what they stand for;
3. Be forceful in pushing for the adoption of their positions; and
4. Be unapologetic about pursuing power.
All of this doesn't mean that you have to be rude, or uncivil, or personally disagreeable. It is possible, contrary to what wingnuts like O'Reilly and Limbaugh believe, to disagree with someone without be personally insulting. What it does mean, though, is that you have to know what you believe and unapologetically want to advance your beliefs. It means that you have to be unapologetic about the pursuit of political power.
A political campaign isn't a debate, it isn't a lesson in civics, or a lesson in campaigning. A political campaign is about winning so your side can accomplish certain objectives. Its way past time for liberal Democrats to understand that the only purpose of a political campaign is to get and keep power. If you don't want the power, don't run for the office. If you don't know what you will do with power, don't run for office.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC will be glad to send you this article on request. Please send your email address to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org and put "political article" in the subject line. MCDAC hereby gives permission to use the above without attribution.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Social Securty, DeWine, the media, and what Dems should do
Occasionally MCDAC sends out email messages to media outlets trying to prod them to cover certain stories. One of those was sent out earlier this year about Mike DeWine voting in favor of the DeMint amendment. This amendment to the budget bill would have created private accounts for Social Security and would have eliminated survivors' benefits for widows, widowers, and children of deceased workers. In our message we argued that Ohio voters needed to know about this vote before the November election so that they could factor this vote into their decision in the Brown-DeWine race. Email responses we received from two reporters at a particular Ohio newspaper were very instructive and also very frustrating.
Bascially their reponse was that the fact that DeWine voted for the DeMint amendment was not news because (1). everyone knows that Social Security "reform" won't happen this year; (2). it's not fair to cherry-pick DeWine's votes for political purposes because that is exactly what the Republicans did in 2004 to Kerry and Democrats complained about that practice; and (3). DeWine voted in favor of some amendments proposed by Democrats and we weren't complaining about those votes.
Obviously these responses don't bear critical analysis. The fact that Bush's privatization plans are not likely to be passed this year has nothing to do with whether Ohio voters should be aware of DeWine's support for Social Security privatization. Indeed, since DeWine had carefully avoided either supporting or opposing Bush's privatization plans in 2005, his vote on the DeMint amendment was particularly instructive because it gave us an indictation on how he would vote if the plan ever came before the Senate. DeWine's support of other Democratic proposals doesn't really mean one thing or another in terms of Social Security.
What was frustrating about these responses was that the reporters were insisting that politics be looked at as a "game" with no relationship to the daily lives of literally millions of Ohioans. Since the "game" wasn't going to be won this year by supporters of Bush's destruction of Social Security it wasn't worth covering. Further, it is somehow violating the rules of the "game" to actually point out how DeWine votes because of complaints from Kerry supporters in 2004 and because DeWine supports other Democratic proposals.
Voters don't look at politics as a "game", they look at it as affecting goverment which affects their lives. They want to know that candidates are going to do once they are in office. Democratic accountability depends of voters receving such information. If the media refuses to supply such information, then how are voters supposed to hold candidates accountable for their positions by their votes?
The other interesting thing about this interaction is that both reporters engaged in a dialogue with us regarding both the DeWine vote and their newspaper's decision not to cover that vote. Although they didn't change their positions, they at least gave us the courtesy of replying, and indeed, were far more forthcoming in their responses than we expected. Obviously this exchange wouldn't have been possible before email.
Based on the above, here is our suggestion: Democrats should make an effort to gather email addresses of reporters and other media personnel and then make sure those email addresses are known to Democratic organizations. Those addresses should be used in an attempt to influence coverage of both politics and government. They should not be used to harass, vilify, or demean reporters and others, such activities are rude and counter-productive. Democrats should use email to engage reporters in a dialogue with the goal of making sure the Democratic message is heard.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the republication of the above without attribution.
Bascially their reponse was that the fact that DeWine voted for the DeMint amendment was not news because (1). everyone knows that Social Security "reform" won't happen this year; (2). it's not fair to cherry-pick DeWine's votes for political purposes because that is exactly what the Republicans did in 2004 to Kerry and Democrats complained about that practice; and (3). DeWine voted in favor of some amendments proposed by Democrats and we weren't complaining about those votes.
Obviously these responses don't bear critical analysis. The fact that Bush's privatization plans are not likely to be passed this year has nothing to do with whether Ohio voters should be aware of DeWine's support for Social Security privatization. Indeed, since DeWine had carefully avoided either supporting or opposing Bush's privatization plans in 2005, his vote on the DeMint amendment was particularly instructive because it gave us an indictation on how he would vote if the plan ever came before the Senate. DeWine's support of other Democratic proposals doesn't really mean one thing or another in terms of Social Security.
What was frustrating about these responses was that the reporters were insisting that politics be looked at as a "game" with no relationship to the daily lives of literally millions of Ohioans. Since the "game" wasn't going to be won this year by supporters of Bush's destruction of Social Security it wasn't worth covering. Further, it is somehow violating the rules of the "game" to actually point out how DeWine votes because of complaints from Kerry supporters in 2004 and because DeWine supports other Democratic proposals.
Voters don't look at politics as a "game", they look at it as affecting goverment which affects their lives. They want to know that candidates are going to do once they are in office. Democratic accountability depends of voters receving such information. If the media refuses to supply such information, then how are voters supposed to hold candidates accountable for their positions by their votes?
The other interesting thing about this interaction is that both reporters engaged in a dialogue with us regarding both the DeWine vote and their newspaper's decision not to cover that vote. Although they didn't change their positions, they at least gave us the courtesy of replying, and indeed, were far more forthcoming in their responses than we expected. Obviously this exchange wouldn't have been possible before email.
Based on the above, here is our suggestion: Democrats should make an effort to gather email addresses of reporters and other media personnel and then make sure those email addresses are known to Democratic organizations. Those addresses should be used in an attempt to influence coverage of both politics and government. They should not be used to harass, vilify, or demean reporters and others, such activities are rude and counter-productive. Democrats should use email to engage reporters in a dialogue with the goal of making sure the Democratic message is heard.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the republication of the above without attribution.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Reader Submission: Testifying in Columbus on the proposed Ohio anti-abortion bill
When I tell friends where I spent my time last Tuesday, they think I must be mistaken. Surely, I didn’t just tell them that I went to a hearing at our statehouse on a bill that might have been expected in the legislature in 1906, not 2006. Surely, I could not have said that supposedly intelligent, thinking, progressive people consider it civilized to make abortions completely, totally illegal under any circumstances—even prosecutable should an Ohioan cross or help someone cross the state line to obtain a safe, sanitary termination of an unwanted pregnancy. Surely they didn’t mean to further defile a victim of rape or incest by forcing her into another unwanted, unbidden act that will forever change her life. No, they said, you must be incorrect. Everyone knows, they said, that abortions will go on, as they always have, whether they are legal or illegal and that, in the later case, only the rich will be able to afford safe ones. And, some said, who wants to force someone to have a child when she feels she cannot or must not.
It makes me sad to think that some honestly believe that a living, breathing, knowledgeable woman has no right to choose what happens inside her own body. I won’t try to argue the philosophical or religious views that abhor this particular act, but surely they don’t believe that a woman’s body belongs to the state, that her rights should be subordinated to others beliefs, that she should be enslaved to the choices of others. Well, maybe they do. Maybe that’s why
At the least, wouldn’t we be better off spending time and money on preventing abortions through good education and family planning? I applaud that family value.
bbrandon@neo.rr.com
___________________________________________________________________
The above submission does not necessarily reflect the opinion of MCDAC or any of its members.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Dem News Links for week of June 18th, 2006
Wall Street Journal prints Zogby survey showing Republicans in only 7 of 16 battleground Senate races.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash06.html?project=elections06-ft&h=495&w=778&hasAd=1&mod=blogs
Blackwell attacks Democrats' faith in God at speech in Toledo.
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060615/NEWS09/606150480/-1/NEWS
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash06.html?project=elections06-ft&h=495&w=778&hasAd=1&mod=blogs
Blackwell attacks Democrats' faith in God at speech in Toledo.
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060615/NEWS09/606150480/-1/NEWS
Strickland counter-attacks. http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/14866814.htm
Editor & Publisher, a trade magazine for the publishing industry, points out that the media is either downplaying or ignoring poll results that show majority of Americans want deadlines for pulling out of Iraq. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002726568
Congressman Ralph Regula under fire for steering federal money to museum created by his wife.
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/14847261.htm
Congressman Murtha blasts Rove on Meet the Press, scores him for sitting on his "fat backside in an air conditioned office", calls Bush's policy of "stay the course" "stay and pay."
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Murtha_Rove_sits_on_fat_backside_0618.html
White House press secretary criticizes media's concentration on fate of missing American soldiers.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/18/snow-focus-kidnapped/
Majority of Americans think that the Iraqi war has made things "worse off" for Americans.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002689006
DeWine criticized for allowing telecom mergers to take place with no oversight.
http://www.cleveland.com/open/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/isope/115063180565350.xml&coll=2
Is Blackwell courting racists and then trying to cover it up?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/8/2250/63002
Interesting graphic about which Ohio counties are supporting which gubernatorial candidate financially
http://www.cleveland.com/pdgraphics/interactive/moneywatch/
This article details how much money each candidate is raising outside of Ohio
http://www.cleveland.com/open/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1150533122181290.xml&coll=
John Kerry says Republican plan for Iraq is "lie and die." http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060620_kerry_lie_and_die/
Political Change is Hard Work
Not to sound too much like our president, "Bubble-Boy", but political change is hard work. That may be why the number of people who actually work for political change is only a small percentage of the number of people who talk about political change. Yet, while talking about change is important because it helps shape political discussions in our homes, workplaces, schools, etc., in the end political change is only accomplished by people going out and contacting other people.
In the last 40 years or so political campaigns have gone from being labor intensive to capital intensive. Back in the 1960s and even in the 1970s most political campaigns relied more on volunteers than on paid help. If a campaign wanted to do a mailing, for example, it got a bunch of volunteers together at a location and everyone put on address stickers and stuffed envelopes. If a campaign wanted to do phone work, they needed live bodies to actually make the calls.
Now, it is much different. Because of technology it is possible for a mailing house to mail thousands of households at one time. Because of technology, it is possible for a campaign to use "robo-calls" and put their message into thousands of homes and never use a real person to make the calls. The reason why it is tempting to use this technology is because you know the work gets done, there is very little co-ordination involved, and companies for whom this is their business generally do a better job than volunteers, no matter how well intentioned.
All of this technology comes at a price. First of all, it is expensive and that means that more dollars must be raised for political campaigns. This puts Democrats at a disadvantage because Democrats generally don't have as much access to money as Republicans. Second, by removing humans from the process, you have lessening the involvement between the campaign and the people the campaign is supposed to be about serving. Third, by relying so much on technology campaigns are giving the impression that they only people who matter are the ones signing checks. This only increases the cynicism that people have about politics.
The flip side, though, is that is politically inclined people want political campaigns to be about more than fund-raising they have to be willing to do the hard work of politics. They have to be willing to make phone calls, go door to door, work parades, drop literature, and do all the things that are essentail to winning elections, but which are also not fun.
If you are reading these words chances are good that you are interested in bringing about political change. What you have to ask yourselves is whether you are willing to do the hard work that is necessary to bring about that change. We can't answer that for you, only you can give that answer.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC hereby authorizes the reproduction of the above without attribution.
In the last 40 years or so political campaigns have gone from being labor intensive to capital intensive. Back in the 1960s and even in the 1970s most political campaigns relied more on volunteers than on paid help. If a campaign wanted to do a mailing, for example, it got a bunch of volunteers together at a location and everyone put on address stickers and stuffed envelopes. If a campaign wanted to do phone work, they needed live bodies to actually make the calls.
Now, it is much different. Because of technology it is possible for a mailing house to mail thousands of households at one time. Because of technology, it is possible for a campaign to use "robo-calls" and put their message into thousands of homes and never use a real person to make the calls. The reason why it is tempting to use this technology is because you know the work gets done, there is very little co-ordination involved, and companies for whom this is their business generally do a better job than volunteers, no matter how well intentioned.
All of this technology comes at a price. First of all, it is expensive and that means that more dollars must be raised for political campaigns. This puts Democrats at a disadvantage because Democrats generally don't have as much access to money as Republicans. Second, by removing humans from the process, you have lessening the involvement between the campaign and the people the campaign is supposed to be about serving. Third, by relying so much on technology campaigns are giving the impression that they only people who matter are the ones signing checks. This only increases the cynicism that people have about politics.
The flip side, though, is that is politically inclined people want political campaigns to be about more than fund-raising they have to be willing to do the hard work of politics. They have to be willing to make phone calls, go door to door, work parades, drop literature, and do all the things that are essentail to winning elections, but which are also not fun.
If you are reading these words chances are good that you are interested in bringing about political change. What you have to ask yourselves is whether you are willing to do the hard work that is necessary to bring about that change. We can't answer that for you, only you can give that answer.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC hereby authorizes the reproduction of the above without attribution.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Reader Submission: Why Busby Lost CA-50 Special Election
I wanted to comment on the election for Duke Cunningham's congressional seat. From my reading, I did not get a sense of the Democratic candidate's position on the immigration issue. This is a prime example of both the Republican strategy for '06 and a deficiency in Democratic values and/or tactics.
Middle Americans are against amnesty, guest worker programs, and for a fence to stop illegals, yet it would seem many Democratic candidates hold a different position. They talk of providing social programs for illegals, positively about guest worker programs, etc. The White House's sudden shift to the immigration issue was intentional for this California special election seat. It was a test case: Can Republicans, given their continuous failure, win elections? The answer they received from the voters was YES if they target a wedge issue that Democratic candidates are on the wrong side of with the general public.
What image does it give the American voter when Democratic candidates say to the American people, you should burden yourself and the country with the financial responsibility of illegal aliens. Add to that the back drop of job insecurity many Americans feel with foreign outsourcing. Democratic leaders must finally come to understand they must reflect middle American values and not believe they can impose their own and win.
In 2004 the gay marriage issue was divisive among Democratic candidates and middle American voters. We are now suffering four more years of additional decay to American life under the Bush administration. Was the democratic stance on gay marriage the result of a vocal well connected minority? Yes. Is the democratic stance on immigration equally mis-guided? Yes.
Middle American Democrats must stand up to our vocal minority and say your position is out of the mainstream and does not warrant losing an election over. Does access to gay marriage really improve life for the vast majority of Americans? The answer is NO. Middle American Democrats must retake control of our party or Republicans win, and that, America can not afford.
Kim Kendall
___________________________________________________________________
The above is posted with permission of the writer. Posting of entries on this blog does not necessarily reflect the views of MCDAC or any of its members.
Middle Americans are against amnesty, guest worker programs, and for a fence to stop illegals, yet it would seem many Democratic candidates hold a different position. They talk of providing social programs for illegals, positively about guest worker programs, etc. The White House's sudden shift to the immigration issue was intentional for this California special election seat. It was a test case: Can Republicans, given their continuous failure, win elections? The answer they received from the voters was YES if they target a wedge issue that Democratic candidates are on the wrong side of with the general public.
What image does it give the American voter when Democratic candidates say to the American people, you should burden yourself and the country with the financial responsibility of illegal aliens. Add to that the back drop of job insecurity many Americans feel with foreign outsourcing. Democratic leaders must finally come to understand they must reflect middle American values and not believe they can impose their own and win.
In 2004 the gay marriage issue was divisive among Democratic candidates and middle American voters. We are now suffering four more years of additional decay to American life under the Bush administration. Was the democratic stance on gay marriage the result of a vocal well connected minority? Yes. Is the democratic stance on immigration equally mis-guided? Yes.
Middle American Democrats must stand up to our vocal minority and say your position is out of the mainstream and does not warrant losing an election over. Does access to gay marriage really improve life for the vast majority of Americans? The answer is NO. Middle American Democrats must retake control of our party or Republicans win, and that, America can not afford.
Kim Kendall
___________________________________________________________________
The above is posted with permission of the writer. Posting of entries on this blog does not necessarily reflect the views of MCDAC or any of its members.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Rumsfeld's Troop Decisions Come Back to Haunt U.S.
There will be a lot of words written about the U.S. Marines who allegedly murdered civilans at Haditha, Iraq, over the next few weeks. Most of them will concern what allegedly happened between the Iraqis and the Marines. Relatively few of them will concern Rumsfeld's decision to try and fight this war on the cheap. Yet, it is that decision that led to what happened at Haditha.
Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff back in 2002, told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "several hundred thousand troops would be needed to "put an end to the violence against our troops and against each other." He based his testimony on the American experience in the Kosovo, where there was a ratio of 1 soldier for every 1000 people. That candor led to this rebuke from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who called his estimate "wildly off the mark" and said, "I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down." Rumsfeld himself was reported to have called Shinseki's testimony "bullshit".
So, where are we at three years and counting since our invasion? We have a ongoing insurgency in Iraq. We have lost many more men since the war "ended" than we did during the war itself, and now we have reports of American Marines murdering Iraqi civilans. If the arrogant idiots who run the Defense Department had listened to a professional military man instead of each other, a lot of the tragedy of the last three years would have been avoided. Putting several hundred thousand troops in Iraq would have reduced the chances of the insurgency and avoided the breakdown of law and order that followed the fall of Hussein.
Of course, that didn't happen in the faith-based presidency of George W. Bush. Because, after all, why would you listen to experts when you are convinced that you are doing God's work?
___________________________________________________________________________________
MCDAC hereby grants permission to use this work without attribution.
Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff back in 2002, told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "several hundred thousand troops would be needed to "put an end to the violence against our troops and against each other." He based his testimony on the American experience in the Kosovo, where there was a ratio of 1 soldier for every 1000 people. That candor led to this rebuke from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who called his estimate "wildly off the mark" and said, "I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down." Rumsfeld himself was reported to have called Shinseki's testimony "bullshit".
So, where are we at three years and counting since our invasion? We have a ongoing insurgency in Iraq. We have lost many more men since the war "ended" than we did during the war itself, and now we have reports of American Marines murdering Iraqi civilans. If the arrogant idiots who run the Defense Department had listened to a professional military man instead of each other, a lot of the tragedy of the last three years would have been avoided. Putting several hundred thousand troops in Iraq would have reduced the chances of the insurgency and avoided the breakdown of law and order that followed the fall of Hussein.
Of course, that didn't happen in the faith-based presidency of George W. Bush. Because, after all, why would you listen to experts when you are convinced that you are doing God's work?
___________________________________________________________________________________
MCDAC hereby grants permission to use this work without attribution.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Reform Proposal: Increase Size of the U.S. House
Currently there are 435 members of the House of Representatives. This means that each Representative represents over 685,000 people in Congress. In some cases, such as the Representative from South Dakota, there is only one Representative for the entire state. All of these members have to run every two years, and, because of the size of their districts, they have to raise a lot of money to run competitive campaigns.
Almost every proposal to reform campaigns for Congress involves cutting down contributions, but they are never successful. Here is an idea that hasn't been tried: reduce the cost of campaigns. How? By tripling or even quadrupling the size of the House of Representatives. Go from the present size of 435 Representatives to 1305 or even 1740 Representatives.
By increasing the size of Congress, you would decrease the cost of campaigning. Instead of representing 685,000 people, each member would be representing 228,000 people at 1305 Representatives or 171,000 people at 1740. It is much easier to advertise yourself to 228,000 people or 171,000 people than it is to 685,000.
Cities would pick up more representatives, and so would suburbs, and small towns. It would be much easier for members of Congress to stay in touch with their constituents if they were representing fewer people. It would also be easier to mount challenges to such members because the cost of campaigning would be less.
The present size of the House of Representatives has been at this number since Hawaii and Alaska came into the Union. During the time, the population of the United States has increased dramatically. It is time to bring Congress back in touch with the people by increasing the number of Representatives. In fact, it is overdue.
Almost every proposal to reform campaigns for Congress involves cutting down contributions, but they are never successful. Here is an idea that hasn't been tried: reduce the cost of campaigns. How? By tripling or even quadrupling the size of the House of Representatives. Go from the present size of 435 Representatives to 1305 or even 1740 Representatives.
By increasing the size of Congress, you would decrease the cost of campaigning. Instead of representing 685,000 people, each member would be representing 228,000 people at 1305 Representatives or 171,000 people at 1740. It is much easier to advertise yourself to 228,000 people or 171,000 people than it is to 685,000.
Cities would pick up more representatives, and so would suburbs, and small towns. It would be much easier for members of Congress to stay in touch with their constituents if they were representing fewer people. It would also be easier to mount challenges to such members because the cost of campaigning would be less.
The present size of the House of Representatives has been at this number since Hawaii and Alaska came into the Union. During the time, the population of the United States has increased dramatically. It is time to bring Congress back in touch with the people by increasing the number of Representatives. In fact, it is overdue.
Friday, April 28, 2006
It's Never Their Children
One thing that you have to admire about the Bush family is their ability to keep their children out of harm's way in Iraq. It takes a lot of nerve to send someone else's child to war while keeping your own safely in the United States. The Bush family is definitely up to the challenge, though. While some of their contemparies are dying in Iraq, the Bush twins are taking spinning classes at an exclusive Washington gym.
This ability to keep their children out of harm's way is not just limited to the Bushes. It is something that both the Congress and the Executive branch do quite well. When the vote was taken to give President Bush the authority to start the Iraqi War, only one Senator, Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, had a child who would be going into combat as a result of his father's vote. To our knowledge the only Bush cabinet member who has had a child serve in Iraq is former Attorney General Ashcroft.
In fact, most of the cheerleaders for this war don't have to worry about their children fighting or dying in Iraq. It's never their children who are maimed, killed, or traumatized by the Iraqi War. It is never their families who receive the news that their child is coming home in a coffin. Here's our question: if the Iraqi War is such a great idea, why aren't the children of its backers volunteering to go fight it? For that matter, why isn't President Bush asking his supporters to encourage their children to enlist to spread democracy in the middle east?
____________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.
This ability to keep their children out of harm's way is not just limited to the Bushes. It is something that both the Congress and the Executive branch do quite well. When the vote was taken to give President Bush the authority to start the Iraqi War, only one Senator, Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, had a child who would be going into combat as a result of his father's vote. To our knowledge the only Bush cabinet member who has had a child serve in Iraq is former Attorney General Ashcroft.
In fact, most of the cheerleaders for this war don't have to worry about their children fighting or dying in Iraq. It's never their children who are maimed, killed, or traumatized by the Iraqi War. It is never their families who receive the news that their child is coming home in a coffin. Here's our question: if the Iraqi War is such a great idea, why aren't the children of its backers volunteering to go fight it? For that matter, why isn't President Bush asking his supporters to encourage their children to enlist to spread democracy in the middle east?
____________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
People Who Hate Government Shouldn't Run Government
".....the country could, in fact, get very excited again about the opportunity to make government work", Newt Gingrich, April 16, 2006, talking about the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina.
The above quote illustrates a fundmental problem with Gingrich's logic. The problem is that a lot of conservatives in goverment don't want the government to work. They hate goverment, have contempt for government, and don't think that there is much that government can, and more importantly, should do. The problem is, of course, that the American public doesn't agree. So what happens is that radical conservatives hide their real feelings about government from the voters. They realize that American voters who aren't nearly as driven by ideology as by the desire for results won't accept candidates who come right out and say that they want to be elected so they can dismantle the government.
So they hide their real intentions. They don't say they want to destroy Social Security, they say they want to "improve it" and "reform it." They pass an education act that imposes mandates on public schools, but doesn't provide enough funding to meet these mandates, and call it the "No Child Left Behind" act. Tax breaks for the wealthy get packaged as "creating jobs."
Why do they resort to such dishonest language? Well, imagine what would happen if they actually used real language to describe what they want. Bush's poll numbers would be down below 30, instead of down below 40, in the "approve of" category.
Ever so often, though, something comes along with strips away the veneer and exposes the real aim of the radical right of the GOP. In September of 2005 it was Hurricane Katrina. Then it becomes very apparent that turning the government over to people who hate government can, literally, kill you.
This is the simple message that Democrats need to carry to the American people: you wouldn't turn your family, your home, or your church over to someone who hated them, why should you do that to your government?___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.
The above quote illustrates a fundmental problem with Gingrich's logic. The problem is that a lot of conservatives in goverment don't want the government to work. They hate goverment, have contempt for government, and don't think that there is much that government can, and more importantly, should do. The problem is, of course, that the American public doesn't agree. So what happens is that radical conservatives hide their real feelings about government from the voters. They realize that American voters who aren't nearly as driven by ideology as by the desire for results won't accept candidates who come right out and say that they want to be elected so they can dismantle the government.
So they hide their real intentions. They don't say they want to destroy Social Security, they say they want to "improve it" and "reform it." They pass an education act that imposes mandates on public schools, but doesn't provide enough funding to meet these mandates, and call it the "No Child Left Behind" act. Tax breaks for the wealthy get packaged as "creating jobs."
Why do they resort to such dishonest language? Well, imagine what would happen if they actually used real language to describe what they want. Bush's poll numbers would be down below 30, instead of down below 40, in the "approve of" category.
Ever so often, though, something comes along with strips away the veneer and exposes the real aim of the radical right of the GOP. In September of 2005 it was Hurricane Katrina. Then it becomes very apparent that turning the government over to people who hate government can, literally, kill you.
This is the simple message that Democrats need to carry to the American people: you wouldn't turn your family, your home, or your church over to someone who hated them, why should you do that to your government?___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Reader Submission: Illegal Immigration
I don't have a problem with "immigration". I do have a problem with the "illegal" part of theequation.
Yes, all of us have immigrants in our ancestry. I married a legal immigrant who is now a naturalizedcitizen.
What is the very first thing an illegal immigrant doeswhen he/she sets foot in the U.S. You got it, breaks our federal immigration laws. He/she starts out not respecting the laws of the land.
Does he think that he can pick and choose the laws he wishes to obey and those he doesn't? Can we citizens do the same and get away with it?Why is there any question about this problem? What else is going on here? Our laws are our laws or they aren't.
What would happen if huge numbers of American citizenscofflaws were to hold rally/demonstrations in ourcities? Like in a sting operation, might they berounded up and dealt with while so convenientlygathered in one place?
____________________________________________________________________
Reader submissions do not necessarily represent the views of MCDAC, its officers, or anyone associated with MCDAC.
Yes, all of us have immigrants in our ancestry. I married a legal immigrant who is now a naturalizedcitizen.
What is the very first thing an illegal immigrant doeswhen he/she sets foot in the U.S. You got it, breaks our federal immigration laws. He/she starts out not respecting the laws of the land.
Does he think that he can pick and choose the laws he wishes to obey and those he doesn't? Can we citizens do the same and get away with it?Why is there any question about this problem? What else is going on here? Our laws are our laws or they aren't.
What would happen if huge numbers of American citizenscofflaws were to hold rally/demonstrations in ourcities? Like in a sting operation, might they berounded up and dealt with while so convenientlygathered in one place?
____________________________________________________________________
Reader submissions do not necessarily represent the views of MCDAC, its officers, or anyone associated with MCDAC.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Reader Submission: Bush is Guilty of Obstruction of Justice
Bush is Guilty of Obstruction of Justice
By AngiePratt - PoliticalPosts.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:“Obstruction of justice, in a common law state, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice.”
George Bush and his administration have obstructed justice. He and Cheney have systematically attempted to mislead not only the American people but also Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
Although Bush and Cheney did not testify under oath, due to an inexplicable extension of courtesy, both have still provided information that obfuscated the White House's use of classified information for political gain. In so doing they actually caused the perpetration of a series of crimes by Libby and Karl Rove.
Since Bush and Cheney conveniently declassified the information, Libby and Rove didn't break the law. What they did was attempt to cover up the fact that the White House declassified information for immoral, self-serving purposes. Had this come out prior to the 2004 election, Bush and Cheney would have undoubtedly been out of a job. That, friends and neighbors, is called motive.
This is evidenced by the fact that former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby attempted to get the White House to stand up for him by admitting what had occurred. According to R. Jeffrey Smith, of the Washington Post: 'Once the disclosure of Plame's name became the target of an investigation, Libby "implored White House officials" to issue a statement exonerating him, according to Fitzgerald's account. When he was rebuffed, Libby requested that Cheney intervene. He also wrote a draft statement by hand, asserting that he "did not leak classified information."'
In the White House's denial of Libby's request for exoneration, Bush and Cheney created the situation that caused the crimes that Libby is accused of to occur. By refusing to come clean with the American public and Fitzgerald, the President and Vice President of the United States of America committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
The fact is, it isn't against the law for the President and/or Vice President of the United States to lie to the American public. It also isn't against the law for the President to selectively declassify documents. It is, however, against the law to obstruct justice whether or not you live at the White House.
____________________________________________________________________
The author of the above editorial gave MCDAC permission to re-produce it.
By AngiePratt - PoliticalPosts.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:“Obstruction of justice, in a common law state, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice.”
George Bush and his administration have obstructed justice. He and Cheney have systematically attempted to mislead not only the American people but also Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
Although Bush and Cheney did not testify under oath, due to an inexplicable extension of courtesy, both have still provided information that obfuscated the White House's use of classified information for political gain. In so doing they actually caused the perpetration of a series of crimes by Libby and Karl Rove.
Since Bush and Cheney conveniently declassified the information, Libby and Rove didn't break the law. What they did was attempt to cover up the fact that the White House declassified information for immoral, self-serving purposes. Had this come out prior to the 2004 election, Bush and Cheney would have undoubtedly been out of a job. That, friends and neighbors, is called motive.
This is evidenced by the fact that former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby attempted to get the White House to stand up for him by admitting what had occurred. According to R. Jeffrey Smith, of the Washington Post: 'Once the disclosure of Plame's name became the target of an investigation, Libby "implored White House officials" to issue a statement exonerating him, according to Fitzgerald's account. When he was rebuffed, Libby requested that Cheney intervene. He also wrote a draft statement by hand, asserting that he "did not leak classified information."'
In the White House's denial of Libby's request for exoneration, Bush and Cheney created the situation that caused the crimes that Libby is accused of to occur. By refusing to come clean with the American public and Fitzgerald, the President and Vice President of the United States of America committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
The fact is, it isn't against the law for the President and/or Vice President of the United States to lie to the American public. It also isn't against the law for the President to selectively declassify documents. It is, however, against the law to obstruct justice whether or not you live at the White House.
____________________________________________________________________
The author of the above editorial gave MCDAC permission to re-produce it.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Cost of College Education at Ohio's Public Universities
This graph is from the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank's website. It shows how tuition is increasing at every college in Ohio. (If graph doesn't show, click on the rectangle to make it appear.)
Sunday, March 26, 2006
MCDAC Rant: Republican Efforts to Cut Off Democratic Funding
Over the past 25 years the national GOP has made a concerted effort to cut off funding for Democratic candidates. They have done this by going after unions, attorneys who represent plaintiffs in personal injury litigation, and public schools. Why public schools, you ask, because historically teachers who teach in public schools back Democrats.
Of course, all of these targets also have enemies in the GOP coalition. Corporations oppose unions and trial attorneys because both of them are a check on corporate power. Elements of the religious right oppose public schools because they believe they are too secular. So by targeting unions, trial attorneys, and public schools, the GOP kills two birds with one stone. It makes its corporate and religious right supporters happy and it weakens Democratic leaning organizations.
How do they do target these organizations? With the case of unions, it is trying to enact legislation that restricts union activities and use of union funds for political purposes. With the case of trial lawyers, it is trying to enact caps on damages that injured people can recover and trying to restrict class-action lawsuits. With the case of public schools, it is supporting charter schools with taxpayer money and putting more and more requirements on public schools while exempting private schools from the same requirements.
This explains why the Internet freaks out the GOP as a fund-raising tool for Democrats and progressives. It is almost impossible to shut down the Internet for just one group of political donors. Even the Republican dominated U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't stand for that. Which is why, of course, House Republicans are all of a sudden interested in applying McCain-Feingold to 527 organizations that solicit on the web. It's not because of a concern for good government, it is because of a concern that GOP hegemony is threatened.
The next time you hear a GOP candidate talking about attacking unions, trial lawyers, or public schools, just remember that more than philosophy is at work. It's not only the philosophy, it's the money.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.
Of course, all of these targets also have enemies in the GOP coalition. Corporations oppose unions and trial attorneys because both of them are a check on corporate power. Elements of the religious right oppose public schools because they believe they are too secular. So by targeting unions, trial attorneys, and public schools, the GOP kills two birds with one stone. It makes its corporate and religious right supporters happy and it weakens Democratic leaning organizations.
How do they do target these organizations? With the case of unions, it is trying to enact legislation that restricts union activities and use of union funds for political purposes. With the case of trial lawyers, it is trying to enact caps on damages that injured people can recover and trying to restrict class-action lawsuits. With the case of public schools, it is supporting charter schools with taxpayer money and putting more and more requirements on public schools while exempting private schools from the same requirements.
This explains why the Internet freaks out the GOP as a fund-raising tool for Democrats and progressives. It is almost impossible to shut down the Internet for just one group of political donors. Even the Republican dominated U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't stand for that. Which is why, of course, House Republicans are all of a sudden interested in applying McCain-Feingold to 527 organizations that solicit on the web. It's not because of a concern for good government, it is because of a concern that GOP hegemony is threatened.
The next time you hear a GOP candidate talking about attacking unions, trial lawyers, or public schools, just remember that more than philosophy is at work. It's not only the philosophy, it's the money.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
DeWine, Tax Cuts, & Employment
In a statement on the Plain Dealer's blog, OPEN, Senator DeWine claims that he supports tax cuts because they lead to the creation of jobs. This reason is often offered by Republicans to explain why we should keep pouring tax cut upon tax cut on the wealthy while the Federal Goverment runs billions of dollars in deficits.
Although this job creation line is always parroted by tax cuts supporters, they never offer any evidence to back up this claim. Indeed, if job creation is casued by tax cuts, then why have so many jobs left Ohio? Since 2000 we have seen tax cuts at the Federal level and tax cuts at the state level, yet our unemployment rate has barely moved. Between 2003-2005 employment increased in Ohio by .1%, while it increased in the United States as a whole by 2.2%. Shouldn't the Republican tax cuts be kicking in and helping Ohio's economy?
Of course, whether Ohio's employment rate will ever benefit from Republican tax cuts depends on whether the underlying rationale for such tax cuts is sound. Republican rationale for tax cuts is that tax-payers will take their tax cuts and invest them in new jobs. There is, however, a fatal flaw in such reasoning.
The flaw is that employment doesn't depend on how much money the employer has, it depends on what it costs to hire a person versus the money that such person can make his/her employer. If an employer decides that hiring a person makes economic sense in terms of the income generated by such employee outweighing the cost of such employee, then the person is hired. If, however, the cost of such employee is not as great as anticipated revenue, then the employer is not going to make the hire.
Another way that tax cuts could lead to more economic activity would be if taxpayers used the tax cuts to purchase goods and services. There is scant evidence, however, that wealthy taxpayers, who received most of the benefit from Bush's tax cuts are using the money to purchase goods and services they otherwise wouldn't purchase. Indeed, most of the wealthy taxpayers are investing their tax cuts, not spending them.
So, the next time a Republican claims that tax cuts are good for the economy, we think reporters should ask, "Oh yeah? Prove it."
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.
Although this job creation line is always parroted by tax cuts supporters, they never offer any evidence to back up this claim. Indeed, if job creation is casued by tax cuts, then why have so many jobs left Ohio? Since 2000 we have seen tax cuts at the Federal level and tax cuts at the state level, yet our unemployment rate has barely moved. Between 2003-2005 employment increased in Ohio by .1%, while it increased in the United States as a whole by 2.2%. Shouldn't the Republican tax cuts be kicking in and helping Ohio's economy?
Of course, whether Ohio's employment rate will ever benefit from Republican tax cuts depends on whether the underlying rationale for such tax cuts is sound. Republican rationale for tax cuts is that tax-payers will take their tax cuts and invest them in new jobs. There is, however, a fatal flaw in such reasoning.
The flaw is that employment doesn't depend on how much money the employer has, it depends on what it costs to hire a person versus the money that such person can make his/her employer. If an employer decides that hiring a person makes economic sense in terms of the income generated by such employee outweighing the cost of such employee, then the person is hired. If, however, the cost of such employee is not as great as anticipated revenue, then the employer is not going to make the hire.
Another way that tax cuts could lead to more economic activity would be if taxpayers used the tax cuts to purchase goods and services. There is scant evidence, however, that wealthy taxpayers, who received most of the benefit from Bush's tax cuts are using the money to purchase goods and services they otherwise wouldn't purchase. Indeed, most of the wealthy taxpayers are investing their tax cuts, not spending them.
So, the next time a Republican claims that tax cuts are good for the economy, we think reporters should ask, "Oh yeah? Prove it."
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
DeWine Votes to Privatize Social Security
Last Thursday Senator Mike DeWine voted to privatize Social Security and eliminate Disability Benefits and Survivors' Benefits for widows, widowers and orphans when he voted for an unsuccessful amendment (Senate Amendment 3087) to the budget resolution sponsored by Senator DeMint of South Carolina. The majority of Ohioans do not want Social Security privatized and there is no evidence that they want Survivors' and Disability benefits eliminated. Senator Voinovich also did not stand up for Medina County as he was the only Senator not to vote on the issue.
Why would Senator DeWine cast a vote to eliminate social security benefits? We think it is because he is facing a right-wing challenge in the Republican primary. To fend off that challenge, Senator DeWine is willing to sell out ordinary Ohioans. Senator DeWine has shown that he is not on our side. When you vote in May and November remember that Senator DeWine stands for the elimination of social security benefits.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.
Why would Senator DeWine cast a vote to eliminate social security benefits? We think it is because he is facing a right-wing challenge in the Republican primary. To fend off that challenge, Senator DeWine is willing to sell out ordinary Ohioans. Senator DeWine has shown that he is not on our side. When you vote in May and November remember that Senator DeWine stands for the elimination of social security benefits.
___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC authorizes the use of the above without attribution.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Rant of the Week: Why Dems Should Push Balanced Budget
When Bush took over from Clinton the Federal government was running a surplus. After five complete years of Bush's economic policies the Federal government is running record deficits. Republicans used to describe Democrats as "tax and spend" liberals. The Bush administration is made up of "borrow and spend" conservatives. Given the Bush's administration record, it should be easy for Democrats to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, but we aren't. Why?
For some reason Democrats are afraid to push for a balanced budget. It seems to us that Democrats in the House and Senate are afraid that if they push for a balanced budget, the Republicans will use that as an excuse to do away with social programs. Consequently, while they attack Republicans for the fiscal insanity they have visited on America, they don't have a simple, coherent message for the American people.
The message they should be sending is that we need to balance the budget and quit running up huge deficits. Given the records of the Clinton and Bush administrations regarding fiscal policy, it is a message that we can believably deliver. Delivering this message allows us to talk about reckless tax cuts, the transfer of wealth that takes place when tax revenues are used for interest payments that go to the rich and not programs for the middle class, and about how the Chinese are buying a bigger and bigger share of our national debt.
Is there a risk to such a strategy? Sure, but we need to change what we are doing to win elections. We need to take definite stands and tell the American people why they should trust us with the national goverment. Balancing the budget is a good place to start.
For some reason Democrats are afraid to push for a balanced budget. It seems to us that Democrats in the House and Senate are afraid that if they push for a balanced budget, the Republicans will use that as an excuse to do away with social programs. Consequently, while they attack Republicans for the fiscal insanity they have visited on America, they don't have a simple, coherent message for the American people.
The message they should be sending is that we need to balance the budget and quit running up huge deficits. Given the records of the Clinton and Bush administrations regarding fiscal policy, it is a message that we can believably deliver. Delivering this message allows us to talk about reckless tax cuts, the transfer of wealth that takes place when tax revenues are used for interest payments that go to the rich and not programs for the middle class, and about how the Chinese are buying a bigger and bigger share of our national debt.
Is there a risk to such a strategy? Sure, but we need to change what we are doing to win elections. We need to take definite stands and tell the American people why they should trust us with the national goverment. Balancing the budget is a good place to start.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Reader Rant: Gazette Editorial on Medina Municipal Clerk Election Overlooks Important Details
The recent Medina Gazette Clerk of Courts editorial history lesson was long on history but short on math. There are $26,000 important points that weren’t made in the Gazette’s editorial. Medina County Municipal Clerk of Courts, Lori Henry, performs her job for $64,000 per year. Chuck Calvert and Jane Leaver want the Medina County taxpayers to pay $90.057 per year for exactly the same job, but with one of their friends cashing the paycheck. Remember, incumbent Clerk Henry isn’t asking for a $26,000 raise. Chuck and Jane are. They want you to pay more for the job because their Republican friends like to make $90,057 per year instead of the $64,000 that Ms. Henry agreed to when she accepted the position.
Chuck and Jane undoubtedly assume that one of their very well funded politically astute Republican friends will be able to beat Ms. Henry in an election because Ms. Henry is not a politician and has never run in an election and doesn’t have the fundraising base and lobbyist money that get politicians like Jane and Chuck elected in Ohio. Lori is a Clerk – not a politician. Chuck and Jane may be right in their belief that Lori’s excellent job performance and low cost mean little or nothing to their donor and lobbyist base, but the $26,000 increase may seem important to the voters and to Judge Chase who appointed Lori to the position.
It is true that Chuck and Jane have terribly powerful and extremely wealthy supporters who will fund the campaign of their Republican friend with mountains of money and lots of back-room arm twisting. They probably think it will be like taking candy from a baby; because, after all, all they have to do is beat a Clerk out of her job and the taxpayers out of $26,000.
galishus@yahoo.com
___________________________________________________________________
The above first appeared as a letter to the editor. The author gave us permission to run his letter on our blog.
Chuck and Jane undoubtedly assume that one of their very well funded politically astute Republican friends will be able to beat Ms. Henry in an election because Ms. Henry is not a politician and has never run in an election and doesn’t have the fundraising base and lobbyist money that get politicians like Jane and Chuck elected in Ohio. Lori is a Clerk – not a politician. Chuck and Jane may be right in their belief that Lori’s excellent job performance and low cost mean little or nothing to their donor and lobbyist base, but the $26,000 increase may seem important to the voters and to Judge Chase who appointed Lori to the position.
It is true that Chuck and Jane have terribly powerful and extremely wealthy supporters who will fund the campaign of their Republican friend with mountains of money and lots of back-room arm twisting. They probably think it will be like taking candy from a baby; because, after all, all they have to do is beat a Clerk out of her job and the taxpayers out of $26,000.
galishus@yahoo.com
___________________________________________________________________
The above first appeared as a letter to the editor. The author gave us permission to run his letter on our blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)