WHAT IF THE POLLSTERS HAVE MISJUDGED THE VOTERS

What if the pollsters have misjudged the “enthusiasm” factor? It may be very possible. The polling firms interview thousands of voters. They discard more of the interviews than they actually use. They do so in order to try to compensate for who they think will show up to vote and who they think will not show up to vote. If they misjudge the “enthusiasm factor” their polling data will skew the results. There is evidence that this may be what is going on this year. Several races have swung wildly from one result to another from poll to poll. Because of this, an observer here and there has begun to wonder what might be going on.

I’m writing this now…because I think I might be right and better to predict before than after. If I’m wrong…then I’ll be the goat.

I suspect that more progressives may turn out than previously expected. There is also a possibility that some Republicans being counted on will not like their choice and consequently sit out this election. Republicans have expressed remorse in Nevada, Delaware and Kentucky. I think these creepy “extreme” rightwingers, identified with the “Tea Party,” are driving progressive numbers up and “establishment” Republican numbers down. I have heard from Republicans, within my own family, who have said these newly branded “Teabaggers” scare them. That’s good because they scare the rest of us too.

I have long suspected that some of the more moderate “establishment” Republicans, in order to save their party, have let these extreme elements of the right have enough rope to hang themselves. I think they have let them…even encouraged them, to invest all their money in what they hope will be a losing cause. If they do then I say congratulations to them. Because even though I have a clearly liberal bias I believe there is a legitimate roll for conservative thinking. And, I really believe when conservatives and liberals are talking to each other, and not past each other, we’re all the better for it.

Most people do not realize that Franklin Roosevelt was a budget hawk when he first came to office. He was opposed to the creation of federal deposit insurance because he thought weaker banks would take advantage of stronger ones. But, Roosevelt was convinced by learned men who convinced him with intellectual and reasonable arguments that the lack of demand would not be improved if the government withdrew from the commercial market. They convinced him that if he funneled money and resources into the hands of workers they would spend the money they got and create demand. The argument for deposit insurance convinced him that if depositors felt there deposits were safe they wouldn’t withdraw them from the banks, and that if the banks had the deposits they would loan the money out in the community creating additional demand.

Let’s hope the pollsters are in error. Let’s hope the progressives turn out in larger number than are expected. I think that’s what’s going to happen…let’s see if I’m right. We’ll all be better the sooner the “Tea Party” principles are put to rest…six feet under!

TAKE THE COMEDIANS SERIOUSLY

Nothing clears the mind and encourages ideas like a good vacation. Consequently, as I spend my vacation in Maui, Hawaii my mind is clear and new ideas are emerging. The brouhaha over the testimony of Stephen Colbert from Comedy Central in the United States Congress is worth reflecting on. Over the course of history comedians have offered some of the most enduring commentary on politics and culture that probably exists. Although, they many time took the form of playwrights they none the less drove home the thoughts and many times the truth that lay out there out of the reach of the self-righteous pontificators. Shakespeare was one to make a point from time to time. But, in my opinion, none make it better than Mark Twain, and Will Rogers. Who can ever forget the commentary of Will Rogers that “he didn’t belong to an organized political party…he was a democrat.” In recent times the comedy TV series Laugh-in, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, George Carlin, then today, Saturday Night Live, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

In my day job I do teaching and corporate training. I have a teaching partner who is what I would describe as a “moderate” Republican. He is a bit of comedian himself. He made this comment to me about John Stewart. “You know…a lot of these serious politicians think they’re going onto the “Daily Show” to be interviewed by a comedian. That is a big mistake.” His point was although John Stewart uses humor…he is a serious journalist, even if he himself won’t admit it. If you go back and read the entire transcript of the Colbert testimony including questions and you don’t get the impression of a serious debate…you may need to retake an IQ test if you previously scored above a single digit.

These two excerpts (one given in character, one given out of character) are as serious as one can get…with or without humor.

Colbert: “This brief experience gave me some small understanding of why so few Americans are clamoring to begin an exciting career as seasonal migrant field workers. So what’s the answer? I’m a free-market guy. Normally, I would leave this to the invisible hand of the market, but the invisible hand of the market has already moved over 84,000 acres of production and over 22,000 farm jobs to Mexico, and shut down over a million acres of U.S. farm land due to lack of available labor. Because apparently even the invisible hand doesn’t want to pick beans.
Now, I’m not a fan of the government doing anything. But I’ve gotta ask, why isn’t the government doing anything? Maybe this Ag Jobs bill would help, I don’t know. Like most members of Congress, I haven’t read it. But maybe we could offer more visas to the immigrants who, let’s face it, will probably be doing these jobs anyway. And this improved legal status might allow immigrants recourse if they are abused. And it just stands to reason, to me, that if your coworker can’t be exploited, then you’re less likely to be exploited yourself. And that, itself, might improve pay and working conditions on these farms, and eventually, Americans may consider taking these jobs again. Or maybe that’s crazy. Maybe the easier answer is just to have scientists develop vegetables that pick themselves. The genetic engineers over at Fruit of the Loom have made great strides in human-fruit hybrids.”

Then later on when questioned;

REP. CHU: “Mr. Colbert, you could work on so many issues. Why are you interested in this issue?”

COLBERT: [Takes a pause of two or three beats to think before answering, dropping character] “I like talking about people who don’t have any power, and it seems like one of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come in and do our work, but don’t have any rights as a result. And yet, we still ask them to come here, and at the same time, ask them to leave. And that’s an interesting contradiction to me, and um… You know, “whatsoever you did for the least of my brothers,” and these seemed like the least of my brothers, right now. A lot of people are “least brothers” right now, with the economy so hard, and I don’t want to take anyone’s hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that. But migrant workers suffer, and have no rights.”

The interesting issues came up after the hearing when the Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, approved of Mr. Colbert’s testimony while the Democratic Leader of the House, Steny Hoyer, was not. I have met Mr. Hoyer on a couple of occasions and have a high degree of respect for him. However, the Majority Leader had better realize that the Congress is not the sanctimonious paragon with the public that it may be in the Majority Leader’s mind. His attitude will not help the party he represents with the voters age 18-40. For one who is trying hold on to the majority in the mid-term elections his position is extremely dense. This demographic of voter gets the joke…even if the Democratic Leader and his Republican opposition do not. He and the evangelical fundamentalist right-wing Republicans might really take notice of the reference from the Book of Matthew concerning, “whatsoever you did for the least of my brothers.” As Mr. Colbert states…these really are the least of these. You’d do well, if you professed the Christian faith, to treat them better.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION FOR CHRISTIAN’S ONLY

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (from the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America). It is really pretty simple! It’s the basis for the separation of church and state. Recently, though, it’s become clearer that evangelical fundamentalist Christianity believes the words “for Christians” should have followed the word “thereof.” Of course, these are the same “know it alls” who for the most part would rather ignore the scripture “"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." These words were emphasized no less than three times in the New Testament alone, (Matthew 7:12 “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets”, Matthew 22:39 “Love your neighbor as yourself”, Luke 6:31 “Do to others as you would have them do to you”). Other religions have a similar admonition. Given this rather pointed direction of the literary basis of Christianity wouldn’t you think that evangelical Christians would want to allow all people to worship the same way they would like to worship?

It is simply outrageous to me as a Christian that the whole Christian community is not rising up to defend the Muslim community in New York City who wants to build a “community center” which includes a couple of floors for interfaith worship two blocks from the former twin towers of the World Trade Center (the center can neither be seen from Ground Zero, nor can Ground Zero be seen from the Community Center to be named Park 51 Center). Because we demand freedom of religion, freedom to worship as we see fit, we should be the first in line to say everyone deserves this right. Religious Freedom is not just for Christianity, or Christians. It’s religious freedom for all. That’s what makes us different from countries that limit the exercise of religion.

All Muslim’s should no more be blamed for the September 11 attack than should all Southerners be blamed for the actions of the Ku Klux Klan. However, if we carried out this very non-Christian attitude that Muslims should be denied the courtesy of building a place of worship two blocks, mind you, from the ground zero shell, then we should forbid white Christians from building churches in the South. The notion is absurd and the Christian Right should recognize this and come to the assistance of these Muslims who have every right to build this Community Center (that’s right it’s not even a Mosque…just a gym, swimming pool, culinary school, with a couple of floors for interfaith worship).

Most religious zealots no matter which religion they are followers of are guilty of taking positions that leave no room for error. They all think they are right and those who don’t believe as they do are wrong. I cannot speak authoritatively for Muslims, or Judaism, or Buddhists, or any other religion since my whole religious experience is that of a Christian. Basic belief of Christianity is founded on the individual having a free choice as to his or her acceptance of God and the principle tenets of the Christian faith. The existence of God is founded totally on believing “in faith.” Thus, it is neither provable nor improvable. Christians are not forced to believe at the point of a sword nor do they openly expound this position. The “Christian power base” is one of intolerance against all who would question them…even their own (that would be me). The power base not only ignores the “golden rule” (do unto other as you would have them do unto you), but, they also ignore admonishment against arrogance and hubris. All Christians should not be held to the un-Christian, radical attitudes of James Dobson, Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Sarah Palin, Tom DeLay, Tony Perkins, Rick Warren, or any other arrogant hate merchants who fill the television screens or airwaves, nor should all Muslims be held to the un-Muslim radical attitudes of Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.

Religious freedom, or any freedom granted by the Bill of Rights is not up for revocation as long as we, as citizens of our country, obey the laws. This being the case…as long a law abiding citizens who happen to be Muslim want to build a community center or house of worship anywhere they shouldn’t be denied this request. Religious freedom is not only a Christian or Jewish right…it’s a right for any religion of any faith. We as Christians would want to be treated this way and we should be the outspoken advocates of any who wish to enjoy religious freedom.

Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. Yet, all seem to be aggressive to each other. Christians have had a sorted past with the Jewish faith, today many evangelical fundamentalist believe Muslims are out to destroy them and many of these fundamentalist think we should destroy Islam. Israel today is at constant war with Islam, and many have distrust of Christians. When will they all learn that making friends with each other is a lot less painful that being at constant war with each other. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Practicing Christianity is very easy if you start and hold fast to this simple principle.

DO TAX CUTS CREATE JOBS?

Sunday, August 1, 2010 was a landmark day for the argument for tax cuts ARE NOT the answer to every economic question. First, David Stockman (former Ronald Reagan Office of Management and Budget Director and the brains behind “supply side economics”) wrote a lengthy Op-Ed in the New York Times arguing the Bush Administration Tax Cuts needed to expire. Then, in an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press Alan Greenspan bluntly stated “tax cuts DO NOT pay for themselves.” Conservatives were dressed down by their own experts.

Let’s explore history and compare the tax increases enacted under the Clinton Administration in 1993 against the tax cuts enacted under the George W. Bush Administration in 2001. The score would be 23 million to 3 million. The Clinton Administration created 23 million jobs in 8 years after raising taxes while the Bush Administration created only 3 million jobs after cutting taxes in 8 years. So, never again should liberals give any credit to anyone who argues tax cuts are the engine of job growth while conceding that tax increases kill job growth.

The deficit growth we live with today is a direct result of the $4 trillion of tax cuts enacted under Dubya Bush’s ill conceived economic policy and, conclude those tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, the top 2% of wage earners, will expand that national debt by another $4 trillion. But, more to the point…the extension of the tax cuts to the wealthy will not increase job growth at all. The revenue from those tax cuts need to be used for reinvestment in our infrastructure, aid to the unemployed, training and retraining for a new workforce, and investment into cleaner energy, direct investments that will quickly work into the economy. Ezra Klein, of the Washington Post, states that the biggest bang for the buck for economic stimulus is food stamps. That’s right, food stamps creates $1.71 for every $1 invested…while tax cuts for the wealthy returns only $0.31 for every dollar invested. Why…because rich people don’t spend the tax cut benefits on goods and services…they invest them in the stock market and the trading of existing shares of stock doesn’t produce anything. While the purchase of a gallon of milk supports the grocer, the supplier and the producer. It’s difficult to explain to conservatives that the wealthy don’t spend as large a percentage of their income as do those at the bottom of the income ladder. If you’re rich…it cost you less of your income to eat than it does for those living under the poverty line. The same goes on housing expense, clothing expense, and even entertainment. Low wages earners have to spend 100% of their incomes to exist…while the wealthy have a far great income after expenses to save.

Conservative Republicans, if you really want to address the budget deficit get the unemployment rate back to 4% and the deficit goes away. So, HELLO stimulus! Stimulus for building roads, schools, public buildings of all sorts, high speed rail, and tax incentives for one thing and one thing only…for hiring new employees. Even if we spent another trillion dollars (which is what we should have done in the first place), it will be far less than the $4 trillion conservatives are more than willing to throw away on more tax cuts for the wealthy.

PRIORITIES

Let’s make a list of our priorities. We’re a family of four or five, and without a job with a debt of say 50% of our last years’ income. So, the two pressing items on our list are; 1) we have debt that we’re having a hard time paying and, 2) our family needs us to go to work. Which goes first on our list as our highest priority, the debt or our job? Of course, finding a job goes first on our list, and then reducing our debt. Without a job our efforts to reduce our debts are impossible unless bankruptcy is available to us and even then finding a job should still be the most important.

That’s the dilemma we find ourselves in as a country, except bankruptcy is not an option. Unless we put our unemployed back to work…we’re not going to be able to address our debt dilemma. Most economists agree that if you reduce the unemployment rate to 4% the annual deficit goes away. That’s right…it goes away. Because, those unemployed workers begin impacting the economy in two ways, they start paying taxes, and they cease needing government assistance to live. It really is win-win! So why do the minority in congress, who make up only 35% to 45% of the elected congressmen and senators have such a difficult time making the list of priorities.

As a country we need to get the unemployed employed with infrastructure projects, retrofitting public and private building with energy saving devices, and public grants to create new green jobs building wind mills, solar panels, new technology batteries, and new green public and private transportation vehicles…cars, busses, and trains. This was the real miracle of the 90’s. The unemployment rate was the lowest in the country’s history. When those employed men and women were earning incomes they were paying taxes and we saw our financial condition improve to the point of having an annual surplus rather than an annual debt. This is the point that President Clinton left office and President George W. Bush assumed office. Rather than address those austere expenditures, the right now screams about, Dubya and his Republican accomplices promptly reduced our income by cutting taxes for the uber rich, engaged in two wars, and promoted the idea that deficits don’t matter. That’s what Vice President Cheney actually said, “Deficits don’t matter.”

Now, that 10% of the country is unemployed and another 15% are underemployed these right wingers are again interested in deficit reduction without any regard as to what the effects of reducing the national budget would do to those unemployed and those left clinging to a job that in all likelihood may go away if the budget is reduced. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “being a deficit hawk when the country is in financial peril is akin to being a water conservationist while your house is on fire.”

No…our national priority list needs to look like our personal priority list. First put the unemployed back to work and once we have full employment start looking for ways to repay debt. And, don’t just look at reductions in spending. We need to look at additional revenue where is makes sense. Here’s just one example. Hedge fund managers’ income is taxed in the same bracket as capital gains at about half of what ordinary income is taxed by a worker earning $60,000. Hedge fund managers should be taxed at least at the same rate as average workers. Why should their earnings be taxed at half the rate of the average worker? They don’t produce anything.

We also need to look at reducing expenditures where it makes sense. Patronage projects need to be reviewed project by project to see if we should continue. The Pentagon has cited several expenditures that aren’t justified. Several projects only exist because they are being preserved by some shameless congressman or senator. We can’t take an ax to the budget; however we surely can take some nail clippers. Remember the nineties didn’t require draconian cuts, just good management. But, the real engine to fiscal security is in full employment. That’s what our focus should be on. Once we have solid employment we can manage our spending without damaging our economy.

UNDERSTANDING LAISSEZ-FAIRE

Those who are flirting with the Tea Party need to be aware of just what the Party is all about…because these are the folks that are complaining about government interference. The Tea Party’s candidate “de jour” is Dr. Rand Paul, the son of Congressman (and doctor) Ron Paul. The Paul’s both have developed a reputation, as Bill Maher describes it, of “speaking NON-SENSE to power.” Congressman Ron Paul I have personally heard say that the Civil War needn’t be fought because slavery would have eventually ended anyway. Yeah, in another three or four thousand years! The Paul’s argue a pure laissez-faire policy. The basis of the libertarian “movement” is laissez-faire, in philosophy. They do not want government to interfere in any way.

Those who want to embrace this policy need to understand just what no government interference means. I have always held to the principle that most people are conservative when if refers to others but, very liberal when it comes to themselves. They are against the government interfering when it comes to their business, however, if their neighbor starts dumping contaminants in their backyard they’re complaining because the EPA isn’t out there to protect them. People are against the federal government getting involved in healthcare until they can’t get insurance because of a pre-existing condition or their insurance company drops them when they get sick, then they expect the government to be all over the insurance companies. So, here is a little background on what Laissez-faire means in practice.

In economics, laissez-faire means allowing industry to be free from government intervention, especially restrictions in the form of tariffs and government monopolies, and more specifically today in terms of regulation. The phrase is French and literally means "let do", but it broadly implies "let it be", or "leave it alone."

According to historical myths, the phrase stems from a meeting in about 1680 between the powerful French finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert and a group of French businessmen led by a M. Le Gendre. When the eager mercantilist minister asked how the French state could be of service to the merchants, Le Gendre replied simply "Laissez-nous faire" ("Leave us be", literally "let us do"). This is sort of interesting to me because modern day conservative Americans (Tea Baggers) are quick to belittle European governments and ideas, and like to criticize the French in particular, yet France is where all this comes from.

The laissez faire slogan was popularized by Vincent de Gournay, a French intendant of commerce in the 1750s. Gournay was an ardent proponent of the removal of restrictions on trade and the deregulation of industry and economic prosperity in France. Gournay was delighted by the LeGendre anecdote, and forged it into a larger maxim all his own: "Let do and let pass.” His motto has also been identified as the longer "Let do and let pass, the world goes on by itself!" Although Gournay left no written tracts on his economic policy ideas, he had immense personal influence on the thinking of his contemporaries, notably the physiocrats, who credit both the laissez-faire slogan and doctrine to Gournay.

Before Gournay, P.S. de Boisguilbert had enunciated the phrase "let nature run its course.’ Laissez-faire was one of a number of French "free trade" and "non-interference" slogans coined in the 17th century. D'Argenson, during this time, was better known for the similar but less-celebrated motto "Govern not too much.”

The Doctor Paul’s are on record criticizing the section of the Civil Right Act of 1964 when it comes to interference with private business. Meaning: They think service or goods should be able to be denied to individuals for any reason, including race, by businesses, on the basis that they are private. The Paul’s believe private business owes nothing to the public. Doesn’t this seem idiotic to you? The Paul’s apparently think that government has no business making rules for businesses. So what if they sell poison to children?

Private businesses whether they like it, or not, depend on our government. They use our streets, utilities, police protection, fire protection, and they use our currency. In my opinion, this should rightfully give us as a society adequate reason to impose restrictions on how they go about their business. If they want to sell their goods and services to our citizens they should have no objection to playing by our rules. Believe me, there are plenty of third world countries that will not restrict their business practices, and of course, this is why they are third world countries.

The misguided notion that everyone will do what is right if left to their own devices should have been resolved by the time each of us reaches kindergarten. As the new Kentucky Senate Candidate, Dr. Paul, has now gone further. He has stated that its “un-American” for the president to criticize British Petroleum for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, Dr. Paul said; “I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen,” and then went on to say it was “un-American” for the president to be using language like placing the governments boot on the throat of BP to insure they paid for the damage. Forget that we have an ample supply of evidence to conclude that the accident was the direct cause of BP’s actions. I guess that Dr. Paul’s position is that since BP is a private business we should just let it go, trust them to correct the error they committed, and clean up the mess they created; believing that they will reimburse all the effected lives and businesses without any prodding from our government. They will make everyone whole for their mistake. That is what we’re supposed to believe!

Laissez-faire, stretched to its intended purpose, means “we the people” (remember that is who the government really is, us!) do not have the right to say that discrimination is wrong and we will not tolerate it if you want to participate and be a part of our society. Or, that “we the people” do not have the right to inspect the food we eat or deny businesses the right to sell tobacco and alcohol to minors. I guess we should abolish traffic rules. Just let us drive the way we want. The whole notion of “leave it alone” is not conducive to an organized society. Rather than measure government by a laissez-faire standard we should measure the government by efficiency standards. We should not care how big or small a government is. We should care about how efficient the government is. That would be a fair argument to have.

We will, and should, forever protect everyone’s right to speak out in support of any lunatic idea they choose, but it does not mean that free speech implies that we will let anybody do whatever they want. Organized societies have rules, and rules are the difference between order and chaos.

I cannot believe there is anyone, other than a greedy banker, who thinks “we the people” should not govern the banks in a much stricter sense in light of the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. I have mentioned before in this blog that we as a country and culture have been sold a bill of goods based on capitalism as all good and socialism as all bad. There are good and bad points to each system and we are foolish not to take advantage of the best of both systems. The religious right, who seems to be behind much of the Tea Bag movement, needs to wake up and realize they could be worshiping the God of capitalism just as much as any other false god.

An editorial in the May 22, 2010 edition of the New York Times summed it up pretty well.

“It is a theory of liberty with roots in America’s creation, but the succeeding centuries have shown how ineffective it was in promoting a civil society. The freedom of a few people to discriminate meant generations of less freedom for large groups of others.

It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market. It was government that rescued the economy from the Depression and promoted safety and equality in the workplace.”

AAAAAAAmen, brotha!

THE INSINCERITY OF DEFICITS HAWKS

As all progressives must restate to begin with…I am in FAVOR of living within my means, both on a personal and public basis. However, today’s versions of “deficit hawks” are insincere to say the least. Hopefully their insincerity can provide a lesson for the future.

The lesson is really pretty simple. First, we took our foot off the gas as far as deficit reduction during the George W. Bush Administration in 2001. As Dubya took office we were running a $300 billion surplus. We were taking in $300 billion more dollars than we were spending. We were running a national debt ( we owed borrowed money from years past) even as we started accruing this annual surplus allowing us to pay down the national debt. But, the Bush Administration preferred to enact a tax cut policy for the wealthiest individuals in our country. This policy on its very own squandered the annual surplus. To be fair Dubya is not the only one to blame. He was encouraged to pursue this policy by Alan Greenspan, who has probably been the most overrated Fed Chairman in history. Alan Greenspan was good at one thing…giving bad advice, and that record becomes more clear every day.

Second, we engaged in two major wars without paying for them. This is completely counter to our record for other wars in our national history. We always understood there would be sacrifice when we engaged in war. We understood the sacrifice in lives lost, and we understood the cost in the treasury lost. War is expensive and we borrowed to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These mistakes in tax policy and wars were made in fiscal terms. The mistakes are NOT being made now that we find ourselves in a fragile condition. The dollars are not being squandered today on stimulus and spending that we are pursuing domestically. Not to stimulate our economy as we did in 2009 would have meant a longer more protracted recovery period that would render us in peril of failure everyday it lasted. We are fortunate to have the size and economic system that allows us to use our government to stimulate and restore our economic well being.

The recovery will eventually bring us back to where we were…growing and strong. Hopefully will have learned our lesson and use budget surpluses properly in the future to control our overall national debt and prudently choose the expenses we pursue.