The Spencerian

Q & A: The Tax Question Cometh

Dear Spencerian Editors:

I'm not really fond of political issues, but I have one question that I was wondering if you might be able to answer. So here goes... Will Congress and the President engage in the politically risky endeavor of increasing tax rates to stop the growing national debt? If so, or if not, how can this be justified?

Brian

# # # #

Thank you so much for the question, Brian.  It has been too long since we've had a question here, so I appreciate the opportunity to try and answer this one.  Let me start by pointing out -- in case it wasn't obvious -- that I am not a tax policy expert nor am I an expert on the issue of the national debt.  On the other hand, I know a little bit about politics, so why don't we start there.

Let me offer my best guess on this before we go to some facts and figures.  I notice you don't refer to either Obama or Romney by name as the President who will have to work with Congress while engaging in politically risky behavior.  Although my assumption is that Obama will be re-elected, I think this answer would apply to either man occupying the White House: yes.  They have little choice but to raise taxes -- in combination with other things -- in order to tackle the growing debt.

To be fair to President Obama, he comes right out and says so:

Cut more than $4 trillion from the deficit while asking millionaires to pay their fair share in taxes.

The campaign site linked there also helpfully points out why policies that would be enacted by a President Romney would actually increase the debt:

Slash funding for education, research and technology while cutting taxes for millionaires

No plan to pay for $5 trillion in new tax cuts, which could add to the deficit

Increase defense spending significantly, raising the deficit by trillions of dollars

Now, the other night at the debate Mitt Romney made a big deal about how he'd never said he was going to cut taxes for millionaires like himself.  He said that he would "close loopholes" in the tax code that benefited millionaires -- a notion that was readily and easily debunked as recently as this past Tuesday.  In fact, most folks have said that Romney's tax plan simply doesn't add up.  Key pieces of that plan, by the way, are to "cut the corporate rate to 25 percent," and "eliminate the death tax," which is also called the estate tax; it's the tax rich people pay when they leave their estate to their heirs after they die.

One one side, I've heard President Obama offer the same prescription for the national debt since this campaign started.

On the other, it really is no exaggeration to say Mitt Romney has held two very different positions with respect to who is paying taxes and who is not:

I don't want to beat a dead horse, Brian, on who would do what with respect to taxes, but you really need to know this.  Romney's proposed budget would essentially cut everything but the Department of Defense -- where he'd spend a ton more.  This cutting -- including deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare, and, has been pointed out minute things like PBS's Sesame Street and, thus, Big Bird -- would be worse than the cuts proposed by his running mate, Paul Ryan, who everybody thought put forward pretty much the most draconian proposal imaginable.

To get a little more serious about it, Robert Bixby, the head of the budget watchdog group the Concord Coalitoin, said today on NPR that Romney's increase in defense spending and domestic spending cuts just won't work to get the debt down.

"If we're going to get serious about bringing the debt under control, we have to take serious measures, and focusing on the nondefense discretionary side of the budget is probably the least serious type of measure we can take," he says.

So under a second Obama Administration, you get modest tax increases for the wealthy.  Under a Romney Administration, you get draconian cuts in governmental services we all rely on, and (probably?) tax cuts for the wealthy (despite what he says at a debate dog and pony show).

Let's move along a bit towards the debt, Brian.  Here's a good question, backed up by Snopes:

Yeah, look, it's simple: you increase the debt when you fight two wars -- one of choice, based on lies -- and simultaneously cut taxes for the wealthy.  And, it must be noted, balloon the size of government.  Hey, there's a reason George W. Bush was persona non grata at the Republican Convention.

Let's narrow it down even more.  

You know, for a "Grand" Old Party that actually had an un-ironic "We Built It" debt counter at their Convention here in Tampa, it is that very party that had the most to do with running up our current debt. 

Alright.

We've established who is willing to raise taxes to address not just the issue of the national debt, which really is a long-term problem, but to fund critical government services.  And we have established who, given historical precedent and the discombobulated nature of their own plan, would almost assuredly either increase the national debt exponentially thanks to tax cuts for the wealthy and increased defense spending, or tank the economy once more.

You asked how tax increases can be justified.  Here's how.  That link is from the Tax Policy Center, and it is a bit of history with respect to the highest marginal income tax rates.  You'll notice that it was a paltry 7% in 1913.  

But look at it around the time of the New Deal, when Social Security was first created (1935).  The wealthiest Americans were paying 63%.  Check it out around the time of the Great Society -- when Medicare and Medicaid were created (the 1960s).  The wealthy were paying 70-something percent, which was actually down from the 90-something percent of the previous decade or so.  

You can see what it is today.  

35%.

I'm not suggesting the wealthy today pay what they paid in the 1950s.  I wouldn't even lay a larger -- more fair -- tax burden entirely at the feet of the wealthy.  Look at the major corporations that paid nothing -- zero -- in taxes some for many years [PDF].

Pepco?  Boeing?  GE?  Three years of paying no taxes.  And these are multi-billion dollar a year companies, Brian.  

Worse, it's not just that many of these major corporations are paying no taxes on profits they make in America, us taxpayers are actually subsidizing them!  

For three years, the government paid 280 companies a breathtaking total of $222.7 billion.  Think about that.  What if we not only taxed corporations -- made them pay anything at all in taxes -- but stopped writing them checks out of the U.S. Treasury as well.  That's a significant dent in the national debt right there.

I don't know about you, Brian, but I would feel pretty good about that tax scenario with respect to paying down the national debt.

Tell you what, though: I'd feel even better about it as a way for wealthy Americans and the giant corporations that sell us our stuff to participate in the better parts of American society.  Retiring Baby Boomers are about to have a significant impact on the Social Security system.  Is the answer to cut Social Security benefits because of the national debt?  Is the answer to cut things like Medicare and Medicaid because of... the national debt?  

Forget Baby Boomers -- what about scholarships for young people to go to college?  What about other social safety nets -- the ones, frayed though they may be, that nonetheless make America great.  

Over at the Barack Obama campaign site, they have a tax calculator.  You can see how, if you're middle income (like I am), then under the Obama Administration, you're likely to have your taxes go down.  (Under Romney they would almost assuredly go up, because he has to subsidize his tax cut for the wealthy and the DoD spending from somewhere.)

To be honest with you, Brian, even I would be willing to pay just a bit more.  And not just to help drive down the debt.  But because debt or no debt, I'm hoping my kids will have the same kind of America I have always had.

Thanks for the question.

Q & A: I Pledge

Dear Spencerian Editors:

A member of my extended family recently posted the following along with the picture [a quaint picture of children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in their school] in a Facebook post.  When I questioned this, I was told it came from a reliable source.  I questioned it because my wife's son "Pledges Allegiance" every morning at his Elementary School, and as a part of the morning show team there, leads the school.  In fact, earlier this year (he is in fifth grade) he was taught about its origins, its meaning and why it is said.  I am sure as this year progresses I am going to see more of these and other contentious subjects, but as someone who is learning about his new home - I have been here since May 2010 - as someone who wants to discuss and form views and opinions I would rather be
dealing with facts.

Following is the content from the Facebook post:

"I remember....every morning when I was a kid....When I taught special ed. in B'ham....we did it, even tho. many of my students were unable to recite, but stood with their hand on their heart with the rest of them...That is just awful that this has been removed from school....It's an American tradition, & it should still be part of school....Those offended can just sit in their seats & not participate......I'm sick of this BS...politically correctness & walking on egg shells around people we might offend....If you are privilaged to be an American, than this you must do......Just sayin'....& with that, I hope I didn't offend anyone....& if I did...just climb on board with me, & you won't be offended."

I have done a little research and can only find instances in Boston and something about Federal Judges agreeing with a ban in 2002.

Many thanks on advance,

Andrew H.

# # # #

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you for your question, Andrew.  That right there is the full, modern-day Pledge, just in case.

There have been numerous legal challenges around the Pledge of Allegiance over the years, particularly as it relates to having it recited in schools.  There seem to be a couple of big sticking points with those who oppose the idea of making it mandatory for children to recite it in school.  

The first is the sort of "indoctrination" piece -- is it really right to force children to pledge loyalty to their nation and their nation's flag when they don't really have a choice?  

The second question comes up around the "under God" piece.  Pop quiz, Andrew: when was "under God" incorporated into the Pledge (hint: the Pledge has been around since 1892 and those words have not always been there).

The answer is: 1954.  

Before 1954, no one had bothered to think about changing it that much.  A Scottish-born Presbyterian Minister named George MacPherson Docherty was the guy who did the heavy lifting to get the words "under God" incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance.  

It's kind of a nifty story, but the short version is, Docherty invoked the words of President Abraham Lincoln with the then-President (and recent Presbyterian convernt) Dwight Eisenhower in attendance.   Docherty said that the idea of God was the "definitive factor in the American way of life," and that Lincoln had used the phrase "under God" to set America apart from other nations.  Congress passed a joint resolution, and Eisenhower signed it into law on Flag Day.

Think about that, though: 1954.  You can debate whether or not we should have the words "under God" incorporated into our national identity -- an identity which prides itself (or used to) on the idea of a diversity of faiths, beliefs, and dogmas.  That idea is in fact a core principle of the founding of our nation.  The idea that we're a nation "under God" was certainly never the intention of the Founding Fathers.

So let's talk about what that Facebook post is really about, which is this phony baloney "war on religion," or "war on Christianity." I had a relevant post on this the other day, via Mustang Bobby at Bark Bark Woof Woof, and his link from Melissa McEwan, who wrote:

Yes, everywhere I look there is evidence we are about to become a godless society, like: Our Christian president, our last Christian president, their almost exclusively Christian administrations who relentlessly pander to conservative and/or moderate Christians, the almost totally Christian Supreme Court, an almost entirely Christian Congress who start each session with a prayer, the millions and millions of other American Christians whose day of worship is still respected in various state laws across the country (like in Indiana, where you still can't shop for a car or buy booze on a Sunday), whose views are reflected in various federal laws (like denying same-sex couples the right of marriage in order to protect its "sanctity"), whose holidays are also national holidays, whose holy book must be sworn on in state and federal courts, and whose churches are not required to pay taxes, guaranteed freedom of religion, money that says "In God We Trust," a pledge of allegiance that describes us as "one nation under God," television networks who will accept advertising from conservative religious groups but not liberal political groups, schools who are incorporating a religious belief into science classes, conscience clauses for pharmacists and healthcare providers, religion-based residential communities being built, religious museums and amusement parks springing up all over the country, religious leaders being given diplomatic immunity, faith-based initiatives being federally funded, and our national media being constantly embroiled in a debate about in which god the president believes.

GOP front-runner Mitt Romney may believe that President Obama has engaged in some sort of "assault on religion," but I'm having a hard time seeing it.  At the National Prayer Breakfast -- held today -- President Obama said "Christian faith guides his policies."  (Read the full text of his remarks here.)

So what to do about kids in school who are either required or "strongly encouraged" to recite the Pledge of Allegiance"? (Which is to really ask, what to do about largely voiceless children who are shamelessly used as a political cudgle in what amounts to a culture war grudge match.)

Indeed, Andrew, legal challenges have faced the Pledge since the 1950s up to the last couple of years.

In a 2010 case called Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the words "under God" were "of a ceremonial and patriotic nature," and did not constitute the establishment of religion.  

That wasn't the only only legal proceedings on the matter in 2010.  The First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously said the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate student's rights.  The U.S. Supreme court appeal of this decision was denied (meaning the ruling of the First Circuit was upheld).  

There was an interesting story on this very subject on NPR just a few months ago.

Andrew, from my view, this is an easy one in which to be dismissive: Oh, just make the kids say it.  Builds character.  Makes them patriotic.

My problem with that is that patriots aren't made through pledges -- they're made through experiences which endear them to their country.  

I love my country.  Not because I stand in front of a flag and hold my hand over my heart and recite a pledge, but because of the freedom I had to experience new things, the opportunity I had to learn and grow and become the individual I am today.  I owe, in some part, my individuality to my country.  Freedom.  Opportunity.  That's what breeds patriots.   

 Thanks for the question, Andrew.

# # # # 

I WANT TO ANSWER YOUR POLITICAL QUESTIONS: Ask away.  I'll give it my very best shot.  No question is too weird, no subject is off the table.  Just so long as it's political. 

Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com

Q & A: Smart Question, Dumb Process

Dear Spencerian Editors: 

Hello.  At the risk of sounding ignorant, can you explain the importance of Iowa in political campaigns. My wife and several friends that discuss politics always bring this up and the answer is collectively I don't know and it is left at that.  I would like to put this question to rest. Your explanation is greatly appreciated. Thank You.                                

Happy Holidays,

John S.

# # # #

First of all, thank you for the fantastic question, John.  Second, a sincere and hearty thank you for providing a question which allows me to bring back this series that I really enjoy a lot, We Answer Your Political Questions.  Now, on to your timely question!

Before I go into any depth on Iowa and the unique caucus/primary process we have in this country, let me make one thing abundantly clear to you: your question is not ignorant, nor are you.

The caucus and primary process by which we ultimately elect a President and Vice-President is ignorant.  It is profoundly ignorant.  It is ignorant on a grand scale.  It is stupid.  It is dumb.  It is thoughtless, pathetic, weird, moronic, foolish, almost wholly without merit, and entirely unworthy of a democracy as grand as the United States of America.

That this fundamentally flawed process hasn't been changed in many decades is a woeful testament to our broken political system.  Not that there haven't been good ideas.  More on those in a minute.

First, though, let's talk about Iowa (and New Hampshire, and us other early primary and caucus states, too) and the fact that a bunch of self-important old, white corn farmers* determine the nominee for President of the United States.  

Now, I used a lot of negative words to describe the Iowa Caucuses and our larger process for how this all works about.  I said it was "almost wholly without merit."  "Almost" was the key word, there.  

For those who enjoy the entertainment/media spectacle, it is utterly fantastic.  I cast myself in that sorry lot: being able to write and blog about candidates making fools of themselves in places like Iowa simply makes for great content.  Newt Gingrich getting cussed by a camo-clad local at a grocery store?  That's solid gold right there.  

There is another, much more practical (less awful on a human level) reason for having caucuses and primaries: these events select the delegates who will represent their state at the party conventions, held next summer (you can visit the site for the Democratic Convention, which will be in Charlotte North Carolina the week of September 3, by clicking here; you can visit the site for the Republican Convention, which takes place August 27-30, and will be in my neck of the woods in Tampa, by clicking here).

You have to remember, John: you don't actually vote for a presidential candidate in a primary.

You only think you do.  

I know.  You're in Iowa, and you saw all those names on the ballot -- Gingrich, Perry, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul -- and you selected one on a ballot, put it in a box, walked away.  So what happened next, at each of those precincts where the voting took place?

Here is what will happen on January 3 of 2012 in Iowa -- and what the result will be: caucuses -- events where people come together and vote -- will happen in all of the 1,784 precincts in Iowa.  Those precincts will then send delegates representing whichever candidate won that precinct to their appropriate county convention, one of 99 in the state.  Those conventions then pick delegates to go to the Iowa State Convention.  It is there that candidate-representative delegates will be selected to go to the national convention (in the case of the Republicans, down here in Tampa this August).  

So, on January 3, some people will identify a handful of people to go to a county event, where other people will be selected to go to a state-wide event, where other people will be selected to come to Tampa in August and pledge their nomination for... Well.  Who wins the Iowa Caucus may well be a far cry from who gets the nomination.  

I know what you're thinking, John: that's an awful lot of work.  Doesn't somebody do it better?  

The answer is, well, sort of.  New Hampshire, as I'm sure you've heard, has the first-in-the-nation primary.  This is different than a "caucus."  In a primary -- like the one in New Hampshire -- delegates to the national convention are selected directly, on primary day (in this case, on January 10, 2012; just around the corner).  

You can see the difference.  In Iowa, these local-level delegates end up trading their support and repositioning their loyalties.  Sometimes complex alliances are formed, and two candidates with fewer committed delegates each will throw support one way or the other in order to defeat a third candidate.  And with nearly 2,000 precincts, you can see why political experts agree: you need a strong campaign staff in Iowa, and you need it early.  

In New Hampshire, the delegates going to the national nominating convention are picked right then, that day.  You win New Hampshire, you've taken your first steps in garnering enough delegate votes at the convention to win the nomination.   

I know what your'e thinking again, John: that's not much better, really.  

And you're right.  Because New Hampshire is the first primary in the nation, and because Iowa the first caucus, the candidates spend and inordinate amount of time there, and the media focuses an inordinate amount of attention on them.  

It's a messy process.  And it's a bi-partisan mess.  In the 2008 election, I was going to vote for John Edwards in the primary here in Florida (please remember, this was before Senator Edwards'... problems came to light).  But by the time it got around to us, he was toast.  I ended up voting for Obama.

Which, in a funny way, is some of the case Iowans and New Hampshirites make for having one-state, early caucuses and primaries.  Let's take a quick page from the playbook of former Florida Governor and former Senator Bob Graham, himself a former presidential candidate:

Iowa and New Hampshire are not perfect, but they are more likely to eliminate flawed candidates than states where voters see only television commercials. In 1972, Ed Muskie, a former vice presidential candidate and Maine senator, was supposed to trounce his Democratic rivals in New Hampshire. But voters picked up on Senator Muskie’s tendency to wear his temper on his sleeve. He barely won a contest that should have been a cakewalk. His candidacy soon ended.

Twenty-four years later, Iowa caucus-goers killed the hopes of Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, another early favorite. In the 1996 Republican contest, Mr. Gramm dazzled insiders and pundits with his money-raising prowess. After Iowans met the acerbic Mr. Gramm face-to-face, they voted him fifth in the caucuses. He dropped out of the race.

New Hampshire voters did not derail the candidacy of Gov. George W. Bush in 2000, but they tried. By giving John McCain a resounding 19-point victory, New Hampshire primary voters sent Americans a strong early warning about a man whose presidency has been a major disappointment.

We shouldn't question the judgement of the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire.  Anyone that spikes the Phil Gramm campaign is good in my book.  

However, I think Senator Graham has a better way:

In our new political environment, Iowa and New Hampshire are unlikely to reclaim the role they once played in screening our future presidents. Too many other states are eager to influence the process, too.

So if we can’t recreate the past, what would be the next best screen? Some have wryly suggested a political version of “American Idol,” with voters sizing up candidates from living rooms across the nation and eliminating one candidate per week until the party nominee is chosen. I think the better analogy is college football’s Bowl Championship Series, which rotates the title game from year to year among the traditional bowl games.

A series of five regional primaries, spaced three weeks apart and rotated every four years, would give voters from Miami to Maui to Manchester opportunities to be first in the nation. Candidates could spend more time with citizens of neighboring states and less time on coast-to-coast flights. Because the primaries would be stretched out over three months rather than three weeks, reporters and other political scorekeepers could not rush to declare a national winner.

Regional primaries are not as intimate as living rooms in Cedar Rapids and Portsmouth. But they might accomplish what the 2008 primary season probably will not: a comprehensive and meticulous screening of the men and women who would be president.

How Americans aren't clamoring for this is beyond me.  I always kind of thought people liked having a say -- a la American Idol, as Senator Graham alluded to.  Of course, a better way doesn't always mean a popular way, and Iowa (and New Hampshire, and all the others), as I said above, provide a lot of good stuff for folks in the media to write about.  Makes you wonder, though: do Presidents Gramm, Muskie and McCain agree?  

In closing, let me add one more region to the five Senator Graham suggested: social media.  If our current process seems vaguely antiquated to you, that's because it is.  Woefully so.  I can set up a questionnaire on Survey Monkey in ten minutes.  I can do virtually the same thing on Facebook in five.

I have friends in the technology world who could probably take me to school on how to do this on-line better than I could explain it.  The point is, that's a big missing piece to me.  You want to engage young people (we need to)?  You want to increase electoral turnout (we need to; 2010 was just under 38%, 2008 was just under 57%.... in the greatest democracy in the world, we can do better).

Simple question: why hasn't there been a Facebook Primary? Where's the Twitter Primary?  It's nearly 2012, people.  I mean, I was supposed to have my flying car by now.  

John, thank you again for your wonderful question.  Hope I've been of some help.  And I hope you and your family have a safe and happy holiday, and a glorious new year.

# # # #

* For the record, John, I like Iowa.  I like Iowa a lot, actually.  I know people from Iowa, and they are good people.  They are wonderful people, as a matter of fact, and I care about them a great deal.  The point of that particular comment was, if you look at the demographics of Iowa, they don't necessarily match up with much of the rest of America.  For example, the state as a whole is 91% white.  America is about 72%.  The numbers are disproportionate when you look at Asians and Hispanics as well.  Iowans are a little older than the American average, but only by a couple of percentage points.  At any rate, I hope my Iowa friends and family will forgive me. 

# # # #

I WANT TO ANSWER YOUR POLITICAL QUESTIONS: Ask away.  I'll give it my very best shot.  No question is too weird, no subject is off the table.  Just so long as it's political. 

Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com

Q & A: Obama Versus the World?

I DRINK YOUR POLITICAL QUESTIONS!  I DRINK THEM UP!  I've been involved in politics and government for some time.  I promise that I will do my best to answer your question.  However, I make no guarantees you'll love the answer.  Email me at bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com.

Please remember to put "Political Question" in the subject line, try to keep it short and sweet, and let me know if you want me to use your real name or not (or where you're from).

# # # #

Dear Spencerian Editors:

I supported Obama in 2008.  I will probably support him in 2012.  But I am not really happy about it.  He has been to the middle on too many things. 

Some people I know way he should be primaried, that this would make him more liberal.

Do you think Obama should face a primary challenger in 2012? 

Thanks,
B. Dodge,
Leavenworth, KS

# # # #

Thanks for the unique question, B.

I say "unique," because usually I reserve this space for answering questions with some in-depth research and links to facts and figures.  There's not really anything I can prove or disprove with respect to your question, is there?

And I'll answer it fairly quickly: I don't think Obama needs a primary challenger -- or anything of the sort.

I know it is popular in progressive circles to speculate about a primary challenger for Obama.  The thinking is that if a 'progressive' or 'liberal' were to throw his or her hat in the ring, it would force Obama to the left in order to try to make up ground with the base against that challenger.  That's a perfectly logical line of thinking, B.  But it won't achieve the goal of driving Obama leftward (or of electing a more liberal president).

There are a whole bunch of reason it won't achieve those goals, B.  First of all, who is the liberal savior who will deliver us from Evil Obama? 

Go ahead.  I'll wait.

[crickets]

[Ahem... cough, cough...]

Dennis Kucinich?  Russ Feingold?  Uh, sure.  Hey, I love Kucinich and Feingold as much as the next guy, but they'd be no match for Obama.

You're going to ask why not, and the reason is because Obama is the sitting president and when it comes right down to it, most folks are pretty satisfied with his work... or at least more satisfied with his work as president as opposed to a fairly obscure congressman from Ohio, or a former Senator from Wisconsin.   

The other reason is the Democratic establishment, for as messed up as we can be, just will not allow it.

You're going to ask why. 

And the reason is because though Obama may well make this the first billion dollar campaign, he'll need every dollar of it against whatever clown the GOP nominates.  Now, I will be the first to concede that I have said -- on these pages -- that the GOP national field is profoundly weak.

Just in case your eyeballs exploded, the second name in that link is Donald Trump. 

It's such a weak field that the numbers for "No One," "Anyone," "Other," and "Unsure" are greater than all the names on the list combined.

Weak, yes -- but not to be underestimated.  Remember who Democrats lost to in 2010?  A bunch of bozos with a propensity for stupid hats, ridiculous costumes, and overt racism you're apparently not supposed to talk about.

You'll notice I'm not making an overt pitch for you to support Obama, B.  Frankly, that's up to you.  Come back and visit again -- I'll be talking about Obama's accomplishments, and maybe you'll find a reason to support him again. 

B., I want you to know that I share a lot of your frustration.  We got more troops in Afghanistan, not fewer.  Guantanamo remains open, and it looks like it's going to stay that way.  The economy is rebounding awfully slowly, jobs are still tough to come by, and the housing market is flat-lined (at least here in Florida). 

I am flast pissed-off that we haven't bothered to prosecute a single, solitary asshole on Wall Street for driving the economic train of the rails.

But here's a little thing about me, B. -- I can walk and chew gum at the same time.  Which is to say, I can have my disappointments with Obama, but I know that the alternative is not "more liberal Obama" -- it's, I dunno... How does President Huckabee sound to you?

Hang in there, B. -- and get yourself ready.  2012 is going to be a hell of a fight. 

I really appreciate the question.

# # # #

SHOW ME THE POLITICAL QUESTIONS: Ask whatever political question you want.  Just remember that I'm not as smart as I look. 

Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com

Q & A: Cuba Libre

I WANT TO ANSWER YOUR POLITICAL QUESTIONS!  I've been involved in politics and government for a little while, now.  I'll do my best to answer your question, though I make no guarantees you'll love the answer.  Email me at bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com.

Remember: put "Political Question" in the subject line, try to keep it short and sweet, and let me know if you want me to use your real name or not (or where you're from).

# # # #

Dear Spencerian Editors:

I have asked this question many times with different people and haven't received a satisfactory answer. Why do we still have a trade embargo with Cuba, a communist country. We now have as major trading partners, Vietnam and China, both communist countries, not to mention that we lost over 50,000 American lives in Vietnam. I don't understand this!!!

Thanks,
JSELLISON

# # # #

Great question, JS!

Usually I go around the world to tell a story, going into painstaking detail in order to answer these questions (which I always enjoy).  Today, though, I've got something different.  I will answer this question in one word, and then bore you with the details: Florida.

To be more precise, it's really two words: Florida politics.  Now, I fully expect a political and demographic expert on the order of Steve Schale to come along and correct my inevtiable errors, here, but I'll take a stab at this, nonetheless. 

Florida, as you are likely aware, JS, is a critical swing state in presidential elections.  And a critical constituency in Florida are Cuban immigrants, and people of Cuban descent (including our new Senator, Republican Marco Rubio).  These Cuban Americans despise the dictator Fidel Castro and his oppressive Communist regime. 

From the Biography.com link preceeding, this would prove to be the pivotal moment in relations between Cuba and America, and set the tone for the next fifty years:

The year 1961 proved to be pivotal in Castro's relationship with the United States. On January 3, 1961, outgoing president Dwight Eisenhower broke off diplomatic relations with the Cuban government. On April 16, Castro formally declared Cuba a socialist state. The following day 1,400 Cuban exiles invaded Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in an attempt to overthrow the Castro regime. The incursion ended in disaster; hundreds of the insurgents were killed and nearly 1,000 captured. Though the United States denied any involvement, it was revealed that the Cuban exiles were trained by the Central Intelligence Agency and armed with U.S. weapons. Decades later, the National Security Archive revealed that the United States had begun planning an overthrow of the Castro government as early as October 1959. The invasion was conceived during the Eisenhower administration and inherited by President John F. Kennedy, who reluctantly approved its action but denied the invaders air support in hopes of hiding any U.S. participation.

Fidel Castro was able to capitalize on the incident to consolidate his power and further promote his agenda. On May 1, Castro announced an end to democratic elections in Cuba and denounced American imperialism. Then at year's end, Castro declared himself a Marxist-Leninist and announced the Cuban government was adopting communist economic and political policies. On February 7, 1962, the United States imposed a full economic embargo on Cuba, a policy that continues to this day.

The Castro regime remains an oppressive dicatatorship -- there's a reason tens of thousands of Cubans fled towards American shores over the last fifty years -- but it is undergoing important and complex changes.  More on the changes in a moment.

For many years, being tough on Cuba was a litmus test for any presidential hopeful who came to Florida, and especially South Florida (it's worth noting that Clinton lost Florida when he was elected in 1992, but won in it in 1996, after he signed the Helms Burton Act into law, which expanded the scope of the embargo; this was made political easier for Clinton when the Cuban military shot down a plane on a humanitarian mission).  

That said, the the specifics of the actual embargo have grown more complicated over time. (For your reference, here is a pretty good timeline of events since 1962.)

Looking at that timeline, the most recent entry is from 1997, and it notes this bill from Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) , which would loosen travel restrictions to Cuba. 

Easing restrictions on a Communist dictatorship?  From a Republican?  The times they really are a-changin'.

It is worth noting that Cuban Americans (and not just any Cuban Americans -- Cuban American Republicans) broadly supported the DREAM Act, which died in Congress a few weeks ago.  The DREAM Act would have allowed children who were brought into America illegally to stay.  The DREAM Act -- which had the strong backing of the Obama White House -- died in Congress, thanks to immigrant-unfriendly Republicans. 

(As a brief aside, the issue of immigration is going to be huge in the Republican Party for the forseeable future.)

Although politics marches on, and Obama has renewed the Cuban embargo as so many of his predecessors have, it's worth noting that he has largely lifted the travel restrictions between our two nations, a move which, if you recall the Enzi Bill, should have bi-partisan support.  It indeed has the support of at least one established Cuban American group:

Pepe Hernandez, head of the moderate Cuban-American National Foundation, called the changes very positive, most importantly the decision to allow all Americans to send money to Cubans.

"It's going to help the interaction between regular Cubans and U.S. citizens, it's going to help Cuban people inside the island to gain independence from the Cuban government, especially now that roughly a million will be without jobs," he said, referring to Raul Castro's decision to reduce the government workforce.

Hernandez said the Cuban government would get some benefit from the remittances, but that he could live with that because Cuban citizens, particularly dissidents, would now have another source of support.

Archbishop Thomas Wenski, the top Catholic leader in South Florida, applauded the changes.

Still, the real question persists: should America lift the Cuban trade embargo?

JS, this answer is probably no more satisfactory than any other answer you've ever gotten.  The short version is, sometimes politics is slow to change.  

And with that, let me offer a bit of hopeful prognostication: someday the embargo will go away.  Probably not tomorrow, not the next day, not next week, probably not even next year.  The embargo hurts the people of Cuba, not the terrible regime (even a kid can understand this concept).  My guess is you'll see a gradual erosion of the broadly-defined "embargo," starting with the lifting of travel restrictions. 

Some day Fidel Castro, at this point more a symbol of tyrrany and oppression than anything, will die.  It's hard to know just how much the country will shift towards a more democratic model (as you noted, China and Vietnam have), and at what rate.  My guess -- just a guess -- is that my daughter will live to travel to a relatively free Cuba, and it will no longer be a political football, either on the global stage or in presidential elections here at home. 

The real question may be, when Cuba is no longer a political issue, what will rise to take its place?

# # # #

SHOW ME THE POLITICAL QUESTIONS: Ask whatever political question you want.  Just remember that I'm not as smart as I look. 

Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com 

Q & A: Answering a Question with a Question

I LIKE TO ANSWER POLITICAL QUESTIONS!  Does this make me a freak?  A weirdo?  Probably.  But it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask your question about politics.  I've been involved in politics for a little while, now.  I'll do my best, though I make no guarantees you'll love the answer.  Email me at bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com.

Remember: put "Political Question" in the subject line, try to keep it short and sweet, and let me know if you want me to use your real name or not (or where you're from).

# # # #

Dear Spencerian Editors:

What's with all the wasted resources on the American Community Survey?

Thanks.

Recrat Demopublican

# # # #

Thanks, Recrat --

First of all, let's be totally fair to Recrat: he asked a great question.  The only problem with it was that it was in the neighborhood of, oh, around 1,250 words.  The highlights he asked about involved wasted resources in producing the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey in the area of money, time, energy, and paper.

Turns out the ACS, as it's called, has kind of a surprsing base of "haters" (if you will).  I think Recrat's setup begins to speak to the core of the animosity towards how this Constitutionally mandated function is executed.

Recently, I was notified via mail that I was a picked "at random" as a participant in the American Community Survey.  Then, a week or so later, I received the survey itself.  If it follows the same pattern as the 2010 Census, I will get two more notifications, and someone will show up at the door to ask me the questions even though it has been filled out and sent in.  Barring any other concern about the 2010 Census and focusing on the ACS, this is what I (along with 3 million other Americans) received:

• Pre-notice Letter
• Introductory Letter
• ACS Questionnaire
• ACS Instruction Guide
• Frequently Asked Questions Brochure
• Follow-up Letter
• Reminder Card
• Outgoing Envelope
• Return Envelope

Couple of things right out of the gate.  First, Recrat, you were randomly selected.  Your quotes indicate you don't really believe this, but I've yet to see any evidence of anyone being targeted.  In fact, targeting people in America to count would be counterproductive to what the ACS and Census are supposed to do. 

The other thing I notice about this is that you are legally obligated to complete the survey.  It's a misdeameanor and a fine if you don't.  I have a strong suspicion this is the driving force behind a lot of the opponents of the ACS, like this site:

250,000 homes are now being targeted every month by the Census Bureau and its corporate lackeys to comply, under threat of prosecution, with a survey demanding answers to over 70 privacy invading questions. Questions, that as Congressman Ron Paul and others have pointed out, are none of the government's business.

"...under threat of prosecution..."  That's one of those phrases I really hate.  I live "under threat of prosecution" if I go fifty miles an hour above the speed limit, too -- but you don't see me complaining about that.

So what is it about the ACS that has the Ron Paul/Tea Bag Party/Libertarian collective panties in a wad? 

Here's a link to the actual ACS survey [PDF].  Now, this is where I am just a little different than everyone else.  I read through the 14 page PDF, and found nothing so intrusive as to offend me.  But I don't really have any secrets.  It'd take a lot for me to turn away a Constitutionally-empowered Census taker.  Certainly more than things like:

• My name
• The name of the people who live in my house
• How many acres my house is on, how many rooms it has and how it is heated and cooled
• How much I pay in rent (if I rent, which I don't)
• If anyone has gotten food stamps in the last 12 months in my house
• Questions about my mortgage (whether they payments cover property taxes, etc.)
• My age, race, other languages I speak in my home (does baby talk count?)
• Questions regarding military service
• Questions around health insurance, disabilities, and employment

There's more, to be sure.  But I found none of it to be so intrusive I wouldn't share it with my government.  

Where I do scratch my head a little bit -- and this gets more to your point, Recrat -- is that some of those questions I'd expect the government to already know.  For example, how hard is it to know if I'm on food stamps or not.  The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (what used to be called food stamps) is run out of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  The Census and ACS are run out of the Department of Commerce.

USDA, Commerce.  Commerce, USDA.  So glad I could introduce you guys.  Just wait until you meet the Department of Defense.  Those guys can tell us all about military personnel.  We'll get the VA in here to tell us about veterans, and when we get Health and Human Services, it'll be a party! 

My point in a less snarky way is this: why are they asking me if I've gotten food stamps?  If I'm on food stamps, someone at USDA knows it.  Why not ask them?  If I'm a veteran, won't someone at the VA know this?  It speaks to effeciency and cross-departmental workings that I'm not so sure exist right now.     

But Recrat's question wasn't really about the content of the survey, the merits of which we could argue all day.  His question spoke more to waste.  Let's look at his point on paper usage:

Paper:   I am not a crazy environmental activist, and I even question the actual savings when related to energy consumption on recycling, but even I am appalled at the waste of paper here.  That is three letters, a reminder card, the survey itself, a glossy FAQ brochure, and a 16-page "how to answer questions in this survey" booklet, plus the survey itself, and envelopes for all of the outgoing and return mailings except for the card times three million.  The letters alone are 9 million wasted pieces of 8½" x 11" paper.  Think about that number.  I don't think I've ever seen 9 million of anything.  The survey itself couldn't have stated its purpose on the opening page without the need of a cover letter?  Did we really need the 16-page guide on filling out the survey?  Including the support phone number wasn't enough?  I am not even factoring in the ink and envelope glue here.  It is 2010; I would think that most people have access to the internet or a telephone, even if it is someone else's phone or the internet at a local library (which is still free in most communities, right?).  Why not send out a post-card or registered letter instructing people to take the survey via the web or by phone?  It can't be much different from what has already been set up as a "support" to the paper survey.

I don't think I've ever seen 9 million of anything, either, Recrat.  And I actually like your post-card idea -- except here are two problems on this issue.

First, not everyone has access to the Internet, or even a phone.  I know, I know -- I'm in the marketing and PR business, and this issue comes up all the time.  Everyone has a cell phone, everyone has a computer, or can get to a computer -- even poor people.  Eh.  Maybe (I'd debate that point, and note that you need some way to count who has access to this stuff and who doesn't...)

But here's the second thing: remember how we said this is a Constitutionally mandated thing?  In other words, you are legally obligated to do this.  Rather than just mail you your 14-page form along with a legal-ese letter which tells you to either do this or get arrested, the Census folks have determined it's better to give people every opportunity to fill out the forms themselves and send them back. 

The point here is, the Census Bureau has clearly made a cost/benefit determination that it's better to spend the money on printing and paper to make sure folks get this thing done than to have to invest in a far costlier process of following up after the fact.

I suspect this is all applicable to energy, time, and manpower, too -- it's just a necessary expenditure.

While I do take a certain pride in being selected for performing a civic duty, I cannot help but wonder about the deployment of something like this on such a massive scale.  I understand that one may feel that the collection of this data is imperative, but perhaps the process through which it has been undertaken can be reviewed.  Perhaps the next time this survey is taken, eliminating so much paper will be a more viable option with new technologies appearing almost daily.

Here's one thing I can guarantee, Recrat: the next Census and ACS will be different from this one.  Yes, technologically it will probably be behind the curve -- but I'm also willing to bet (based on conversation with research colleagues who know a whole lot more than I do), that they'll be able to utilize what technology they can to glean great amounts of information.

Which leads me back to one last word on content -- and perhaps a disturbing confluence on collection effeciency.  Those who dislike the ACS and Census, who think it is "Orwellian", those who want to "just say no" to the ACS, are barking up the wrong tree.  

Ever purchased anything with a credit card?  Ever subscribed to a magazine?  Ever bought a home, applied for a loan, signed up for one of those "shopper's club" key fob deals at the supermarket?  Started an online account of any kind?

If your answer was yes to any of those (and there's much more), then there is a corporation out there with your information.  And by "your information," I mean a profile, a portfolio on you that can be bought, then sold to the highest bidder. 

I mentioned earlier I'm in the marketing and PR world.  That's true, and I've seen some presentations from marketing firms that would make your skin crawl.  These companies know so much about you, from a marketing point of view, it's totally awesome.  

From a citizen's point of view, it's pretty goddam creepy. 

I'm not sure if the effeciency is worth the actual Orwellian connotations we'd get from this kind of public/private partnership, but I wonder if the Census folks will ever work with the marketing world and corporations who know so much about such a broad swath of Americans, anyway.  Those corporations certainly know how to be effecient about it. 

Thanks for your question, Recrat.    

# # # #

I LIKE ANSWERING POLITICAL QUESTIONS.  GOT ONE?  Ask whatever political question you want.  Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com

Q & A: Dragon Rising

ASK ME A POLITICAL QUESTION -- PLEASE.  I'M BEGGING YOU!  Do you have a question about politics?  Most of us do.  I've been involved in politics for a little while, now.  Why not ask me?  I'll do my best, though I make no guarantees you'll love the answer.  Email me at bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com.

# # # #

Dear Spencerian Editors:

Seeing that China is becoming increasingly globalized and very much integrated with the international community, is then China's liberalization of mass media since 2001 largely due to international pressure rather than domestic demand?

Jen

# # # #

Thank you for your question.

Hey, has anyone else noticed that the last few questions I've gotten on We Answer Your Political Questions are very heavy-duty, complicated questions involving international affairs? 

I will say it again: international stuff is my weak spot.  I'm not well-versed in it (though I do enjoy reading about things happening around the globe, and I stay very curious about our world in general).  Still, I will try to answer this very good question for Jen. 

First and foremost, let me please recommend to you Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American World.  You can read an excerpt here.  He talks about a lot of places in this book, a lot about America, a lot about India.  But he also covers, quite extensively, the inevitable rise of China. 

Again, I'm not the global affairs expert I wish I could be, but this is some of the most interesting political text I've seen in some time.  Frankly, it made me want to go to China.  It would appear that China is in the midst of conducting an experiment in globalization, trade, capitalism, and national growth the likes of which no one has ever really seen before.

Zakaria tells a great story about how the Chinese want to build this road.  They bring over some engineers, I think from England.  The Chinese leaders tell the engineers where they want the road.  The engineers say, Yeah, okay, but there's like a whole town right there, right in the middle...  And the Chinese leaders say, Don't worry, it won't be there in six months.  And sure enough, it wasn't.

When you're powerful enough at the top, you can do anything.  Even move a whole town to build a road.

So what does that comment about China's power have to do with your question of the liberalization of their mass media?  Well, I think it speaks to the part of your question about China's increasing globalization, their integration with the world.  See, when I think about a country that is "globalized," that is well-assimilated in the global community, I think of a country that has a powerful base -- a country that is less top-heavy, so to speak.  In other words, a country where the people wield the power, not the party leaders or the folks at the head of government. 

In other words, a country like America. 

One of the very nice tools a globally integrated country has in their tool belt is a liberalized -- or free -- mass media.  Again, like America.  Now, Americans will tell you our mass media system is flawed, and I'll be the first to agree.  We need more ownership and more diverse ownership of media companies.  Because systems move so fast, and because there's a 24-hour news cycle, our media can often follow a kind of hive mind (see the disastrous cheer-leading of the Iraq War, for example).  But those are problems from, if you'll forgive the phrase, almost too much freedom.  So much freedom, in other words, we've started to tune stuff out.  That's bad.

And it's also a post for another time. 

The final answer to your question, Jen, is that China's baby steps on media liberalization are due in some part to international "pressure," such as it is, as well as domestic demand (I'm going to talk about the long road the Chinese have to hoe in  a moment).  That "pressure" should not be read solely as diplomatic pressure, though I suppose there is plenty of that.  I think the pressure comes in the form of both the international community as well as the Chinese leadership wanting to do business with one another.  To put it a crude way, it is in the Chinese and American and global interests to work together.  If an effect of this is a liberalized mass media, then that's simply a cost of doing business (from the point of view of the Chinese). 

The "domestic demand" you mention shouldn't be disregarded, either.  I simply refuse to believe that this economically booming country with the largest population on the planet can keep its population at bay with respect to media forever.

But it sure looks like they're trying.  A lot. 

Nonetheless, I think China's proverbial blog has already been published, if you will.  I mean, I believe that "liberalization" you mention, Jen, will inevitably continue.  China just doesn't have any choice -- and neither do the rest of us.   

Thanks for your question.

# # # #

I'M NOT AS DUMB AS I LOOK -- GIVE ME A POLITICAL QUESTION: Ask whatever political question you want.

Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com

Q & A: Repairing the Middle East

ASK ME A POLITICAL QUESTION -- WHAT'S THE WORST THAT CAN COME FROM IT?  Do you have a question about politics?  You know you do.  Everybody does.  I've been involved in politics for a little while, now.  Why not ask me?  I'll do my best, though I make no guarantees you'll love the answer.  Email me at bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com.

# # # #

Hi.

Few days ago Israeli forces attacked Turkish aid ships.

[With respect to relations] between Israel and United States, what should [the] United States do with this situation to make [the] Israeli and Turkish relationship better?

Thanks.

E.T.

# # # #

Thank you for the question.

Two very big, very broad caveats right up front.  One, I know very little about international relations.  Second, I understand even less about the issues in Israel and the Middle East generally.  I'm not exactly proud of this, but given the complexity of the relationships in that part of the world, I don't suspect that I'm alone in my ignorance. 

E.T. is right -- several weeks ago, Israelis boarded a Turkish aid ship bound for the disputed territory of Gaza and killed a number of people on board, including an American citizen.  The international reaction was outrage and anger at what appeared to be an unjustified taking of life.

And that's about the best I can do to describe the situation without making it any more political than it already is.  If that's the best a clueless spin-meister like me can do, imagine how hard these issues are for our top diplomats.     

E.T., my point is this: I do not have the answer to peace in the Middle East.  But your question is a little bit different, isn't it?  Your question speaks to America's role as a facilitator between two countries which are, well, at odds. 

I am a strong believer in America's role as a global example of prosperity and good will.  And after eight years of a fairly nasty cold-shoulder to the rest of the globe, cowboy-style, there is recent evidence which shows we are slowly rebuilding our positive image on the world stage.  That said, the same evidence may show that Obama (specifically the president, versus America as a whole) may be less popular among Muslims in other countries.  This impacts our question about Israel and Turkey.

(Check out the Liz Halloran NPR story on this data here.)

So, I'm going to break away from what I traditionally do with the "We Answer Your Political Questions" segement, which is reasearch stuff and try to present you with real evidence, fact-based stuff in which you can draw a conclusion about your question yourself.  

I'm just going to kind of, well, pull a George W. Bush, ironically enough, and go with my gut. 

I think that countries with problems respons best when America pays attention.  

And that's pretty much it.  We need to pay attention to Turkey (and the other Muslim-based Arab and African countries), and we need to pay attention to Israel.  And I'm not just talking about throwing money at the problem (though money does help).  

I don't mean to belittle the hours, days, months, even years and decades that countless diplomats have dedicated to Middle East peace (not to mention just about every modern president).  And I don't mean to belittle the intense feelings these issues arouse in many Americans.  It divides conservatives and liberals, Jews and Muslims, those who envision peace and those who think war is the only answer.  

When I heard about Israel attacking that aid ship, I was disgusted.  Why would they do that?  Who would commit such a horrible act against civilians?  To what end?  And then a lot of the discussion was consumed by the spectacle surrounding the disgraceful remarks made by now-retired journalist Helen Thomas.  

It was easier to vilify Thomas for her awful remarks than to carry on a frank and important discussion about Israel, Turkey, and critical and complicated relations in the Middle East.  So yes, in a way I'm sort of faulting the dreaded "mainstream media" here, for missing an opportunity.  This isn't a practice I'm particularly enamored with, by the way.  But in this instance, it's necessary.

But the media and our own ignorance are not the only culprits: so is politics.  I may not understand the full scope and depth of our relationship with Israel, but you don't need to work at the United Nations to know that A.) they are a critical and key strategic ally for us in that part of the world, B.) there are a large number of pro-Israel American Jews in this country -- and they vote.  I don't mean to sound crass, E.T., but let's at least be honest.  A lot of policy gets made, a lot of politics gets done because politicians respond to two things (typically): money and votes.  That's politicians of all partisan stripes, by the way.  

Here's my last go-from-the-gut thought on this, E.T.  I think that the way Israel and Turkey (and others in the Middle East with adverse Israeli relations) come to find peace and prosperity is to work it out themselves.  I believe the only realistic convening body is America. 

The Israeli raid was a setback towards the peace we all want for the region.  Can America still help our friends, partners and allies (and even those who aren't) in the Middle East?  I don't think there's any other way towards the peaceful ends we all want.

Thanks for the question.

# # # #

I'M NOT AS DUMB AS I LOOK -- GIVE ME A POLITICAL QUESTION: Ask whatever political question you want.

Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com

Q & A: All Over the Map

ASK ME A POLITICAL QUESTION -- WHAT'S THE WORST THAT CAN COME FROM IT?  Do you have a question about politics?  You know you do.  Everybody does.  I've been involved in politics for a little while, now.  Why not ask me?  I'll do my best, though I make no guarantees you'll love the answer.  Email me at bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com.

# # # #

Dear Spencerian Editors:

I admit that I am basically politically ignorant.  Much of what I hear comes from Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann.  I realize that there is more “commentary” than actual questions, and I expect that much of the commentary might have to be excluded, but these are honest questions.

When the country elected Obama, in large part (as I understand it) because he was against the “immoral, mismanaged war started on false pretenses in Iraq ”, why, after more than a year later, are we still fighting?  Really, can’t the US just pack up and leave Iraq , or has Obama decided that this war is worth fighting after all?  Don’t tell me that we can’t leave a weak government in turmoil because a lot of people would die.  If it was immoral to interfere with Saddam Hussein who had been killing his own people for years, what’s the problem with leaving Iraq and letting the cards fall where they may, so to speak, allowing a new government to emerge on its own?

President Obama said that America has been arrogant.  I couldn’t agree more. Who are we to think that we can save the world and keep our standard of living?  I think that the epitome of arrogance (and pride) is giving away tax dollars that we don’t have.  The US has come under a lot of criticism both from within and from without for the way we’ve tried to help the rest of the world since, say WWII.  We were never really fair about it and often had ulterior motives.  We will always have tragedies, both natural and man made, and we can’t fix them all, or even most of them, so let’s not try anymore.  No more tax dollars for tragedies like Haiti.  If the American people want to help, let them donate all they want, but no more tax dollars.  Let the other countries carry the burden for a while.  (OK, one possible exception.  The government could pledge any remaining war debts owed to the US to help other countries in natural disasters.  I understand that only Finland actually paid off its’ WWI debts and there still might be some outstanding WWII debts unless Clinton forgave them all.)  But I digress.  What would happen if the US became isolationists again?  No more foreign aid or military intervention and only defense military spending.  We have to have some military spending because, after all, we don’t want to be another Kuwait.  (To paraphrase an old bumper sticker, I think that Kuwait had great schools but the military had to hold bake sales for their bombers.)

What is being done by the US concerning Iran and North Korea's weapons of mass destruction?  If we actually kept to ourselves, would we have to worry about weather Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons?

I was disappointed that Proposition 8 passed in California.  However, the Mormons virtually took all the heat.  If I became aware that a proposition that was clearly “wrong, discriminating and immoral” (as I understand the opponents of Proposition 8 describe it) was going to be on the ballot for a vote in my state, I wouldn’t be campaigning against the proposition, per se, I would be shouting from the rooftops, “Who is responsible for something so wrong and immoral getting on the ballot in the first place, and how do I stop it before it ever goes to a vote?”  Bill Maher says that the American people are as dumb as his dog.  When those dumb Mormons saw it on the ballot, they actually thought they had a choice! (Some stupid notion of democracy in action, I suppose.)  Why hasn’t a single critic of proposition 8 (as far as I know) ever put the blame for this” injustice” on the people or the system that allowed the proposition to get on the ballot in the first place?

Sincerely,
Scott

# # # #

Congratulations, Scott -- you win the prize for the most thorough and all-over-the-map questions I've ever gotten!  Also, I hope you don't mind, I left your email in its entirety, because I thought it served a good purpose: to set the stage for your actual questions, which I've left bolded as you have.

First of all, you could do a lot worse than to get your political information from Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann.  That being said, you seem like a smart guy with an interest in a wide range of issues -- expand your horizons!  Start with the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Huffingtonpost.  Also, be sure to check out my blogroll to the left.  Surf around and see what people are saying. 

Don't limit yourself to liberal voices, either.  You'll thank me later if you can think through both sides of an argument.  It's a skill worth having in politics.

Alright.  On to the questions!

I couldn't agree more on your question with respect to leaving Iraq -- and so it's good new that that's exactly what we're doing!

A major transformation is underway in Iraq. Each day U.S. forces hand over more responsibility for security to the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police. As this moves along, the number of U.S. forces in Iraq will shrink to no more than 50,000 by August 2010 from approximately 132,000 now. Further, as directed by President Barack Obama, all U.S. forces will be out of Iraq by the end of December 2011. As we proceed with this drawdown, the role of U.S. forces in Iraq will transition to primarily focus on advising Iraqi forces instead of fighting terrorism directly.

[Bold mine.] Wow, troop levels down to almost a third of what they were in June of last year.  Sounds like we're leaving, right, Scott?

Okay, I'll be intellectually honest with you -- I know what you're saying: why can't we just get all our troops out of there and bring them home (I know this because you allude to this notion in a later question we'll get to in a second).  The short answer is, because as much as we might want it to, ending war simply doesn't work that way.  You just don't put 132,000 men and women in a bunch of boats and a bunch of airplanes and bring them home.  It requires a lot of planning, a lot of transition work, and a lot of time and -- ironically -- people and resources.  This, by way of example, is the work of the 15th Sustainment Brigade. 

I'm leaving your secondary questions in that paragraph about Iraq for the time being -- we'll get to that next.

The answer to the question -- "What would happen if the U.S. became isolationist again?" -- is complete and utter global disaster.  In most definitions regarding American isolationism, you'll find references to George Washington's Farewell Address, and Thomas Paine's Common Sense. 

Hey, who could make a better argument for isolationism than those guys, right?

Except, Scott, times have changed, whether you or I or George or Thomas like it or not.  America is -- by a factor of a lot -- the richest country in the world.  Now, we can talk about American imperialism all day, but to specifically address your question, let's focus on that what it means to be the richest country in the world and what our moral obligations are as such.  And what the consequences might be for not fulfilling our obligations. 

You say that we have never been fair with our foreign aid.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Do we fix Haiti?  Is it worth it?  Do we fix Chile?  Is it worth it?  What about failed states like Somalia?  Is it worth it?  What about states that are close to failing, like Yemen?  Is it worth it? 

What about other places we haven't even mentioned yet?  Where do we go?  Where do we not go?

My personal position is that it is the moral obligation of all Americans to go to countries where our help is needed and wanted -- and to intervene in countries in which we have a moral obligation to do so, but our help may not be wanted (Somalia may be a good example, and so would Bosnia in the 1990s).  You don't exist as a country as rich with resources as we are not to help sustain other civilizations around the globe -- you exist as a country as rich as we are in order to help our global neighbors.  Otherwise, what's the point? 

One last point here, and that is the spending.  I'm linking you to a Numbers Game post I did a few days ago on this issue.  Remember, the vast bulk of our spending is on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment help, and a whole raft of domestic programs and agencies.  You may still say the roughly 20% or so we spend on Defense and Homeland Security is way, way too much.  You won't get a disagreement from me, necessarily.  But what I will say is, let's not just chop the whole thing down -- we can go through it in a sort of surgical way and figure out what we need and what we don't.

Your next question is a good follow-up to this, and I'll start by saying that I'm not only not a foreign policy expert, I know precious little about the situations in Iran and North Korea.  What I do know scares the crap out of me.  To directly answer your question about "keeping to ourselves," I'd say these two instances are exactly why we shouldn't. 

What about an insane despot having a nuclear weapon would lead us to believe that keeping to ourselves would be a good idea?  Yes, Iran pretty much wants to nuke Israel, and you could retort by saying, Well, if we didn't care so much about Israel, then it wouldn't matter, right?  Except for addressing massive scale of human loss, we should intervene with Iran because we do care about Israel for a host of reasons you can either agree with or disagree with.  With respect to North Korea, there's almost no question that they would nuke South Korea if they had the chance, and maybe even Japan. 

No country with any level of resources that has even a slight moral center can let this pass.

With respect to Proposition 8 in California, I regret to tell you, Scott, that I don't know that much about it.  Like you, I was disappointed it passed.  I will tell you that I think it's stupid, and I think it's bad politics.  To get to your question, and to be fair, I have seen a number of arguments against "the system that allowed the proposition to get on the ballot in the first place."  Time Magazine had a piece on California's broken system here.  The Merced Sun-Star called the system "out of control."  There are other examples out there of folks decrying a busted system.  I'll let you find them, Scott.   

Scott, these are all tough questions.  And in tough times, it's easy to say let's withdraw -- let's focus internally for a little bit.  I think we should, but I think we need to not forget the problems around the globe.  America is not the world's policeman, and we need to be careful how we proceed.  But this is why we elected Barack Obama in large part -- to make these kinds of thoughtful, well-balanced decisions. 

The lesson we learned globally under George W. Bush is the same one the California ballot initiative fiasco, is teaching us: sometimes you just need a new way of doing business. 

Thanks for the questions, Scott.

# # # #

I'M NOT AS DUMB AS I LOOK -- GIVE ME A POLITICAL QUESTION: Ask whatever political question you want.

Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com

Q & A: Paying the Cost to be the Boss

YOU CAN ASK ME -- I DON'T BITE:  Do you have a question about politics?  Sure you do.  Everybody does.  Why not ask me?  Come on -- don't live your life not knowing.  I'll do my best, though I make no guarantees you'll love the answer.  

Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com

# # # #

Dear Spencerian Editors:

The Supreme Court just struck down a law that will now allow companies and unions to spend as much as they want in advertising for or against a political candidate.  They still can not contribute directly to the campaigns.

Question:  What percentage of a candidate's campaign funds go towards advertising?  This question becomes relevant because if private companies and unions pay for all the advertising, it frees up all the remainder of the candidate's funds for all other expenses, which makes the argument about "not being able to contribute directly to the candidate" moot.  Right?

David S.

# # # #

What an awesome first question for the first We Answer Your Political Questions of 2010.  Thank you, David.

First, let me say that rarely will you find good resources and good entertainment all on one subject on one blog.  In this case, you will find both -- in spades -- at my friend Kevin's Ghost in the Machine.  Read Lo, Here Comes the Flood for analysis and links to reactions from around the web.  Then check out his next post, in which he chronicles his epic online battle of words with smug Glenn Greenwald.  It is an investment of your time, and you have my guarantee that it is worth every minute.  (And for the record, I echo Kevin's position on this issue.)

A few more resources before I weigh in on your question.  

If you have any interest at all in campaign finance (or even just politics generally), I strongly encourage you to visit OpenSecrets.org, a website of the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.   

Your next stop is the National Institute on Money in State Politics, also non-partisan and non-profit.  David, we're going to especially want to check out their nifty interactive "industry influece" chart tool.

You can find who is donating to who at Newsmeat.com.  Also take a look at Congressional Quarterly's MoneyLine.

The Huffington Post has an interesting map as well.

There are a lot of bloggers that write about politics (this blogger included, obviously), but few cover it quite as succinctly or quite as well as The Campaign Manager, who has had some great posts on campaign advertising.

Of course, you'll want to bookmark the Federal Election Commission's reporting page.

If you're in Florida (like me), you can check out the contribution and spending history of your local and state-wide candidates at the Florida Department of State's Division of Election's website.  

Okay, on to your question: "What percentage of a candidate's campaign funds go towards advertising?"  Well, of course it depends on the candidate, and it depends on the office for which they are running.

According to Fast Company, in 2008, Obama spent something like $124,391,585.64 for "media/ad services" and McCain spent $49,528,063.66.  This money went to ad firms to produce TV, radio and I suppose print advertising as well. 

But don't be fooled -- that's actually a very narrow definition of "advertising".  What about bumper stickers?  Yard signs?  Billboards?  And the now all-important online advertising?  

You add all that up, and according to FactCheck.org, Obama outspent McCain on "advertising" by nearly 3 to 1.  Their answer to this question, with respect to Obama and McCain, is pretty good:

According to figures supplied by the campaign Media Analysis Group of TNS Media Intelligence, Obama has spent an estimated $280 million on TV advertising since Jan. 1 of last year through Nov. 1.

McCain has spent less than half as much, just under $134 million, according to CMAG, which tracks advertising in the top TV markets.

[SNIP]

During the 60 days ending Nov. 1, Obama has outspent McCain on television by better than 2.5-to-1. And in the most recent week, Obama has spent $23.6 million to McCain's $4.8 million, a spending advantage of nearly 5-to-1.

That's some serious cash.  

David, there are so many offices on the federal and state level in so many different markets, that it would take me all day to answer.  For example, a candidate for State Representative in the Tampa Bay area will probably have to spend a lot more on advertising that a candidate for State Representative in a more rural county.  The Senate race here in Florida between Kendrick Meek and whoever wins the Crist/Rubio cage match is going to cost millions in advertising dollars.

Let's get to the second part of your question.  "...if private compaines and unions pay for all the advertising, it frees up all the remainder of the candidate's funds for all other expenses..." 

You've made an assumption that doesn't hold up, I'm afraid.  The point of the Supreme Court decision is not about contributing directly to a candidate or not, it's about the limits on corporate spending in campaigns, and how corporations are defined in the context of political campaigns. 

Let's just say that you or I like Candidate Bill Jones.  We like him for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is he's an environmentalist and he is pro cap-and-trade.  He's running against Candidate Frank Smith, who is vehemently opposed to cap-and-trade as bad for business.  

As individuals, you or I can contribute to Candidate Jones.  And so we do.  This contribution -- let's say we gave him twenty-five bucks -- as defined by the Court, is speech, the same as if we sent a letter to the editor of our local paper, stood on a street corner with a sign, spoke at our local VFW, or offered a prayer in our church.  

While you're pondering that, Candidate Frank Smith is talking to the government affairs team at Exxon/Mobil.  Exxon/Mobil is not much of a fan of cap-and-trade.  

But Exxon/Mobil, the Court has said, is in essence a person -- just like you, just like me.  So, as a person, Exxon/Mobil produces a short but vicious biographical film on Bill Jones and plans to air it in our media market for two months leading up to the election.  They also front the cost for several newspaper advertisements critical of Bill Jones.  They buy radio time.  They produce a website and blog that are updated regularly which are harshly critical of Bill Jones.  A team of videographers now follows Bill Jones around.  Three weeks before Election Day, crowds begin to show up at Bill Jones rallies with t-shirts, flags, banners and signs that say "Down with Bill Jones!"

It's paid for with money... er, I mean it's speech, as "spoken" by the limitless "voice" of the person named Exxon/Mobil.

Hey, everyone's equal under the Constitution, right?  And just as we gave twenty-five bucks to our guy, Exxon/Mobil can give money to support their own guy... and tear ours down. 

You might say that Candidate Bill Jones just needs to make friends with his own corporations -- and now that we have the Supreme Court's decision, he will.  But do we really want the candidates who get elected to be the ones with the best corporate connections?  

The second part of your question assumes that folks like you and I will still give twenty-five bucks to candidates knowing that they can just as easily get half a million dollars (or whatever -- it's limitless) from any corporation whose interests they promise to support.  Who do you think our fictional anti-environment candidate Frank Smith will be more beholden to were he to get elected?  His own twenty-five dollar donors or the boys down at Exxon/Mobil who engineerd his victory via the destruction of his opponet?

I recently talked to a friend about this whole issue, and his position is like that of many Americans, I think.  He doesn't necessarily see the difference between what the Supremes have said and the way things have been in the past.  Corporations, political action committees, unions, and other special interests have always had undue influence in politics -- this Supreme Court ruling, my friend says, just validates all of that.  And if anything, makes it all a bit more transparent.  

All of this is to say, no, being able to utilize corporate money -- "speech" -- in a political campaign does not "free up" other campaign money for "all other expenses".  It only makes candidates more beholden to corporate interests, not the interests of their constituents or potential constituents.

Let's remember how all of this came about --  Hillary: The Movie (loving the ominous, dark clouds behind her!  Is shame really that dead?  Apparently...)  This "movie" was produced by a guy named David Bossie who is president of Citizen's United -- thus the name of the Court case -- and who makes you want to take a shower just looking at him.  The movie was partially produced with corporate funds, thus the legal challenges.  

But please make no mistake, David.  This movie had nothing to do with "freeing up funds" for Senator Clinton's primary challengers or would-be Republican challengers.  It has everything to do with attempting to destroy a politician, and having corporations assist in doing so.  The Supreme Court merely abetted this philiosophy.

What does this mean for the future?  I'd look for a lot more "Hillary: The Movie"-type things out there, on a lot of different levels.  Which is to say, unless you're a millionaire movie producer, David, look forward to having your already diminished voice in the democratic process further diminished.

# # # #

SHOW ME THE POLITICAL QUESTIONS: Ask whatever political question you want.  Just remember that I'm not as smart as I look.

Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com 

Q & A: Methinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much

GO AHEAD AND ASK -- YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO: Do you have a political question?  Who doesn't.  Go ahead and ask me.  I can't promise you'll like the answer, but I can promise to try.  Well.  I'll try to try.  How about that? 

Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com

# # # #

Dear Spencerian Editors:

On a local political radio station, one of the reporters stated that it is a crime to protest/complain against President Obama's decision on continuing to support the Patriot Act put in place by the Bush administration, is this true?

Angelo

# # # #

Dear Angelo:

What a really good question, thank you.

Okay, first: stop listening to those "political" radio stations.  Except for my friends at the award-winning Florida Progressive Radio!  (How's that for a shameless plug?)

Angelo, the short, easy answer to your question is no.  I would encourage you to look at the actual act, which I've linked to in your question.  Despite many of the problems of the Patriot Act (which we'll get to in a minute), we are still guaranteed our freedom of speech, our freedom to peaceably assemble, and our freedom to petition the government about stuff we don't like.  It's the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and no one has taken any white-out to it, yet.

Now, that being said, some have argued that this is exactly what the Bush/Cheney Administration was trying to do with the Patriot Act.

But first, back to why I answered your question with a definitive "no."  The Patriot Act does not make protesting a crime.  Where your radio friends are getting confused is that the act defines something new called "domestic terrorism."  The recent tragedy at Fort Hood, and the subsequent debate, demonstrates that there is certainly no consensus around the concept of what a "terrorist" is, or what "terrorism" is -- domestic or international.  The Patriot Act has done nothing to clarify this, and in fact has only muddied the waters by identifying whatever "domestic terrorism" may be.  Here's the language from the act itself:

...the term ''domestic terrorism'' means activities that -
  (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
  (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
  and
  (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Okay, (A) I can understand.  In other words, we're using this new phrase -- "domestic terrorism" -- to describe things that are criminal and pose a danger to others.  I can deal with that, though to be honest with you, I'm not sure what was wrong with just calling them "criminals" before. 

I'm skipping over to (C).  This makes sense.  I mean, "domestic" means the "territorial jurisdiction of the United States."  Hey, it's the law -- they have to spell it all out.

You're going to have some problems in (B).  We don't want people -- "domestic terrorists," apparently -- intimidating or coercing the civilian population.  That's fine.  And I don't want anyone affecting the conduct of government through any of those awful, violent things, either.  And we have determined that intimidation and coercion are bad -- remember (A)? -- but this whole influencing policy thing...

What if I want to, say, peaceably assemble with some buddies of mine, and, oh, I don't know, petition my government for a redress of grievances? 

All of a sudden we're put in a position of asking some frightening questions.  Who now determines what "peaceable" means?  What if those people decide that it's not peaceable?  What if they decide that it's annoying?  What if they decide it's coercion?

Are me and my buddies now "domestic terrorists"?  

Hey, if you think this hasn't happened, Angelo, you'd be wrong.

Finally, this is supposed to be about political questions, so let me point out that this is as much President Obama owning the Patriot Act as it is President Bush giving it to us in the first place.  Angelo, I don't like the Patriot Act because whether or not it actually criminalizes anything (and it does), with respect to what we've talked about here, it at the least has a chilling effect on free speech.  

The Patriot Act exists to give law enforcement and the intelligence community a short-cut.  They want to run wiretaps and gather information on people who may be plotting terrorist activity in America.  This is okay, but I would have expected them to use the processses already in place (like FISA courts).  For whatever reason, Obama has opted to keep the Patriot Act in place.  

My hope is that Obama, over the course of his administration, will slowly untangle the Patriot Act.  Not only for the sake of his political future, but for the sake of our freedoms as well.

# # # #

Got a question?  Email it in: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com

Q & A: Time for a New Font

NOTE: Do you have a political question?  Who doesn't.  Go ahead and ask me.  I can't promise you'll like the answer, but I can promise to try.  Well.  I'll try to try.  How about that?  

Just email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com 

# # # #  

Dear Spencerian Editors:

Just curious about...

When President Carter gave a speech declaring racism against Obama, I noticed that the podium he was speaking from had a different language printed on the front of the podium. 
Questions:
Where was he speaking from?
What language was on the front of the podium?
What is the English translation for it?

I'm not sure if this is the type of political question but I appreciate your time even if you don't know!

:)  be happy :)

Scott N.

# # # #

Hi, Scott.  Thanks for the questions. 

Well, according to the Examiner, President Carter was speaking at the Carter Center in Atlanta.

Meanwhile former President Jimmy Carter weighed in on the Wilson issue, saying the Congressman's comment was "based on racism" and the fact that many Americans are unhappy that we have a black president.

Carter made the comment while repsonding to a question during a town hall meeting at his presidential center in Atlanta.

"I think it's based on racism," Carter said. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

So there you go.  Sadly, they didn't provide a picture.  However, YouTube -- savior of all things video -- has it, courtesy the Associated Press:

P>

As best I can tell, that is actually the Carter Center sign, complete with logo.

I'll concede, it's a little difficult to make out, and the cameras don't capture it too often.

What do you think, Scott -- time for a new visual for the Carter Center?

Q & A: For Sake of Service?

Ed. Note: Do you have a political question?  Go ahead and ask me: bkirby816 at Yahoo dot com.  I'll do my best to give you a good answer -- no promises on whether or not you'll like the answer, though...

# # # #

Dear Spencerian Editors:

The public/society, through grants, taxes, charitable donations, etc. pays from half to two thirds (see Note) of a doctor’s  education.  Should not then an essential criteria for entrance to medical school be a desire to serve others, that is the public/society?

Note: copied from the internet Aug. 6, 2009; 
“ ... tuition revenues will be substantially less than one-third of our revenues to support the college.”

by Anonymous, CA

# # # #

Thanks for the question, Anonymous.

Well, here's the short answer: yes.  

I have a great doctor.  He is a nice guy, he seems to know his stuff, he wants me to be healthy, and he's honest with me.

If someone were to ask me if my doctor had a desire to serve others, I'd say without hesitation, "sure."  We need more doctors like my doctor.

I worked in the health care advocacy non-profit world for a few years.  I was exposed to several doctors -- all specialists -- and found each of them to be dedicated to serving a higher cause.  It was a genuine highlight of my professional career to meet and learn from these physicians. 

Anonymous, I'm going to take this in a little different direction than kind of a medical school admission thing.  Of course, our country is in the midst of a "debate" on health care right now.  I say "debate," because the word "debate" implies that there are two reasonable sides working to come to an agreement on a big issue.

Well.

One side is reasonable.

One side is... I guess "out there" is the most polite way to describe them.

Look, here's my dirty little secret, Anonymous: just a few weeks ago, I had major issues with health care reform.  I had some real questions before the issue of President Obama's version of health care reform -- mostly around this idea of a public option, but in larger part around the cost itself.  Now, I think A.) we just ought to do something, anything because the current way we're doing it is not sustainable, and B.) I just don't want to be aligned with the people screaming about killing grandma and death panels and other racist, violent diatribe. 

Which is a shame, because I think we, as a nation, would have gotten farther if we'd had an open, honest, civilized debate about it.  Instead, we had to break out the swastikas, didn't we?  What a shame. 

From my perspective, it starts with branding.  And this is a rare Obama failure.  We should have never approached this as health care reform.  What we are really talking about here, Anonymous, is cost reform. 

Health care costs a lot of money.  But why? 

Well, in part, for the reason you cite: it costs a hell of a lot of money to send doctors to school.  Sending nurses and physician assistants to school isn't exactly cheap, either.  It costs a lot to make drugs and medical devices.  It costs a lot of money to administer hospitals.  In other words, it's an industry that brings in -- and distributes -- a lot of money.  It's a huge part of the American economy.

And its very structure keeps the classes within our society out of balance -- and actually works to keep them out of balance.

Here's the bottom line, Anonymous: we want our doctor's to cost a lot of money.  We want our doctors to spend a ton of money going to school.  If we're honest with ourselves -- and we so rarely are -- we want our drugs to cost a fortune. 

Think about it.  When you're at a party or an event and you say, "I have health insurance from my work," and someone else says, "I don't have insurance," don't you feel just a little bit better?  It's terrible, I know, but we've all been there.  Such is the constant struggle of class division. 

And if we continue this honest conversation, what we have to recognize is that we're going to have to break down some of these walls of class division -- and it starts with health care.

It's not an easy job.  If you don't think this is about class division, then I encourage you to read Anne Hull's frustrating piece in the Washington Post, Squeaking by on $300,000.

Laura Steins doesn't mind saying that she is barely squeaking by on $300,000 a year.

Can you imagine that?  In America?  If I were this woman, I'd have been ashamed.  But apparently while money can buy you a $500 a month gardener and a $40,000 a year nanny -- "non negotiable facts of life and not discretionary" -- it cannot buy you any sense of shame.  

As a vice president at MasterCard's corporate office in Purchase, N.Y., she earns a base pay of $150,000 plus a bonus. This year she'll take home 10 percent less because of a smaller bonus. She receives $75,000 a year in child support from her ex-husband. She figures she will pull an additional $50,000 from a personal investment account to "pick up the slack."

You know, it's almost worse that she works for a credit card company.

I don't want to digress too much, Anonymous, but the "class" part of this discussion is important.  Most Americans are worried about going bankrupt if they fall ill because of poor insurance coverage or no insurance coverage. 

Do you suppose these people are worried about the quality of their health care coverage?  No, that -- along with the nanny and the gardener -- are "non negotiable," I'm sure.  They can afford to pay exorbitant prices for coverage.  Not that they do. 

In fact, it would seem that not much bothers the rich.  They still find time to have a good old fashioned condescension party!

The Steeds are big community volunteers. They're also known for their zany parties. They come up with an idea to get people talking, and soon the invitations are in the mail:

You are invited to a recession party.

Serving: Cheap Wine and Beer with Simple Fare (Costco Deluxe)

Wear: Old Clothes (hand-me down particularly welcome)

Entertainment: Any recession story, joke, poem, item, etc. guests might provide.

Warning: Anyone bringing a hostess gift other than canned goods (to be delivered to a food pantry) will be denied admission.

On the night of the party, Bob greets guests in a T-shirt that says, "Eat Dessert First, Life is Uncertain," and he jokes that that's why we're in this mess in the first place.

One guest who arrives in khakis and a blue blazer says he wanted to wear jeans but his wife wouldn't let him.

"They were so vintage, I couldn't bear it," she says.

Yes, "vintage."  Unbearable.

The party turns out to be spectacular. Champagne and oysters and shrimp followed by a seated luncheon for 70. Steins joins a small group back at the birthday girl's house for a casual supper of lobster bisque. No names, please, the host requests, as if codes for nuclear warheads were discussed and not youth hockey and green grocers. But everyone is being sensitive these days. In the next morning's New York Times is a recession story on how dollar stores are stocking more food items in hard times.

The bold is mine, because wow!  You wouldn't think these people would be so careless.  Please, don't use our names -- we wouldn't want to be identified in any way by... the common folk. 

Not to worry.  We can tell who you are by your khakis.

My point with relaying timely stories like this is not to beat up on the rich, but to demonstrate that they'll do anything -- include shamelessly whore themselves to national publications about how "terrible" their lives are -- to keep the status quo.

Look at some of those protesters against reform, Anonymous.  What are these protesters -- who are really just the front lines of the Hampton's set -- really saying when they call Obama a "socialist" or a "nazi" or worse?  What people fear is not giving those who need it -- some 47 million of our fellow countrymen -- a hand up.  The fear lies in believe that leveling the playing field somehow forces those with care to take a step down.   Will my Medicare benefits be less because of reform?  Will my heart medication cost more because of reform?  Will it cost me more to take care of my grandmother because of reform?  My health plan is expensive and the system is broken, but it's mine...

Those questions aren't about 47 million Americans.  They're about me.  They're about you.  They're about whomever.  It's an individual thing, and it's frightening. 

But that doesn't mean we don't do it.

And if part of our reform discussion -- if we ever really get to it -- centers around the value we place on a physician's education, then we'll be better for it, too. 

Thanks for the question, Anonymous.

# # # #

Have a political question?  Email me: bkirby816 AT yahoo DOT com.

# # # #

Q & A: String Cheese

Dear Spencerian Editors:

Since Obama has had virtually zero experience at governance, yet he has fronted a huge "change" agenda, the questions that resultantly beg to be answered are:  Who is in the background pulling Obama's stings?  and Who will be the financial beneficiaries of this "change" agenda?

Frank
Location unknown

# # # #

Dear Frank:
 
I'm guessing the answer to both questions is ACORN. 

Or the mob (Obama is from Chicago...)

Or, if you're a birther, maybe it's... someone... in... Africa...? I don't know.  (This whole thing is remarkably weak, even for wingnut conspiracy theorists.  Really, you guys are going to need to try harder.)

Or garden-loving hippies.

Or space aliens.

I don't know, Frank.  You choose.  

Fine, let's start at the beginning, here.  The "virtually zero experience at governance" part.  According to his own biography, he

After working his way through college with the help of scholarships and student loans, President Obama moved to Chicago, where he worked with a group of churches to help rebuild communities devastated by the closure of local steel plants.

He went on to attend law school, where he became the first African—American president of the Harvard Law Review. Upon graduation, he returned to Chicago to help lead a voter registration drive, teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and remain active in his community.

President Obama's years of public service are based around his unwavering belief in the ability to unite people around a politics of purpose. In the Illinois State Senate, he passed the first major ethics reform in 25 years, cut taxes for working families, and expanded health care for children and their parents. As a United States Senator, he reached across the aisle to pass groundbreaking lobbying reform, lock up the world's most dangerous weapons, and bring transparency to government by putting federal spending online.

First part first.  I'm always interested at the caveats the Obama-haters place on their inquiries with respect to the president.  "Virtually" zero experience "at governance."  These are the same folks who would be lamenting and bemoaning the presidency of a lifetime bureaucrat if Obama had spent a career in the Senate.  

On the "virtually" piece, I think it's fair to look at where he started.  Working with "a group of churches" and rebuilding local communities.  Frank, I challenge you to find fault with that.  Go ahead.  I'll even give you a hint: Sarah Palin mocked Obama on the campaign trail for all that community organizing.  Be careful, though, Frank.  While Obama was rebuilding communities, Palin's choice was a little less... impactful.  She was a sports broadcaster.  What were you doing after you graduated from college?

Moving on.  After law school -- where he was a leader -- he moved back and helped lead a voter registration drive.  Don't think that's real experience?  I don't know where you live, Frank, but I live in Florida.  I take election stuff -- and those who work to improve the system -- real seriously.  For obvious reasons.

I haven't even mentioned his teaching constitutional law. 

I know this doesn't fit into your paradigm, Frank, but let's state it again:

In the Illinois State Senate, he passed the first major ethics reform in 25 years, cut taxes for working families, and expanded health care for children and their parents.

Wow.  First major ethics reform in 25 years.  Cut taxes.  Expanded health care. 

Oh, and all from the Illinois State Senate!  And that's not all.  He was a United States Senator, too.  Lobby reform.  Government transparency.  Securing dangerous weapons internationally.   

Why, there's that whole governance thing you're looking for.  Glad I could help.

So, with all of that in mind, let's figure out who is pulling those strings, and who might be benefitting from the Obama Presidency.  Here's my proposal, Frank.  There are about 22 issues listed on the WhiteHouse.gov site.  I'll pick three, and see who the ultimate beneficiary of each might be.  From that, we might be able to deduce who is pulling those strings!  Here we go.

We'll start with a biggie: Taxes.  According to them,

• 95% of all working families will receive a tax cut
• 70% of the tax benefits goes to the middle 60% of American workers
• 2 million families will be lifted out of poverty by the tax cuts in the Recovery Act
• More than $150 billion in tax cuts will help low-income and vulnerable households during the economic recovery
• About 1 Million jobs will be created or saved by these tax cuts alone

Wait a minute.  95% of all working families get a tax break?  And according to the impact page at Recovery.gov, there's going to be more than 200,000 jobs created in my state of Florida over the next two years, 31,000 in my home state of Arkansas.  

So just what were all those teabaggers talking about, anyway?

I have to say, Frank -- it looks like the "financial beneficiaries" of the "change" plan are, well, Americans.  

Issue two: Education.  Apparently Obama wants to invest in early childhood education. 

President Obama is committed to providing the support that our youngest children need to prepare to succeed later in school. The President supports a seamless and comprehensive set of services and support for children, from birth through age 5. Because the President is committed to helping all children succeed – regardless of where they spend their day – he will urge states to impose high standards across all publicly funded early learning settings, develop new programs to improve opportunities and outcomes, engage parents in their child’s early learning and development, and improve the early education workforce.

Yeah, I had a sneaking suspicion all along: it's those pesky kids that are pulling Obama's strings! 

Look, don't take Obama's word for it (or mine).  Harvard -- you know, the best university in America? -- has their own take on early childhood development.  When Harvard and my government are in agreement on something, I feel pretty good about it.  

My final issue is Foreign Policy.  This is a tougher one, Frank, because of the complex nature of everything happening around the world.  But give the page a read. I am particularly interested in the part about re-establishing our international alliances.  I believe this is the most important part -- the cornerstone -- of what our foreign policy should be.

Under the previous administration, we operated for eight years as though we could do whatever we wanted on our own -- and it made us less safe.  Now we must renew our image around the world -- not for the sake of Obama's political career, but for the sake of the safety of our global allies, and of all Americans.

So based on that random sample, Frank, I would say that the beneficiaries (financial and otherwise) are the American people and our friends and neighbors across the globe. 

Who is pulling Obama's strings?  All of us are, Frank.  It's called an  empowered democracy, and when we speak, our leadership listens. 

Isn't that refreshing?        

Or, I guess, it could all be run by the mob.

# # # #     

Almost every has a question about politics.  Do you?  Ask me.  I can't promise you'll love the answer, but give it a try -- no strings attached.

Be sure to include your first name, last initial, and location, or tell me if you want to stay anonymous.

Q & A: The Princes of the Party of No

Dear Spencerian Editors --

Do you ever long to party like its 1999?

Seriously, though, do you think the Republican Party’s decision to be the party of “no” will help it gain some seats in the midterm?  Since the GOP has at least on the surface gone back to the small government party, will they be successful in pinning the bailouts on the Dems and making them the scapegoat for our rotten economy?

Peace out, Bro.

Adam K.
Little Rock, AR

Dear Adam --

Thanks for writing.  How are things back home?

First of all, I don’t long to party like it’s 1999 – I always party like it’s 1999.

Just kidding.  I don’t party.  I blog.

Hey, my first question on mid-term elections.

Boy, what perfect timing on this question, given that Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has said today that he will abandon that "party of no", as you call it, and head towards the Democrats.  And Senator Specter is a long serving GOP Senator.

He says that he feels his party – the GOP, that is – has abandoned him and moved rightward.

I don’t think we’ll find anyone to argue that point.

The only exception I take is to your use of the word "decision".  This leaves one to interpret that Republican Party elders made a conscious decision to be the "party of no" – which they unequivocally are.  In my opinion this is simply not the case.  It’s not a decision they made.  They have no choice but to be the party of no.

The same was true for Democrats in the 1990s, after Gingrich’s Republican Revolution of 1994 and the Contract with America.  Democrats were in a position of simply being the party which rejected much of what the Contract did, or tried to do.  Comes with the territory of being in the minority.

I agree with you: one avenue for Republicans to reinvent themselves is as small government conservatives.  But they’re going to have to dramatically re-tool their current model, because small government is not going to align well with the religious fundamentalism of the other wing of the party.  In other words, how do you reconcile being a true small government Republican with being, say, pro-life?  With being abstinence-only?  With being pro-prayer in schools?  With being pro-domestic wiretaps?  "I want government out of your lives… except for when it comes to sex and babies and privacy rights and God…"  Those – and many other examples – simply do not work together anymore.

What’s more, with respect to the values versus small government piece, I think most Americans have caught on.  There have been too many sex scandals and money scandals (on both sides of the aisle, frankly), for most politicians to pitch themselves as credible front-men hoisting the tired banner of morality and decency.  I think we’re changing, in some capacity, the meaning of "morality and decency" in America.  Or at least questioning it.  And this is a good thing.

We elected George W. Bush because he was a Christian and a Honest, Decent guy, who would Treat the Oval Office with Respect.  He was the straight shooter you wouldn't mind having a beer with.  He was the guy you could nod to across the street when you mowed your lawn.  He was the guy with the nice looking family -- not real good with words, heck, but he spoke from the heart.  And you could tell.  Remember, this was after the collective shame we felt after the Clinton stuff.

But now we know that George W. Bush not only drove our economy into a pit for the sake of benefitting a few wealthy Americans, we know he helped unhitch the regulatory system from his friends and benefactors in big business which facilitated trashing the global economy, we know that he lied to get us into a war of choice, and we know that he approved of torture.  We saw the pictures and video of drowning neighborhoods, streets, houses, and families during Hurricane Katrina, all while W. slapped his FEMA director on the back and said "Heckuva job, Brownie."  

Where is the honesty and decency in that?  Where’s the morality?  I’ll take a scandal with a 23-year-old intern any day of the week, thanks.

All of that to say this: if the GOP can refashion itself as a credible, progressively small government party that does not offer pretensions to morality, or profess some sort of claim on God or patriotism (too often confused as one and the same by that party), then they may have a shot in 2010.

Now would be a good time to offer the caveat I always offer when someone asks me about the mid-terms: it’s too early to tell, and it almost all entirely depends on the economy (and to a far lesser degree, the smooth transition between deployment away from Iraq and into Afghanistan; as "smooth" as any machine of war can go, that is).  By the way, the new house conservative at the New York Times, Ross Douthat, covers this from a really interesting point of view in his first installment: what would it mean for Republicans today if Cheney had gotten the GOP nomination in '08 instead of McCain?

This brings us to the final part of your question about "pinning the bailouts" on the Democrats and turning the blame to them for the rotten economy.

You know, maybe.  Terrible way to answer a political question, isn’t it?  But I think it’s too early to tell.

I’ll go out on this limb: if there is any sign – any sign at all, no matter how modest, no matter what form it takes – that the economy is improving, that the bailouts worked, then Obama to a very large degree and Congressional Democrats to a lesser degree will get all of the credit.  Republicans will be even further out to pasture than they are now.

Two points on this. First, if I were a Republican strategist, I might’ve urged my caucus to go a different way.  They’re taking a gamble that, if it doesn’t pay off, bodes very poorly for their future as a party. And even if the economy does stay in the tank, I don’t think that automatically spells a miraculous resurgence for the GOP, a la 1994.  People tend to vote for things, and saying "Ha! See? We told you the bailouts and the big government stuff wouldn’t work!" would not, in my estimation, be a really effective political strategy.

The other more important point is this: I’m worried that the GOP may actually go away.  Look, I don’t like Republican ideals, and I don’t like the GOP machine.  But I think we need it.  I’m one of these rare people who thinks the two-party system works.  As much as we like to think of ourselves as individualistic, as unable to be labeled, most of us in fact fit in either the Democratic camp or the Republican camp.  Those that don’t – swing voters – aren’t the worst people in America.  In my opinion, they’re just less idealistic that the rest of us (GOP or Democrat).  But that’s a question for another day.

I digress.  We need the GOP in America to provide a counterpoint, a countervailing argument to the more liberal side.  If we get a sane GOP back after their trip through the political wilderness, we’ll actually be a stronger country for it.  Our country thrives on an honest debate of differences.  If it’s the same ultra-conservative nut jobs who are insistent on perpetually lecturing America on morality while simultaneously offering excuses for torturing people, while also offering economic "solutions" based on getting rich people richer, then we’re in a world of trouble, brother.

Finally, how come you never send me pictures of my niece anymore?  Would you work on that please?  We miss you and Jennie and Hayden.  Hugs all around from Uncle Ben and Aunt Duncan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# # # #

Do you have a question about politics?  Ask me.  I can't promise you'll love the answer, but go ahead -- take the risk.