If You Can Keep It

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. And  citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

President Trump has taken a confrontational approach to long-standing norms and Constitutional provisions regarding the separation of powers. He has stymied the rights of Congress to exercise oversight by refusing to bring Cabinet level appointments for confirmation and to provide requested materials.  He has diminished judicial branch integrity by implying that judicial interpretations of the law are influenced by their demographic background or political affiliation. He has taken unprecedented steps to expand his executive powers by invoking emergency conditions to transfer monies to his projects after such spending was disapproved by Congress, and by invoking  national security interests to justify his imposition of tariffs, including on traditional allies such as Canada. 

The President’s promise of unconventional governing was part of his appeal during the 2016 election, and many applaud the way that it has played out in practice.  His authoritarian behaviors, however, call into question the continued viability of America’s ability to maintain the separation of powers created by the founding fathers to ensure that the ambitions of the executive could be held in check by the other two.

Most Americans give little thought to the importance of this dynamic.  Focused on their daily lives, many feel that this is just partisan politics in play.  Others, who see the problem,  feel that they can’t  make a difference.  That’s where being a republic comes into play.  We democratically elect representatives to keep informed, represent our views, and safeguard our Constitution.

This brings us to our whistle-blower, who understood the gravity of a presidential action that sought to influence a foreign power [and hence be subject to blackmail by this power] to provide dirt on a political opponent. This  individual came forward, at some risk, precipitating our current imbroglio. Not surprisingly this individual has come under attack as being unpatriotic when just the opposite is true. Would that those who provided him/her with the information also stepped forward to publically voice their concerns.

Political realities ensure the President’s characterization of the call will be supported by most Republicans.  The same was true during the Congressional inquiry into President Nixon’s cover-up of the break-in of the Democratic National Committee offices. In the past select Republican leaders worked to ‘keep our republic’ by putting their country before party.  Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee put facts before party during the Watergate hearings by asking what the President knew and when he knew it.  Keeping our republic requires the same courage this time around. 

It's Not About the Wall

The current standoff between the President and Democratic Congressional leaders is more about
establishing the power Democrats hold in a divided government than in building a wall.  
It is a battle Democrats cannot afford to lose. If they blink now, the President will use similar
‘my way or the highway’ ploys to bend them to his will for the next two years.

Democrats have carefully chosen their battle.  They hold the high ground in this debate.
Most Americans are against building the wall and the facts support their position. Illegal migration is
down some 80 percent from peak levels,  and the number of illegals residing in the United States
continues to decline, albeit slightly. Today’s border issue deals with the large numbers of families
seeking asylum, groups that present themselves to U.S. authorities at points of legal entry.  This issue
is best addressed by expanding US immigration courts to eliminate the backlog and/or passing
legislation that limits access to these courts: more walls would not make a difference.

Secondly, they can avert charges of partisanship by responding to bipartisan legislation passed under
the leadership of the Republican-led Senate in December.  All the Democratic House has done is split
this legislation into two parts, one to fund Homeland Security and the second to fund the rest of
government for the balance of the fiscal year.  All they are asking the President to do is sign the
legislation he had Mitch McConnell pass in December.

One should not underestimate the resistance of the Democratic leadership to expanding the wall.    
Nancy Pelosi, in particular, has staked out a position that makes compromise exceedingly difficult.  
She has stated emphatically that the wall ‘is immoral’ and that she views DACA legislation as an entirely
separate issue.  Unless she walks this back, any Republican overture to link the two is a non-starter,
a far cry from earlier this year when Senate Minority Leader Schumer offered $25 billion for the wall
in return for DACA legislation.

The President is equally committed to winning this battle.  The wall was his signature promise, yet
nothing has been accomplished in this regard.  He is further held hostage by ongoing clarion calls to
his base for a wall to protect a nation which he proclaims as increasingly threatened by illegal
immigration.  To this end, he posted several thousand US troops at the border as a stop gap measure.
Critically, the President has no sense of the Constitutional limitations placed on his power by a
Democratic-led House.   Frustrated by Democratic intransigence to his demands, he has raised
the specter of using emergency powers to get the wall built.

How, then does this end?  Holding the high ground, Democrats seem content to let
Republicans sort it out: the bills are back in the Senate awaiting a vote, and Mitch McConnell has
to decide whether or not to break ranks with the President.  Pressure to open government will
continue to mount, but Trump never,never accepts defeat. It will take some time before he does so
and it will be a bitter pill for him to swallow. He will not get his wall and will have to live with the
consequences of a divided government.  Elections do have consequences.

Leave Trump Alone

The first Democratic priority, if they take control of the House of Representatives, should be to move forward on legislative initiatives and not investigate Trump's malfeasance. Restoring citizen confidence in the value added of government will not be enhanced by political infighting.   This will be seen as government as usual, and will be subject to the false equivalence arguments put forth by the President and his cohorts.  The Democrats need to stand up to the President to be sure.  Perhaps more importantly, they also need to lay down legislative milestones- bills passed by the House of Representatives- that demonstrate what America can expect should the Democrats take control of the government in 2020.

It is not enough to talk tough.  To regain the Presidency and have a shot at a veto-proof Senate, Democrats in the House of Representatives have to provide concrete evidence of Republican intransigence -seen in the refusal of the Senate to pass bills passed by the House- in addressing national issues.  The 2020 political agenda would revolve around the merits of these specific measures as opposed to 'not Donald Trump'.   Moderates and independents need a reason to get to the polls in the numbers required to change the political balance.  They need to understand that their vote can result in a meaningful change in their lives.  Polling demonstrates that the majority of Americans want the changes favored by the Democratic party.

Specifically, the House should pass legislation that:

• Leads to a single payer system of universal health coverage.  Provisions can be included whereby existing insurance programs can piggy-back onto the system: everyone doesn't have to have the same level of health care coverage, but everyone should have access to basic health care.
• Brings an end to the debate over immigration. The 2013 Senate-passed bipartisan bill can be revisited, with changes to address issues of chain migration and border security.  We need to move forward on this issue,  providing an equitable, humane, and workable solution to those who have long been productive members of our society.
• Addresses the growing wealth disparity in America.  A bill should be passed that applies the same tax rate on unearned income - dividend and capital gains- as earned income - wages and salaries from one's labor.  This was true under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, a law championed by President Ronald Reagan. This bill should also tighten loopholes that work to the advantage of those with substantial wealth and salaries. 
• Provides for a livable working wage.  American taxpayers bear the costs of low minimum wages through payments to support housing, Medicaid, and the SNAP program.  It would be far better to have those who consume the goods and services provided by fellow Americans bear the impacts of higher minimum wage than the population as a whole.

These bills may go nowhere in the Senate: sobeit.  Their passage however will demonstrate to Americans that the Democrats mean business should they have the power to govern.  It will provide a concrete alternative to Republican policies put in place under the Trump administration.  It will give individuals a reason to go to the polls in 2020. Getting into the swamp with Trump does no one any good at all.

Driverless Cars and Trucks: Do we Need to go There?

Technological trends point to a fully viable driverless vehicle sooner rather than later.  Safer, cheaper, and more dependable than their living, breathing counterparts the replacement of drivers with automated systems seems only a matter of time.  Its probably useful - before the technology becomes perfected- to question the cost it brings in terms of lost career opportunities.  Technology progress has enabled the mechanization of farming and manufacturing: productivity gains have been substantial but so has the human cost as measured by lost employment opportunities.  Shouldn't we be addressing the human side of divorcing cars and trucks from drivers?  At some point should we embrace featherbedding, most recently associated with union instance on maintaining employment levels in areas where they were really no longer necessary, in order to avoid the human costs associated with massive technology driven unemployment?  Technological advances will continue to erode employment opportunities and societies need to advance accordingly in the way they treat those who desire to work but lack- through no fault of their own- the opportunities to do so.

A Middle Ground Exists in the Gun Debate

Battle lines have been drawn once again.  NRA seeks to arm teachers, increase the presence of armed resource officers, and harden the schools against an armed intruder while the far left wants to ban all semi-automatics.  Student involvement things may turn out differently this time around: something, in fact, may get accomplished. 

It seems to me that there is plenty of room for a compromise solution that goes well beyond the steps taken by the Florida legislature.  Compromise from the right entails a recognition that some steps need to be taken regarding weaponry.  Compromise from the left entails allowing the continued sale of semi-automatic weapons for hunting and target shooting.  These compromises can take place at the state as well as federal level.

Issue One: ensuring weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands.  Instead of having a background check conducted when the decision to purchase is made, insist that prospective buyers obtain prior-approval from the state.  Each state can establish its own criteria.  The bottom line is that weapons may not be sold, under any venue, to any individual lacking a state-issued permit.  Sellers who violate this rule will face a mandatory punishment, to include the loss of their ability to sell weapons for a substantial period of time.

Issue Two:  removing weapons from individuals deemed a risk to society.  Some states have enacted provisions whereby law enforcement are allowed to temporarily impound an individual’s weaponry based on reporting that said individual has demonstrated a predilection toward violence.  The weapons would be returned once the state has determined that said predilection does not or no longer exists.

Issue Three: limiting the ability of semi-automatics to be used in a combat like role (as opposed to hunting and target shooting).    A sensible proposal would be to prohibit the sale, purchase, or possession of large capacity magazines -bullet clips holding more than ten rounds. This would be reasonably sufficient for hunting and targeting purposes but limit the potential carnage possible with a semi-automatic weapon.  If done on a national level, a buy-back program would incentivize the return of illegal sized clips.   Punishments for possession would be severe, including –at a minimum- confiscation of all weapons owned by the individual in question.

Some states have already adopted these or similar proposals, including Connecticut, and California.  There is no reason why other states can’t follow their lead.  There is no need to wait for Federal action along these lines: it will be a long time in coming.

When You Rock the Boat Some will get Seasick

11/16

You can't have change without change.  Everyone is up in arms, legitimately, regarding Trump's seeming disdain for political norms.  refusing to divulge tax returns or provide fulsome health record, living in Trump Tower, security clearances for children, tweeting, picking highly controversial advisors and cabinet officers.  Others will focus on his inability / unwillingness to establish effective blind trust.

I believe America needs to let this play out, albeit within bounds.  People want change and it is important for these groups to recognize, first hand, that change is not necessarily what they expected. They don't believe the mainstream media, feel the government cooks the books, and that insiders control government to their detriment.  In order bring back the credibility of these institutions they have to see Trump fail:  alternatively, should he succeed the lessons will be learned by the establishment.  Either way let him try.

Presidential Tweets: The New Normal?

11/20

At first I was dismayed by Trump's continuing to tweet after winning the election.  I thought it was un-presidential by its nature and, to me anyway, the tweets were somewhat unsettling. ”That said, what's wrong with the President sharing his personal, as opposed to 'presidential' views on issues as long as the two can be sorted out?  Can you imagine how much more interesting Obama would have been over the last eight years if he tweeted out his personal feelings and views while taking the more deliberate and presidential stance when it was called for?  How funny was the WH correspondents' dinner skit with his 'anger manager'?

We all know that beneath the Presidential demeanor of relative detachment from the day-to-day happenings lies someone who is peaked at the news coverage, treatment by Congress or the like.  As President he  needs to take the reflective, big picture, high road: it's what is expected if not demanded. What if the President could also let his hair down and share his true feelings?  Sure, it will get him points with some and lose points with others, but it will provide information on what he is thinking and feeling even if no 'presidential' action or statement is forthcoming.  At a minimum it will provide good gist for pundits and social media. Historian Brinkley, for one believes “The words of this guy just don’t matter.”   “I think we’re going to have to wait and see what his actions are and judge him by his record.”

Vent away, president-elect Trump, on your success in keeping jobs in America, the wrongs done to the vice-president elect, the crappy coverage of the NY Times, your rationale for settling your Trump University lawsuit, and the quality of the SNL skit.  I can tell the difference between a personal rant and presidential decision.  For better or worse, I want to know what you're feeling.  It helps me understand the human side, for better or worse.

Donald Trump vs the Fourth Estate

11/22

Donald Trump's attacks on "failing NY Times" seem  incessant.  If he can win this battle by causing the NYTimes to think twice about the the tone of their news and editorial coverage, he may well believe the rest of the print media will fall in line.  Alternatively, if he can convince his base that NYTimes reporting is biased, the power of NY Times' investigative reporting is diminished.  Today's tweets saying NYTimes changed the terms of the scheduled meeting -which included and on the record session-are strongly denied by the paper: a case of he said she said at this point.

The adversarial relationships between Trump and the media will continue unabated, I believe, as Trump seeks to discredit reporting on the backgrounds of his appointees, involvement of his children in his administration, conflicts of interest regarding his businesses and the like.  Presidents have traditionally accepted the fact that their every thought and deed will be 'unfairly" treated in the media:  imagine how Obama felt about Fox News coverage for example, never mind Trump's attack on his citizenship.  I'm not sure Trump has the temperament to  recognize that such coverage is not personal: it just comes with the job.  His unwillingness to deal with the adversarial relationships with the press that come with the job explains his aversion to press conferences.  Can you imagine his response to some of the questions that certainly would be forthcoming and having these responses displayed on television?

Trump's Distain over US Intelligence

11/28

President-elect advisor Conway says not to worry about Trump's turning CIA briefers away since he is receiving information from a variety of sources. I guess Trump feels CIA cadre were all hired by Obama and are peddling what must be biased analysis (since said analysis does not square with his personal convictions/understandings).  I would be amazed if he even  understands how the intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination cycle has been honed over decades to cull out false information and analyst bias.

If Trump disdains considered analysis from experienced intelligence professionals in favor of the views of those who are peddling their points of view and/or unverified "facts" we are in real trouble. The Iraqi intelligence 'failures' were due, in part, to the Pentagon's use of sources deemed unreliable by the CIA. Can you imagine establishing our policy towards Iran based on the views of Israelis and the Iranian diaspora? At least Pence is receiving the briefings, but we don't know what role Pence plays in decision making.

This sad state of affairs was predicted by Robert Gates in a September WSJ editorial.   He criticizes the GOP standard-bearer as “willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself.” “He has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations,” Gates writes. “A thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America.”

Catch 22

Catch 22:  a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule.


The logic going into the Trump presidency is clear and documented by a number of recent actions.

1. Donald Trump makes a statement that is factually false.
2. The mainstream media researches and documents the falsehood.
3. Trump supporters, who believe Trump's ongoing characterizations of the media as biased and dishonest, either don't follow mainstream coverage -print, TV, or cable- or take their refutation as an example of their dishonesty and biased coverage.
4. Republican leaders, including those who are not in the Trump camp, do not acknowledge what they know to be falsehoods.  To do so would be to acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes.
5. Right wing media either perpetuate the falsehood or ignore it.
6. Those on the right assume he is telling the truth or approximately so: those on the right see him as ill informed or deceptive: the two grow further apart.

On a number of issues this discordance doesn't matter.  It does matter however when Trump's statements go to the heart of our democratic norms.  A good example is his Tweet stating that three million undocumented immigrants voted for Hillary Clinton.

• The mainstream media conclusively documented that this claim was totally without merit.
• Mitch McConnell refused to directly address the issue of voter fraud:  "So, it's an interesting discussion but it strikes me as totally irrelevant. Time to move on." 
• Fox News coverage pointed out that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
• On 60 Minutes Paul Ryan refused to repudiate Donald Trump's claims. When asked he said he didn't know and that he wasn't really focused on these things. 
•  Reince Priebus, currently the chairman of the Republican National Committee and Mr. Trump’s pick for chief of staff, told CBS’s John Dickerson that “no one really knows” if millions of people voted illegally. “It’s possible.”

The bottom line seems to be a nation where some 50% of the people talking past the other 50% percent with no means of even reaching agreement on what is true, never mind the role of government.

The Politics of Not and the Absence of Republican Alternatives

 Its one thing to oppose President Obama and Democratic initiatives, but quit another to do so without offering an alternative.  Immigration is a case in point.  Republicans are adamantly opposed to President Obama's executive orders, and refused to vote on a bipartisan Immigration bill past by the Senate during the last Congress.  The electorate is entitled to compare and contrast the Democratic proposal against a alternative 'fix'.  Letting the problem fester, is not a viable solution, and the Democrats have done a poor job in pointing out the implications of doing nothing.   President Obama has laid down the challenge to Congress to come up with its own bill, but has not been as clear to the costs of doing nothing at all.   So far Republicans have been able to obfuscate what they would do on immigration,  and thus obscure the political downsides of any position they may take.  The same can be said of health care: what, exactly, is the Republican position?  What bill would they pass?  The same can be said regarding Iran: are the Republicans willing to risk an escalation of the conflict with Iran rather than compromise on US preferences for a solution?  

Two Bites at the Debt Apple

Negotiations over raising the debt ceiling effectively gives Congress two bites at the apple.  The President does not create debt.  The President has no Constitutional authority to spend monies not specifically appropriated by Congress.  If he did than President Reagan's team would never have resorted to selling weapons to Iran to fund the Contras after Congress cut off funding.

If Congress does not want to increase the national debt, than they should   pass legislation that either increase revenues or decreasing expenditures.  If they haven't the political will or power to do so via specific debated legislation- say by cutting back on entitlements while allowing military spending to grow - than they should not be able to do so by negotiation with the executive branch. 

Previous Congressess have understood that increased indebtedness was caused by their passage of legislation and thus routinely increased the debt ceiling limit.  Only this Congress has tried to have it both ways.  President Obama is correct in taking Congress on: he should have done so before.

Provocative Re-Post

Most of the problems in life are because of two reasons: we act without thinking or we keep thinking without acting.

It's Not Rocket Science

It's doesn't take much to ascertain the motivations behind Republican criticism of Susan Rice.  It's not that she is unfit to serve, although she is not necessarily the perfect candidate.  Clearly Ms. Rice's mis-statements pale compared to Condezela Rice's over Iran, and she was easily elevated to become George Bush's Secretary of State.   Perhaps, just perhaps, Republicans are trying to force President Obama into nominating John Kerry, the sitting Senator from Massachusetts.  Could all of this be over the opportunity to gain a Republican Senator in the election that would follow his selection?  Could it be?

Ethics is About Doing Not Training

The Secretary of Defense has ordered a review of ethics training for military officers in the wake of the Petraeus affair.  Ethical behavior, however, is not trained.  To be sure, everyone who takes the training will be able to cite chapter and verse of what is ‘expected’ of a military officer.  I'm also quite sure that officers will pay much more attention to the unwritten rules regarding behavioral expectations.

Sometime after the Iran-Contra affair, as the CIA’s Director for Training and Education, I was instructed by a senior CIA official to develop and ethics course of all CIA officers.  In reply I stated that the content of the 'ethics' to be 'trained' had to come from the seventh floor and that senior officials had to be careful in delineating the ethical guidelines they wished to be promulgated.  I pointed out that the first thing people were going to do was speculate whether the Agency’s senior leaders were walking the talk.  Not surprisingly, I never heard back from the requester.   In truth I would have loved to have received a mandate to oversea the generation of a set of ethical norms that could be blessed from the top.  In truth it is probably better to do without a set of written norms than to publish norms which are routinely violated without sanction.  Extramarital affairs by military officers would probably fall into this latter category.

 In the best of all worlds, organizational leaders would establish and maintain ethical norms by walking the talk and punishing transgressors.  Ethical norms do exist, and often these norms serve as the glue that binds and defines organizations.  These norms, however, are a subset of what is often put down on paper.  The review called for by the Secretary of Defense will likely be a paper exercise with little impact on the behavior of military officers.

The ethical rules governing the Petraeus are clearly stated.  The fact that General Petraeus sought to keep his position once the affair was exposed speaks to the divergence between ‘rules’ and acceptable behavior.  He decided to resign only after being told by another former general officer, James Clapper (The Director for National Intelligence) that ”resigning was the honorable thing for him to do", given his former rank and present position as Director of the CIA.

How Is America Looking in the Eyes of the World

 American “exceptionalism” was first trumpeted in 1831 by the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who lauded our emerging nation’s unique ideology based on limited government, liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, and populism.   America became the destination of Europeans tired of being politically and religiously oppressed by theocratic despots and economically oppressed by the privileged ruling classes.  America offered the opportunity for economic progress based on effort rather than class standing.  It was the ‘golden door’ as immortalized on the base of the Statue of Liberty.

In European eyes, America’s promise continued well into the twentieth century.  In 1941 FDR articulated to the world America’s support for four fundamental freedoms– speech and expression, worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.  Subsequent Administrations, with bipartisan support, endeavored to mitigate economic and political discrimination against minorities and to provide economic safety nets to the recently unemployed and to families with dependent children.  Steps were taken to ensure health coverage to the aged, the young and low income earners.

Over the last decade, however, government programs to secure ‘freedom from want’ have been increasingly called into question.  Many now feel that government economic guarantees serve as a disincentive to the personal industry and accountability they considered critical to America’s successes.  Concomitantly, the rapid increase in the share of income going to richest Americans has resulted in increased attention to ‘class warfare’.  Conflicts over the appropriate role for government currently now take center stage in the political arena.

West Europeans, in contrast, have remained widely supportive of a different social compact.  They are accepting of higher tax burdens and a relative leveling in incomes in order to assure economic well being and economic opportunity for all citizens.  Individual liberties are protected by institutionalizing the tolerance of differences. Governments are trusted to do the bidding of the people.

West European governments walk the talk when it comes to personal liberty and tolerance.  Throughout most of Western Europe, abortion is legal upon request, or exceptions are made for rape, health, mental illness, and fetal defects.  All West European countries have either legalized  gay marriage or same-sex civil unions.

West Europeans consider it essential to ensure that all of their fellow countrymen have access to a basic standard of living.   Access to health care is considered as a right not a privilege.    Minimum wages are set at levels that allow workers to stand on their own two feet.  West Europeans see an American income distribution heavily skewed in favor of the richest classes, an American middle class under siege, and lower classes unable to gain access to basic necessities.

 West Europeans understand the importance of education to upward mobility, which studies have shown is now greater than in the United States.  The quality of public education is relatively standardized throughout each nation, while college tuition is either free or heavily subsidized:  many American students, however, are disadvantaged by inadequate public schooling or find themselves priced out of a college education.
Europeans look to and trust government to provide a wide range of services on their behalf, and accept a heavy tax burden to get the job done.  They view the American political system as being rendered ineffective by partisanship, noting that American confidence in its Congress is at record lows.  West Europeans also see the increased influence of American moneyed interests in engineering legislation and influencing electoral outcomes.  They read about actions taken by states to potentially limit voter access to the ballot box.
Americans tend to be dismissive of European attitudes across the board, and are loath assess our nation’s strengths and weakness vis-à-vis other countries.

Most Americans feel government has become too costly: many Americans believe there are limits as to what behaviors should be tolerated in order to maintain the American way.    The prospect of increasing taxes on the majority of Americans in order to address current financial problems, broaden entitlement programs, or substantially improve educational quality seems beyond the pale, regardless of the political party in power.

We are truly a great country, capable of great deeds.  We remain the richest and most powerful nation on earth. We are a warm, welcoming, and engaging people.  We are ‘can do’.  Although a 21^st century de Tocqueville would be quick to acknowledge America’s accomplishments and its unique role on the world’s stage, one wonders whether he would continue to characterize America as exceptional vis-à-vis West European countries.   West Europeans clearly have problems of their own, but –unlike here - they have resolved the conflicts over the appropriate role for government in ensuring economic security, educational equality, and individual choice.

The Right Misses a Key Point on Taxes

A number of pundits, particularly on cable TV, talk about the power shifting to a nation of takers.  The unstated part of this premise is that the rich will be burdened to satisfy the 'demands' of those who cannot fend for themselves.  Framed in this way it is all out class war.

There is, however, another paradigm.  Progressives believe that the state should ensure some standard of support to all citizens and they are willing to pay for this support in the form of higher taxes.  Although President Obama is currently pushing for higher taxes only on the rich, I do believe the middle class will also accept higher tax burdens.  This is a multi- step process (a) higher taxes on rich and cuts on spending, (b) tax reform which will, at worst, be revenue neutral, (c) review of Medicade, Medicare, Social Security, education with a decision as to the appropriate end state.

Tuesday's Choice

 President Obama’s performance over the last four years has been bittersweet:

• He did not take advantage of Congressional majorities when he had them.  Invoking reconciliation rules would have allowed the curtailment of the Bush tax cuts on the rich. 
• Simply put, he does not like conflict and the Republicans, sensing this, gave him more than he could handle.   He did not use the Bully pulpit to push through the programs he said he would push through when running for office.  The American people believe he would not compromise with the right to get bills passed:  why did he not trumpet the right’s intransigence at the time so he could run against Congress and seek a Democratic congress this time around.  Where was Lyndon Johnson when you needed him?  Did Obama put his passion in a jar once elected?  
• He did not explain things to the American voter: it is criminal that Obama care was so misunderstood.  He allowed the right to define his signature program.
• He did little to effectively end the misery of those whose houses were under water making them unable to refinance their homes at reduced interest rates.  Laws were passed, to be sure, but they clearly didn’t do the trick.  He should have stayed on top of the situation.  It would have been nice if the Federal government directly lent people funds rather than ‘work’ through recalcitrant banks who had little interest in refinancing high interest loans.
• He did not fight for the unemployed when his jobs bill became hung up in Congress.  This was an important bill and he should have taken his case to the American people.  People suffered because of his capitulation.

On the flip side, President Obama demonstrated his ability to make sound decisions, and accept the risk of political failure should things not pan out.   

• The Detroit bail-out was done quickly and effectively.
• He said he would be tough on terrorists and he was.  While restoring US credibility as a team player on most international issues, he was ruthless when it came to terrorists.
• He is well reasoned and calm when things get tough: witness the response to Sandy.
• I envision a re-elected Obama as taking a different tack with Congress, but frankly do not look for any landmark legislation over the next four years.  In order to get things done you have to be willing to go to the mat.  I think he will remain too cautious.  On the other hand, I am comfortable that things will not get out of hand internationally.  Washington’s central role in maintaining economic safety nets will continue.

It is hard to discuss Mitt Romney because I have no idea what he will do as President based on the total inconsistency of his rhetoric.

• Based on his Massachusetts experience, I see him as a moderate leader.  However, I am nervous about his ‘pliability’ and wonder whether he will stand up neoconservatives and those who call for major cutbacks in government roles. 
• I worry that pushing responsibilities back on the states will lead to permanent damage to the safety nets which have evolved.  [For me it is important that citizens be able to get medical care when ill and that children receive the support they need to develop the potential to succeed as adults.]  
• Lastly, Mitt Romney has demonstrated, at a minimum, an inability to relate to the concerns and needs of most Americans: at best he holds callous and dismissive attitudes toward those that struggle to make it.  This I personally cannot abide in a President.

 There you have it… Obama is the choice but not without some reservations.

Big Bird and the 47 Percent

Governor Romney’s statement that Big Bird would have to go, may turn out to have the same traction as his earlier discussion of the 47%.   There are a lot of government programs that may be of questionable value, but I don’t think Sesame Street sponsorship falls into this category.  Cancelling funding for PBS spotlights the depth of the Republican commitment to cutting government spending independent of any thoughtful cost-benefit analysis.  

President Romney’s comments about trickle down government stem from the right’s view that the national government role should be limited to national security – where a significant spending boost is promised- and to a limited set of functions required to ensure the effective operation of the private economy.  If people wish greater government involvement-say universal health care- than they should be addressing their concerns to their respective state governments. 

This narrow reading of the Constitution’s mandate for the federal government to “promote the general welfare” may have a philosophical attraction for many, but we are not starting from scratch.  For better or worse, people have come to expect the support of their national government when they are hit by disasters, or are having trouble in feeding, clothing, housing their families as well as obtaining adequate health care.  Until now, Republican and Democratic administrations have adhered to the social contract that has evolved out of President Roosevelt’s response to the devastating effects of the Great Depression.  

Suggesting that States should shoulder the burdens is, at best, naive.   It ignores the potential that stage governments will not choose to pick up the role currently played by Washington.  Just look at the number of States who choose not to expand Medicaid support provided by Obamacare, even though the federal government was picking up 90% of the tab.   Moreover, states do not have and will not be granted the ability to run deficits.  In the worst of times, when government is most needed, States will be forced to cut spending due to reduced tax revenues.

If the states are, in fact, united than perhaps it would be best to have national solutions to national problems.  Do we really want a country where people are treated differently depending on the state they live in?  Do we really want a country where states are loath to establish programs out of fear that the disadvantaged will be encouraged to relocate within state borders?  When our country was founded, moving between states was a life changing event, often requiring weeks if not months of travel.  Today most states are reached within three days of driving.

Big Bird will be safe no matter what.  The fact of the matter is that donations can make up the difference. The same cannot be said for the social contract that has evolved over the last century.    As much as they would like to, the right cannot walk back the clock.  It makes for a good sound bite and has the support of many who do not require federal assistance.  In practice it is impractical and incredibly divisive: the attempt would most certainly lead to a push back led by a populist leader focused on restoring if not expanding the federal safety net at the expense of the 53%.

What I wanted Obama to Say

President Obama seemed off his game last night.  I don't think he really enjoys conflict one-on-one in the first place.  He also forgot he was in a debate... facts don't win debates, debaters do.  If I were there I would have focused on a couple of provocations.

• Firstly I would have pointed out that Governor Romney plans to cut the Federal Budget by moving programs to the states.  The implication is clear: do you trust your state government to pick up the slack or are you afraid that once States have to pick up the bill that Medicare and Medicaid will fall fall short of what people will need and have come to expect.  I would have used examples of State Medicaid actions that have deprived individuals of certain types of health care, for example providing an otherwise healthy thirty-year-old with a Kidney transplant.  States cut budgets when times get tough: God forbid you get sick during a recession.  Provide evidence as to what states have done during this recession: laying off people, cutting services.  There is a point to be made here.   Bottom Line: who do you trust folks.
• Secondly, I would point out that national problems require national solutions.    States that are more 'generous' with Medicaid will find people flowing to their borders, business will migrate to non-regulated regions and the like.  At the end of the day 'competition' will cause a 'race to the bottom'.  
• Thirdly, I would have come up with a zinger, and repeatedly used it, every time Romney provided a solution that didn't add up.  President Obama slipped in a couple, but did not have the heart for it.  "There you go, waving your manic wand again, promising lower taxes, reduced deficits, increased defense spending, and substantially higher employment without one iota of evidence as to how all of this can be done. "  I did like the line about why -if their plans are so good- the Republicans are keeping them secret.  "Where's the beef" would also work for me!
• Lastly, I would harp on the fact that Romney doesn't get it when it comes to the average person.  Push the 47% issue, point out that he has no idea how hard it is for people to make ends meet, to struggle on a daily basis.

President Obama has to remember that he has to stand up to Governor Romney on behalf of the people he represents.  He may be disappointed in his performance during the first four years, but he can't show it.