Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Election 2012 - part II
Well, there's another debate tonight. The prez has slipped in the polls to even or trailing. It looks sort of bleak, but does it really matter? Over the past few years the custom has evolved in the Senate for the minority party to exercise a veto by filibustering any legislation they do not want brought to the floor for a vote. They do not even have to carry out the filibuster. They only need to threaten it and nothing gets acted upon. The majority party needs sixty votes to override the tactic and such a majority seldom exists. What once was a rare tactic is now commonplace. In all the history of the Senate 1/3 of the uses of this parliamentary device have occurred in the last few years. I think we can look forward to continued gridlock irrespective of who is elected President. Nonetheless there are a couple of places where the election matters. Foreign policy is one where the office still seems to have power to direct the path of the nation. Appointment of Supreme Court Justices still matters. And the executive still can provide lax or vigorous regulation of the existing codes in finance, health care, and the environment. In particular the Dodd-Franks financial regulation bill of a couple of years ago remains unfulfilled due to lack of appointments of critical personnel. Part of the reason for the financial meltdown of 2008 was that the Bush appointed head of the Security and Exchange Commission didn't really believe in doing his job. He thought markets were self regulating. You can imagine who the former CEO of Bain Capital would appoint to carry out the regulation established by Dodd-Franks. So it does matter who gets elected.
What I would like to see in this campaign is for the President to make the case that the Democratic party has shown itself to be the best for the country historically. It is the Democrats who have given us Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection, auto safety, and the most effective economic policies. He should run on the record of his party for the past 60 years as well as his own. He should do all he can to get Democrats into the House and Senate. I would like this election to be a referendum on the policies of the two parties. If the people want Republicanism, let 'em have it. They'll get what they deserve. Unfortunately their children will get it too.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
2012 Election
Just to get this out of the way, I'll be voting for Obama.
Here's a list of bad places to live in 2012. Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania and the rest of the "battle ground states". The sobriquet is now a cliche, but what a great descriptor it is. In all these states somebody is destroying any joy that might be found in life by blasting away at their opponents with unending and I presume inescapable political ads. In these political battles it is not a matter of damage collateral to some other target. The very targets are the innocent residents. I'm so glad to be missing it. It is nearly enough to make me like the Electoral College voting system. Thanks founding fathers.
I watched the first debate last night. According to the pundits Romney did pretty well. If going in you thought he was a halt-of-speech dope you found out differently. He's obviously a smart guy, by now well versed in his message. If you thought because Obama can write and deliver an inspiring speech, that he is a great extemporaneous speaker you must not have been listening to his unscripted talks with reporters. He speaks slowly, thoughtfully and with pauses as he carefully chooses his words. His normal speech does not flow smoothly. I think if one were to read what was said by the debaters, instead of hear it, the impression of who offered the most compelling substance would be quite different. Romney's main point, which he repeated many times, was that he wants to reduce unemployment (and just who doesn't) and in order to do so he would not increase taxes on small business owners. It is true that increasing taxes is thought by economists to tend to constrain economic activity. However by and large it is not the taxes on a relatively few business owners who, according to Romney for some reason would not engage in profitable activities because the government takes a larger share of their profits. Taxes are considered constraining because they take purchasing power out of the hands of consumers. Romney repeatedly claimed that taxes on profits resulted in less employment. He never explained why this would be so. Twice he cited a study by some association of businessmen. (Wow, what a surprise!Businessmen don't like taxes.) If a business man has an opportunity to make a profit by adding workers, wouldn't he have the incentive to do so whether his tax rate was 35% or 40%. Since with the latter rate the government is taking more of his income, maybe he has even more incentive to search hard for ways to increase his income through increased employment. I'm sorry that Obama or Lehre did not say what I have just written, but what the President did say was look at the record of the past 20 years when Democratic policies have worked better than Republican policies. Sorry, I can't recall the exact examples he gave, but his point seemed considerably more reliable to me.
Romney also said he would balance the budget by making unspecified cuts in programs and unspecified elimination of tax breaks. He said he would delete Obama care, except for the parts that he would keep. He said we need regulation of the economy, but without specifying which regulation is good and which is not.
If you look at the substance, not the style, I think the Prez did all right.
Here's a list of bad places to live in 2012. Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania and the rest of the "battle ground states". The sobriquet is now a cliche, but what a great descriptor it is. In all these states somebody is destroying any joy that might be found in life by blasting away at their opponents with unending and I presume inescapable political ads. In these political battles it is not a matter of damage collateral to some other target. The very targets are the innocent residents. I'm so glad to be missing it. It is nearly enough to make me like the Electoral College voting system. Thanks founding fathers.
I watched the first debate last night. According to the pundits Romney did pretty well. If going in you thought he was a halt-of-speech dope you found out differently. He's obviously a smart guy, by now well versed in his message. If you thought because Obama can write and deliver an inspiring speech, that he is a great extemporaneous speaker you must not have been listening to his unscripted talks with reporters. He speaks slowly, thoughtfully and with pauses as he carefully chooses his words. His normal speech does not flow smoothly. I think if one were to read what was said by the debaters, instead of hear it, the impression of who offered the most compelling substance would be quite different. Romney's main point, which he repeated many times, was that he wants to reduce unemployment (and just who doesn't) and in order to do so he would not increase taxes on small business owners. It is true that increasing taxes is thought by economists to tend to constrain economic activity. However by and large it is not the taxes on a relatively few business owners who, according to Romney for some reason would not engage in profitable activities because the government takes a larger share of their profits. Taxes are considered constraining because they take purchasing power out of the hands of consumers. Romney repeatedly claimed that taxes on profits resulted in less employment. He never explained why this would be so. Twice he cited a study by some association of businessmen. (Wow, what a surprise!Businessmen don't like taxes.) If a business man has an opportunity to make a profit by adding workers, wouldn't he have the incentive to do so whether his tax rate was 35% or 40%. Since with the latter rate the government is taking more of his income, maybe he has even more incentive to search hard for ways to increase his income through increased employment. I'm sorry that Obama or Lehre did not say what I have just written, but what the President did say was look at the record of the past 20 years when Democratic policies have worked better than Republican policies. Sorry, I can't recall the exact examples he gave, but his point seemed considerably more reliable to me.
Romney also said he would balance the budget by making unspecified cuts in programs and unspecified elimination of tax breaks. He said he would delete Obama care, except for the parts that he would keep. He said we need regulation of the economy, but without specifying which regulation is good and which is not.
If you look at the substance, not the style, I think the Prez did all right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)