Lilly Ledbetter worked for nearly twenty years at the Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Alabama. She became a supervisor at the plant and filed suit in 1998 after learning that she had been paid hundreds of dollars less per month than even the lowest paid man (a relatively new hire) who was doing her same job. This comes as no surprise to working women, who even after the 'seniority' argument that had been made during the 1970's and 1980's as to why men were typically paid more has played itself out, still see that women are paid only $.78 per hour for every dollar a man earns for doing the same job.
After a series of victories in the lower courts, the Eleventh Circuit court reversed the lower court decisions, and when it went to the Supreme Court Ledbetter lost last year on a 5-4 vote. Though the Supreme Court agreed that she did have both identical job titles and duties to men who were being paid a lot more than she was, they argued that she was only entitled to additional back pay for 180 days prior to the date of her filing the suit and could not challenge decisions that had been made before that even though the discriminatory pay rates had been going on for years without her knowledge (and her fruitless attempt to get the problem fixed internally at Goodyear worked against her because it delayed her filing the suit.) The focus of the suit is what is known as 'paycheck accruel,' a longstanding precedent in which the clock on filing a discrimination case resets with every paycheck. The Supreme Court ruling upholding the eleventh circuit essentially voided that provision and therefore ruled that only the 180 day limit set under Title VII applied.
The pay difference that she experienced over years, and which many, many women still suffer from is exacerbated because it compounds into lower Social Security after retirement.
Last year after the Supreme Court decision, Congress tried to pass the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which stipulates that women who can prove that they were discriminated against at work are entitled to up to two years of back pay differential to make up the difference, and more importantly specifically writes 'paycheck accruel' into law. The bill was blocked by a Republican filibuster (and it became an issue that Barack Obama made some ground on during the campaign since John McCain had made a speech opposing it, and Obama aired a commercial featuring Lilly Ledbetter that may have helped him re-open the gender gap that McCain had closed a bit when he picked Sarah Palin.)
This year it passed, with unanimous support from Senate Democrats, plus five Republicans-- significantly including all four of the Republican women in the Senate (and two of them, Lisa Murkowski and Kay Bailey Hutchison, are considered conservative). House Republicans were House Republicans, with only three voting in favor.
President Obama has now signed the law, the first piece of legislation he has signed that was passed by the new Congress. Besides equal pay for women, it represents a direct and specific repudiation of the Supreme Court, essentially restoring the law back to what lower courts had held, but now spelled out and codified as Federal law.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Obama's first foreign interview sets new priorities.
The Obama administration is rapidly making it clear that the 'coalition of the willing,' or'for us or against us' view of the Bush administration is the foreign policy of the past.
Today, President Obama gave his first interview to a foreign source. And his choice-- el-Arabiyah, could not have been a better one. He discussed a range of issues-- including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, terrorism, mutual respect and the international political situation.
While what he said was important, the simple fact that he chose an Arabic news outlet for his first interview speaks volumes. It's hardly a secret that the majority of the foreign policy challenges facing the United States right now involve the muslim world, nor is it a secret that both because of longstanding history and the relatively recent actions taken by the Bush administration, relations between America and the muslim world are at historically low levels. So in granting the interview, President Obama has made it clear that he wants to change that, and develop a long term relationship in which the United States respects and works towards a peaceful future involving the muslim world.
Let's start with the Israeli-Palestinian situation since that is a constant irritant that underlies every other facet of relations between America and muslim countries. Long time readers of this blog know that I've always been a supporter of Israel and of the right of Israel to exist. However, the one-sided policy of the Bush administration, which failed to challenge Israel in anything they did while only blaming the Palestinians for anything that happened, and which further didn't bother to even try to achieve a peace deal until Bush was vainly searching for any kind of a legacy during his last year in office, did not do Israel any favors. It created an endless cycle of war, and one which Israel will continue to be mired in until there is a lasting peace that involves the creation of a Palestinian state. President Obama pretty much said as much in his interview today.
Let me repeat that-- if Israel wants peace there is only one way to achieve it, and that is to create a Palestinian state without any Israeli settlements on its territory. And the recent Israeli actions in Gaza, while their cause can be justified (to end Hamas rocket attacks) have resulted in huge numbers of civilian deaths and more and more reports that Israeli troops committed some truly disturbing actions (like the report on NPR this morning of soldiers shooting a homeowner with no ties to Hamas in the face in front of his children, and later an ambulance driver being pulled out of his ambulance and forced to lie face down with a gun stuck in his neck, and then being told to leave the area despite having been called to a home with wounded children inside.) Israel is a democracy, and in a democracy you have to be willing to air some rotten garbage, and there is some here that will need to be aired. And then investigated and corrective action taken. As a supporter of Israel, I am willing to say it is time for Israel to take that action.
Further, an unnoticed story of the recent war (as well as the one two years ago between Israel and Hezbollah) is one which went unnoticed precisely because nothing happened-- which is the story itself. During both the Israeli-Hezbollah and Israeli-Hamas conflicts there was little or no violence (beyond a few demonstrations) in the West Bank. Israel was often able to claim they could not create a Palestinian state under Yassir Arafat because he was either unable or unwilling to call off his own militants. And in fact history seems to suggest they had a point, since even during negotiations there were often attacks on settlers and soldiers in the West Bank as well as terrorist attacks inside Israel. But this time there were practically none (despite calls by Hamas for a third intifada in the West Bank), so clearly Mahmoud Abbas is able and willing to police his own territory. Which means that Israel has no good excuse now for not working with him to create an independent Palestine with open borders and no Israeli settlements. The trip by George Mitchell to the middle east, and statements by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama indicate that they will push negotiations designed to hasten the creation of a Palestinian state (as well as create a lasting cease-fire in Gaza.)
President Obama also said that if our enemies in the region (and he specifically mentioned Iran) are willing to unclench their fist, they will find our hand extended in friendship. I believe that this is also long overdue. Ever since the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis of thirty years ago, relations between the U.S. and Iran have been frosted. Further, if Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, can one blame them after George Bush named them a member of the 'axis of evil,' and then invaded one of the other 'members?' Like a diplomat from North Korea (the third member) famously said after referring to President Bush's threats, "Of course we have a nuclear program." Only a Bush would have needed to be reminded of a basic fact-- if you threaten someone they will assume you may not be bluffing (as if Iraq didn't prove that in Bush's case) and will work to arm themselves accordingly. In a word: DUH! Maybe with the new approach President Obama can make some progress on getting Iran to quit working towards nuclear weapons. Maybe he can't. But given that they are already to the point where it would be all but impossible to take out their decentralized, deeply buried program, we are at least better off if we have a dialogue with Iran (after all, history shows that we can survive a nuclear-armed opponent, like the Soviet Union.)
Beyond that, Obama has shown that he will be a President whose foreign policy won't be focused on Europe first. That in itself is a huge change, and represents the fact that the world has changed. Europe is a fine place but it is at the end of the day only a peninsula on the end of the Asian continent. By speaking first to people from the part of the world where we have the biggest challenges right now, President Obama is making it clear from the outset that he will be engaged with the world, not just those who think like us.
Today, President Obama gave his first interview to a foreign source. And his choice-- el-Arabiyah, could not have been a better one. He discussed a range of issues-- including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, terrorism, mutual respect and the international political situation.
While what he said was important, the simple fact that he chose an Arabic news outlet for his first interview speaks volumes. It's hardly a secret that the majority of the foreign policy challenges facing the United States right now involve the muslim world, nor is it a secret that both because of longstanding history and the relatively recent actions taken by the Bush administration, relations between America and the muslim world are at historically low levels. So in granting the interview, President Obama has made it clear that he wants to change that, and develop a long term relationship in which the United States respects and works towards a peaceful future involving the muslim world.
Let's start with the Israeli-Palestinian situation since that is a constant irritant that underlies every other facet of relations between America and muslim countries. Long time readers of this blog know that I've always been a supporter of Israel and of the right of Israel to exist. However, the one-sided policy of the Bush administration, which failed to challenge Israel in anything they did while only blaming the Palestinians for anything that happened, and which further didn't bother to even try to achieve a peace deal until Bush was vainly searching for any kind of a legacy during his last year in office, did not do Israel any favors. It created an endless cycle of war, and one which Israel will continue to be mired in until there is a lasting peace that involves the creation of a Palestinian state. President Obama pretty much said as much in his interview today.
Let me repeat that-- if Israel wants peace there is only one way to achieve it, and that is to create a Palestinian state without any Israeli settlements on its territory. And the recent Israeli actions in Gaza, while their cause can be justified (to end Hamas rocket attacks) have resulted in huge numbers of civilian deaths and more and more reports that Israeli troops committed some truly disturbing actions (like the report on NPR this morning of soldiers shooting a homeowner with no ties to Hamas in the face in front of his children, and later an ambulance driver being pulled out of his ambulance and forced to lie face down with a gun stuck in his neck, and then being told to leave the area despite having been called to a home with wounded children inside.) Israel is a democracy, and in a democracy you have to be willing to air some rotten garbage, and there is some here that will need to be aired. And then investigated and corrective action taken. As a supporter of Israel, I am willing to say it is time for Israel to take that action.
Further, an unnoticed story of the recent war (as well as the one two years ago between Israel and Hezbollah) is one which went unnoticed precisely because nothing happened-- which is the story itself. During both the Israeli-Hezbollah and Israeli-Hamas conflicts there was little or no violence (beyond a few demonstrations) in the West Bank. Israel was often able to claim they could not create a Palestinian state under Yassir Arafat because he was either unable or unwilling to call off his own militants. And in fact history seems to suggest they had a point, since even during negotiations there were often attacks on settlers and soldiers in the West Bank as well as terrorist attacks inside Israel. But this time there were practically none (despite calls by Hamas for a third intifada in the West Bank), so clearly Mahmoud Abbas is able and willing to police his own territory. Which means that Israel has no good excuse now for not working with him to create an independent Palestine with open borders and no Israeli settlements. The trip by George Mitchell to the middle east, and statements by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama indicate that they will push negotiations designed to hasten the creation of a Palestinian state (as well as create a lasting cease-fire in Gaza.)
President Obama also said that if our enemies in the region (and he specifically mentioned Iran) are willing to unclench their fist, they will find our hand extended in friendship. I believe that this is also long overdue. Ever since the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis of thirty years ago, relations between the U.S. and Iran have been frosted. Further, if Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, can one blame them after George Bush named them a member of the 'axis of evil,' and then invaded one of the other 'members?' Like a diplomat from North Korea (the third member) famously said after referring to President Bush's threats, "Of course we have a nuclear program." Only a Bush would have needed to be reminded of a basic fact-- if you threaten someone they will assume you may not be bluffing (as if Iraq didn't prove that in Bush's case) and will work to arm themselves accordingly. In a word: DUH! Maybe with the new approach President Obama can make some progress on getting Iran to quit working towards nuclear weapons. Maybe he can't. But given that they are already to the point where it would be all but impossible to take out their decentralized, deeply buried program, we are at least better off if we have a dialogue with Iran (after all, history shows that we can survive a nuclear-armed opponent, like the Soviet Union.)
Beyond that, Obama has shown that he will be a President whose foreign policy won't be focused on Europe first. That in itself is a huge change, and represents the fact that the world has changed. Europe is a fine place but it is at the end of the day only a peninsula on the end of the Asian continent. By speaking first to people from the part of the world where we have the biggest challenges right now, President Obama is making it clear from the outset that he will be engaged with the world, not just those who think like us.
Friday, January 23, 2009
An army of Won.
Barack Obama had a meeting earlier today with a group of House Republican leaders to discuss the proposed stimulus bill.
He did as he had pledged in the campaign, and listened to them and tried to work something out with them. He's already cut down some of the infrastructure spending and as much as one third of the stimulus is likely to be tax cuts. He's spent some of his political capital taking on his own speaker over the issue of whether to repeal the Bush tax cuts or not (she wants to repeal them immediately, Obama in seeking Republican support has said he's not ready to just yet.) But the Republican leaders kept on pushing and pushing and pushing, wanting to change more and more things in the bill and simultaneously hinting that no matter what the bill says they might play hardball in the house and marshall Republicans to oppose it. Finally, Obama could see that unless he practically let them write the bill themselves they wouldn't accept or agree to support whatever he gave them, so he got up, looked directly at them and said, "I won."
It was not a sign of frustration at all. He's reminding them of a simple fact. The American people voted in November and gave him a mandate to change course. His share of the vote and winning margin were both the most any Presidential candidate in twenty years (in fact his share of the vote was the highest for any non-incumbent candidate and non-sitting Vice President running for the top job, in over sixty years.) Add to that the fact that in addition to Obama they voted in seven or eight new Senators (depending on what happens in Minnesota) and twenty-one house members, for a net gain of 54 house seats over the past two election cycles. Republicans put their ideas and candidates out there, and they lost. Pure and simple.
Under the circumstances, President Obama is being very generous and doing something he doesn't have to do, and offering the house Republicans a seat at the table and some input into writing this bill. But the party which not so long ago believed they had a 'permanent majority,' and even over the past two years could usually count on a Presidential veto to back them up in Congress, now has neither.
They need to get used to being the minority party because they lost. We won ('we' instead of 'I' is the only change I believe Obama should have made.) The President has reached out to them and offered them something that quite frankly, President Bush never did anything like that. They can choose between accepting what he gives them or opposing everything. But they no longer have the power and influence to insist on anything.
He did as he had pledged in the campaign, and listened to them and tried to work something out with them. He's already cut down some of the infrastructure spending and as much as one third of the stimulus is likely to be tax cuts. He's spent some of his political capital taking on his own speaker over the issue of whether to repeal the Bush tax cuts or not (she wants to repeal them immediately, Obama in seeking Republican support has said he's not ready to just yet.) But the Republican leaders kept on pushing and pushing and pushing, wanting to change more and more things in the bill and simultaneously hinting that no matter what the bill says they might play hardball in the house and marshall Republicans to oppose it. Finally, Obama could see that unless he practically let them write the bill themselves they wouldn't accept or agree to support whatever he gave them, so he got up, looked directly at them and said, "I won."
It was not a sign of frustration at all. He's reminding them of a simple fact. The American people voted in November and gave him a mandate to change course. His share of the vote and winning margin were both the most any Presidential candidate in twenty years (in fact his share of the vote was the highest for any non-incumbent candidate and non-sitting Vice President running for the top job, in over sixty years.) Add to that the fact that in addition to Obama they voted in seven or eight new Senators (depending on what happens in Minnesota) and twenty-one house members, for a net gain of 54 house seats over the past two election cycles. Republicans put their ideas and candidates out there, and they lost. Pure and simple.
Under the circumstances, President Obama is being very generous and doing something he doesn't have to do, and offering the house Republicans a seat at the table and some input into writing this bill. But the party which not so long ago believed they had a 'permanent majority,' and even over the past two years could usually count on a Presidential veto to back them up in Congress, now has neither.
They need to get used to being the minority party because they lost. We won ('we' instead of 'I' is the only change I believe Obama should have made.) The President has reached out to them and offered them something that quite frankly, President Bush never did anything like that. They can choose between accepting what he gives them or opposing everything. But they no longer have the power and influence to insist on anything.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Predicting the past-- and I got it wrong
NOTE: I POSTED THIS COLUMN ON ANOTHER BLOG AS WELL, Coldheartedtruth. Commenters corrected me. I've edited this version to reflect the actual state of things.
Apparently, Fidel Castro has put his thoughts online in an internet column, saying he believes he won't be alive in four years.
Now, I've been wondering about whether he was alive at all since he was a no-show earlier this month at the fiftieth anniversary celebration of the Cuban revolution. I mean, the downfall of corrupt and despotic dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959 was the high point of Castro's life and the start of his 'new Cuba.' It is hard to imagine that no matter how sick he was, he wouldn't at least have a photograph taken or something. But no, he did not show up, not even in the newspapers. However, he has been photographed several times since he dropped out of sight.
Here's what we know. We know that in July 2006, El Presidente abruptly dropped from sight and underwent emergency surgery for an intestinal blockage (according to some reports the 'blockage' was a very aggressive cancer.) Shortly thereafter official statements reported that he was resigning from the Presidency and handing the reigns of power to his brother Raul, who has ruled the island since then. Television news in the notoriously secretive and carefully controlled country have claimed that Comrade Fidel is alive and well, and is intently observing things. One of them included a statement from Castro in which he vowed to outlast the Bush administration (as he has outlasted the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton administrations.) He apparently took pride in the prospect. I mean, even look at this letter. He says he won't live for another four years. What is four years? A U.S. Presidential term. This guy has always loved to tweak U.S. Presidents for amusement. We've seen him send out written correspondence like this periodically, to be faithfully published in Cuban newspapers.
But live pictures? No. Televised pictures? No. Only a few photographs. He may be alive, but clearly not well.
I believed, and I originally went on record here-- that Fidel Castro did not survive much past his 2006 operation. He had vowed to outlive the Bush administration so we've seen every facade one might expect in a country where things are done in secret, to project the image that Fidel is still alive. We now get this penultimate letter (which may have been penned by Castro two years ago or may have been written by someone else), which is in effect a goodbye letter. Not long from now, just long enough to be believable, we will get an official death announcement. Maybe even a nice parade and a funeral with speakers lavishing praise on Castro and on the regime he created. But it will all be carefully choreographed to hide an empty casket, just like Castro's dream of a better Cuba through communism was carefully choreographed to hide an empty promise.
OBVIOUSLY I ERRED HERE. This is the tenth time I've had to publically acknowlege an error because a commenter caught it before I did. I've posted 816 times on Deep Thought so this reduces my fielding percentage to .988
Apparently, Fidel Castro has put his thoughts online in an internet column, saying he believes he won't be alive in four years.
Now, I've been wondering about whether he was alive at all since he was a no-show earlier this month at the fiftieth anniversary celebration of the Cuban revolution. I mean, the downfall of corrupt and despotic dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959 was the high point of Castro's life and the start of his 'new Cuba.' It is hard to imagine that no matter how sick he was, he wouldn't at least have a photograph taken or something. But no, he did not show up, not even in the newspapers. However, he has been photographed several times since he dropped out of sight.
Here's what we know. We know that in July 2006, El Presidente abruptly dropped from sight and underwent emergency surgery for an intestinal blockage (according to some reports the 'blockage' was a very aggressive cancer.) Shortly thereafter official statements reported that he was resigning from the Presidency and handing the reigns of power to his brother Raul, who has ruled the island since then. Television news in the notoriously secretive and carefully controlled country have claimed that Comrade Fidel is alive and well, and is intently observing things. One of them included a statement from Castro in which he vowed to outlast the Bush administration (as he has outlasted the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton administrations.) He apparently took pride in the prospect. I mean, even look at this letter. He says he won't live for another four years. What is four years? A U.S. Presidential term. This guy has always loved to tweak U.S. Presidents for amusement. We've seen him send out written correspondence like this periodically, to be faithfully published in Cuban newspapers.
But live pictures? No. Televised pictures? No. Only a few photographs. He may be alive, but clearly not well.
I believed, and I originally went on record here-- that Fidel Castro did not survive much past his 2006 operation. He had vowed to outlive the Bush administration so we've seen every facade one might expect in a country where things are done in secret, to project the image that Fidel is still alive. We now get this penultimate letter (which may have been penned by Castro two years ago or may have been written by someone else), which is in effect a goodbye letter. Not long from now, just long enough to be believable, we will get an official death announcement. Maybe even a nice parade and a funeral with speakers lavishing praise on Castro and on the regime he created. But it will all be carefully choreographed to hide an empty casket, just like Castro's dream of a better Cuba through communism was carefully choreographed to hide an empty promise.
OBVIOUSLY I ERRED HERE. This is the tenth time I've had to publically acknowlege an error because a commenter caught it before I did. I've posted 816 times on Deep Thought so this reduces my fielding percentage to .988
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Rush on Obama: "I hope he fails"
This is what Rush Limbaugh had to say today:
If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. I don't want --what he'd talking about. What he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. Government as possible. From the banking business, the mortgage industry, to the automobile business, to the healthcare-- I don't want the Government in charge of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, so, OK I'll send you a response, but I don't need four hundred words, I need four. I hope he fails.
Now, leaving aside his gross distortions of what the Obama plan is (it is NOT the Government taking over any of the above industries), we now have Rush actually hoping that it fails. If it were to fail of course, it would result in more people losing their jobs, more businesses going bankrupt and likely the end of the United States as the premier economic and political power in the world.
As much as I never liked George W. Bush, I never once wished he would fail. I often believed that he would fail, predicted that he would fail, expected that he would fail, chronicled his failures and criticized his failures (for they were legion), but never once did I DESIRE that he would fail. Because if the President fails it harms our country. In fact in a number of cases I predicted he would fail but openly expressed hope that I was wrong.
But this is a guy who is willing to directly suffer harm to the United States so he will have something to pin on the President. Disgusting and appalling.
If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. I don't want --what he'd talking about. What he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. Government as possible. From the banking business, the mortgage industry, to the automobile business, to the healthcare-- I don't want the Government in charge of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, so, OK I'll send you a response, but I don't need four hundred words, I need four. I hope he fails.
Now, leaving aside his gross distortions of what the Obama plan is (it is NOT the Government taking over any of the above industries), we now have Rush actually hoping that it fails. If it were to fail of course, it would result in more people losing their jobs, more businesses going bankrupt and likely the end of the United States as the premier economic and political power in the world.
As much as I never liked George W. Bush, I never once wished he would fail. I often believed that he would fail, predicted that he would fail, expected that he would fail, chronicled his failures and criticized his failures (for they were legion), but never once did I DESIRE that he would fail. Because if the President fails it harms our country. In fact in a number of cases I predicted he would fail but openly expressed hope that I was wrong.
But this is a guy who is willing to directly suffer harm to the United States so he will have something to pin on the President. Disgusting and appalling.
Monday, January 19, 2009
January 20, 2001-- January 20, 2009. The record of the Bush economy.
One year ago I wrote a post entitled, seven years of the Bush economy.
Well, today it's time to update and close the book on it. Of course there are those who will point out that eight years ago today the economy was slowing down and heading towards a recession and they are right. But it is hardly like the economy that George Bush is handing the keys to, to Barack Obama is a model of stability. In fact if anything the numbers look much, much worse today than they did eight years ago. But so be it. Fairly or not, January 20th is more than just a symbolic date. It is the day in which total control over the Presidency passes in its completeness from one President to the next. And so, let's look at the same metrics we did a year ago: the stock market, the dollar/euro exchange rate, net job creation, the spot price of oil and the national debt.
The stock market closed on January 20, 2001 at 10,587.60. It's last close before January 20, 2009 is 8281.22. I will update this number tomorrow so we have consistency and post it as the final number for Bush (or start of Obama.) HERE IS THE UPDATE: IF I USED IT CONSISTENTLY WITH THE WAY I USED THE 1/20/01 CLOSE, IT WOULD BE 7949.09. BUT EVEN IF WE KEEP THE OLD NUMBER the stock market under Bush has fallen a net 22% over the past eight years. AND YES, IT DID NOW CLOSE AT 7949.09. FROM NOW ON IT'S OBAMA'S MARKET. If it's still below 8,000 by 2012 you are welcome to stuff this post back in my face. But I expect him to succeed and it will go up significantly from 7949.09 by then.
And 22% in eight years is enough that Bush apologists can't blame it on the 2002 recession, Clinton's economic policies or 9/11. The truth is, if you were heavily invested in the U.S. stock market in 2001, you probably have lost money. And the decision by Congress not to tie Social Security to the stock market looks to have been a very wise one. T-bonds may be boring, but they haven't lost money.
On January 20, 2001 it cost $.94 to buy one euro (in fact it got as low as eighty-three cents later on that summer.) Right now it costs $1.32 to buy one euro. True that this is better than the price of $1.45 that it was a year ago, but it is a fact that you would have made just better than a 40% profit over the past eight years if you had at the start of the Bush administration simply traded all your dollars in for euros and hidden the euros in your mattress. A lot better than losing 22 percent in the stock market.
Over the course of eight years, George W. Bush presided over the net creation of 3.8 million jobs. This averages out to less than 40,000 per month (vs. an average of over 200,000 per month over the preceding eight years.) Again, Bush apologists like to not count the loss of 2.8 million during the first two years of the Bush Presidency, and blame that on Clinton. But if it is then what would they say about current projections that the U.S. could lose even more than that many jobs over the next two years, and if it doesn't it will likely be due to government jobs created under the Obama stimulus plan? Again-- January 20 is the day of the handover. Any other date you choose to compare is arbitrary-- but then you take ownership of that much of the coming economy as well. Further, even using numbers from the truncated middle part of the Bush administration when we were not in a recession-- about 8.5 million created in four years, Bush still falls short of the monthly average over all eight years of the Clinton administration. No matter how you slice it, the Bush economy did very poorly in terms of job creation.
Price of crude oil: Was $25.98 per barrel eight years ago, and is $34.20 today. This is the one number where Bush is much better off today than he was last year. And if it had simply increased from $25.98 to $34.20 in eight years I'd be the first one to say the President Bush deserved credit for keeping oil prices under control. Only, he can't get credit for that since as recently as this summer it was pushing above $140 a barrel, and the resulting record gasoline prices delivered a hammer blow to an already soft economy over the summer. Further, much of the decline is credited to falling demand caused by the fact that millions fewer people are on the road going to work, because they don't have jobs to go to. The wild price gyrations have also played havoc with everything from the energy resale markets to automobile sales.
The national debt has increased from 5.8 trillion dollars to (including bailouts): 11.8 trillion dollars. In other words, it has more than doubled. Or in other words, Bush ran up more accumulated debt than every President combined from George Washington through his father (the reason I don't include Clinton in that is because the national debt actually experienced a slight decline under Clinton.)
Of course another dodge that Bush apologists often use is to argue that the President and his administration don't really have much effect on the economy. That is of course ridiculous. Even ignoring the fact that trillions of dollars in spending are controlled by the Government, some Government policies that influence the economy include tax policy, monetary policy, energy policy, trade policy, labor policy, regulatory policy and immigration policy. Funny to hear conservatives who scream about how bad tax increases, minimum wage hikes or pollution controls will be for the economy, suddenly switch gears when we are talking about Bush and saying that his policies had no effect on the economy. Clearly, they did, and clearly it was not the effect they had intended.
I did not include unemployment of course in the post a year ago and was (incorrectly) challenged on it. So I will mention it here: When Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2% It is now pushing past seven percent. So Bush benefits by the fact that I didn't include it as one of my metrics.
The simple fact is that the Bush economy was spectacularly bad-- both from an historical perspective and when taken on its own. Of the five original metrics I used, only one-- crude oil prices-- looks good for Bush, and that only if you ignore the intervening history. And eight years is long enough that excuses aren't good enough. Any President can have a bad year or even a bad term, but this guy has owned most of the decade of the 2000's. And his economy has failed.
Well, today it's time to update and close the book on it. Of course there are those who will point out that eight years ago today the economy was slowing down and heading towards a recession and they are right. But it is hardly like the economy that George Bush is handing the keys to, to Barack Obama is a model of stability. In fact if anything the numbers look much, much worse today than they did eight years ago. But so be it. Fairly or not, January 20th is more than just a symbolic date. It is the day in which total control over the Presidency passes in its completeness from one President to the next. And so, let's look at the same metrics we did a year ago: the stock market, the dollar/euro exchange rate, net job creation, the spot price of oil and the national debt.
The stock market closed on January 20, 2001 at 10,587.60. It's last close before January 20, 2009 is 8281.22. I will update this number tomorrow so we have consistency and post it as the final number for Bush (or start of Obama.) HERE IS THE UPDATE: IF I USED IT CONSISTENTLY WITH THE WAY I USED THE 1/20/01 CLOSE, IT WOULD BE 7949.09. BUT EVEN IF WE KEEP THE OLD NUMBER the stock market under Bush has fallen a net 22% over the past eight years. AND YES, IT DID NOW CLOSE AT 7949.09. FROM NOW ON IT'S OBAMA'S MARKET. If it's still below 8,000 by 2012 you are welcome to stuff this post back in my face. But I expect him to succeed and it will go up significantly from 7949.09 by then.
And 22% in eight years is enough that Bush apologists can't blame it on the 2002 recession, Clinton's economic policies or 9/11. The truth is, if you were heavily invested in the U.S. stock market in 2001, you probably have lost money. And the decision by Congress not to tie Social Security to the stock market looks to have been a very wise one. T-bonds may be boring, but they haven't lost money.
On January 20, 2001 it cost $.94 to buy one euro (in fact it got as low as eighty-three cents later on that summer.) Right now it costs $1.32 to buy one euro. True that this is better than the price of $1.45 that it was a year ago, but it is a fact that you would have made just better than a 40% profit over the past eight years if you had at the start of the Bush administration simply traded all your dollars in for euros and hidden the euros in your mattress. A lot better than losing 22 percent in the stock market.
Over the course of eight years, George W. Bush presided over the net creation of 3.8 million jobs. This averages out to less than 40,000 per month (vs. an average of over 200,000 per month over the preceding eight years.) Again, Bush apologists like to not count the loss of 2.8 million during the first two years of the Bush Presidency, and blame that on Clinton. But if it is then what would they say about current projections that the U.S. could lose even more than that many jobs over the next two years, and if it doesn't it will likely be due to government jobs created under the Obama stimulus plan? Again-- January 20 is the day of the handover. Any other date you choose to compare is arbitrary-- but then you take ownership of that much of the coming economy as well. Further, even using numbers from the truncated middle part of the Bush administration when we were not in a recession-- about 8.5 million created in four years, Bush still falls short of the monthly average over all eight years of the Clinton administration. No matter how you slice it, the Bush economy did very poorly in terms of job creation.
Price of crude oil: Was $25.98 per barrel eight years ago, and is $34.20 today. This is the one number where Bush is much better off today than he was last year. And if it had simply increased from $25.98 to $34.20 in eight years I'd be the first one to say the President Bush deserved credit for keeping oil prices under control. Only, he can't get credit for that since as recently as this summer it was pushing above $140 a barrel, and the resulting record gasoline prices delivered a hammer blow to an already soft economy over the summer. Further, much of the decline is credited to falling demand caused by the fact that millions fewer people are on the road going to work, because they don't have jobs to go to. The wild price gyrations have also played havoc with everything from the energy resale markets to automobile sales.
The national debt has increased from 5.8 trillion dollars to (including bailouts): 11.8 trillion dollars. In other words, it has more than doubled. Or in other words, Bush ran up more accumulated debt than every President combined from George Washington through his father (the reason I don't include Clinton in that is because the national debt actually experienced a slight decline under Clinton.)
Of course another dodge that Bush apologists often use is to argue that the President and his administration don't really have much effect on the economy. That is of course ridiculous. Even ignoring the fact that trillions of dollars in spending are controlled by the Government, some Government policies that influence the economy include tax policy, monetary policy, energy policy, trade policy, labor policy, regulatory policy and immigration policy. Funny to hear conservatives who scream about how bad tax increases, minimum wage hikes or pollution controls will be for the economy, suddenly switch gears when we are talking about Bush and saying that his policies had no effect on the economy. Clearly, they did, and clearly it was not the effect they had intended.
I did not include unemployment of course in the post a year ago and was (incorrectly) challenged on it. So I will mention it here: When Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2% It is now pushing past seven percent. So Bush benefits by the fact that I didn't include it as one of my metrics.
The simple fact is that the Bush economy was spectacularly bad-- both from an historical perspective and when taken on its own. Of the five original metrics I used, only one-- crude oil prices-- looks good for Bush, and that only if you ignore the intervening history. And eight years is long enough that excuses aren't good enough. Any President can have a bad year or even a bad term, but this guy has owned most of the decade of the 2000's. And his economy has failed.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
The 'vision thing.'
Back in the 1988 campaign, there was a discussion of Presidential qualities. High on the list was what came to be called, "the vision thing," almost a play on the fact that neither candidate seemed to be able to lay out a larger vision, focusing almost exclusively on specific issues, talking points and ideas seen from a very close (and therefore very narrow) view. George H.W. Bush tried to stretch himself to wrap around some semblance of a vision by including in one of his speeches a clearly scripted line about 'a thousand points of light' but it fell as flat as-- well, as his Presidency did over the following four years. Bill Clinton, though a master of the middle, and of focus groups, polls and political calculation, also seemed to get things done in small drivets. His wife seemed to have more of a sense of a larger vision but (as we saw in the 1994 health care debacle) didn't share his political insticts (though she has improved in this area-- but still made some political miscalculations last year that likely cost her the Presidency.)
President Bush tried to lay out a larger vision in the wake of 9/11, but he probably shouldn't have tried. In the 2000 election he was all about the same kind of myopic vision that voters had become accustomed to from politicians by that time, and if it took an event to spur him to come up with a larger vision then perhaps that should have been a clue right there that he would have been better off to narrow it to what he was realistically capable of putting together. President Bush was a decisive figure to begin with, and was just not capable of inspiring people to come together with a broad, far reaching and encompassing vision for the future.
To be honest, we've not had a truly visionary President in at least a generation. I've never personally been a fan of Ronald Reagan, but he was able to inspire a lot of people and lay out a vision, I will give him that much. Tragically it was not a good vision though. Rather, it has been a vision that has overlaid much of our political, social and economic life since then and came to its tragic fruition in last year's economic collapse, driven by years of loose regulation and trickle down economics that encouraged people to dream bigger than their wallets would allow.
But the fact that the Reagan vision has persisted as the dominant paradigm until it's failure last year is both a testimony to his vision and the lack of vision laid out by his successors.
There has not been a really visionary Democrat in the White House since John F. Kennedy, nearly half a century ago.
That will change on Tuesday.
For a change we will have a President who is inspirational and has already inspired millions of people to do their best. In the finest tradition of 'ask now what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country' it is likely that President Obama will challenge each and every one of us to do. Not just to put a little sticker on our car or something, but rather to do great things, both in our communities and for our country at large.
Beyond that, he is without question the first President since at least Reagan who can inspire millions of people just by his words. I've felt a sense of renewal listening to Barack Obama that I've not heard, probably ever listening to a President (or President elect). A lot of people saw the same thing in the campaign, if polls are any indication. Obama had and projected a Presidential vision. John McCain did not.
That doesn't mean that times are not hard. They are hard. And they will get harder before they get better. But I am optimistic for a change. I am optimistic that we hvae a leader who not only can see what is coming just ahead, but has a plan for where he wants to lead us for the long term as well.
President Bush tried to lay out a larger vision in the wake of 9/11, but he probably shouldn't have tried. In the 2000 election he was all about the same kind of myopic vision that voters had become accustomed to from politicians by that time, and if it took an event to spur him to come up with a larger vision then perhaps that should have been a clue right there that he would have been better off to narrow it to what he was realistically capable of putting together. President Bush was a decisive figure to begin with, and was just not capable of inspiring people to come together with a broad, far reaching and encompassing vision for the future.
To be honest, we've not had a truly visionary President in at least a generation. I've never personally been a fan of Ronald Reagan, but he was able to inspire a lot of people and lay out a vision, I will give him that much. Tragically it was not a good vision though. Rather, it has been a vision that has overlaid much of our political, social and economic life since then and came to its tragic fruition in last year's economic collapse, driven by years of loose regulation and trickle down economics that encouraged people to dream bigger than their wallets would allow.
But the fact that the Reagan vision has persisted as the dominant paradigm until it's failure last year is both a testimony to his vision and the lack of vision laid out by his successors.
There has not been a really visionary Democrat in the White House since John F. Kennedy, nearly half a century ago.
That will change on Tuesday.
For a change we will have a President who is inspirational and has already inspired millions of people to do their best. In the finest tradition of 'ask now what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country' it is likely that President Obama will challenge each and every one of us to do. Not just to put a little sticker on our car or something, but rather to do great things, both in our communities and for our country at large.
Beyond that, he is without question the first President since at least Reagan who can inspire millions of people just by his words. I've felt a sense of renewal listening to Barack Obama that I've not heard, probably ever listening to a President (or President elect). A lot of people saw the same thing in the campaign, if polls are any indication. Obama had and projected a Presidential vision. John McCain did not.
That doesn't mean that times are not hard. They are hard. And they will get harder before they get better. But I am optimistic for a change. I am optimistic that we hvae a leader who not only can see what is coming just ahead, but has a plan for where he wants to lead us for the long term as well.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Success should be rewarded, not punished. And as Democrats we should remember that, especially regarding Chairman Dean
I'm really having a hard time keeping shut up about this one, so I will go ahead and vent.
In an earlier post I discussed the successes of Howard Dean, certainly the most successful DNC chair I've seen in my lifetime.
And Barack Obama, while he built a very good organization himself, had the scaffolding of a national party that Howard Dean had built.
You may recall that back in 2004, Zell Miller (the turncoat from Georgia) had written a book entitled 'A National Party No More' in which he claimed that the Democratic party had become shrunken down to a collection of special interests in certain parts of the country and unable to compete nationally. Of course as Democrats, we took issue with Zell's book, but the truth is that in 2004, he was onto something. Howard Dean cured that problem though, building the Democratic party in every state so that among the numerous pickups that Democrats netted during Dean's four years at the DNC were victories in places where Democrats had simply not won anytime within the memory of most people. In fact by the time he was done, it was the Republican party that for all intents and purposes has been kicked out of the urban northeast, California (where only a Republico-Democrat like Arnold Scharzeneggar can come close to winning) and a lot of places in the upper midwest. Democrats, had they won the relatively close Wyoming open seat, would now have a Democrat in the congressional delegation (house or Senate) in all fifty states. And note-- the Governor of Wyoming is a Democrat (though he was first elected two years before Dean took over at the DNC.)
So what did Howard Dean get for his spectacularly brilliant and successful leadership? Well, first of all, he was snubbed by having his successor, Tim Kaine (who it's been known for some time had been hand-picked by the incoming President, as is his prerogative) announced on a day when Dean was in American Samoa, where he was building the party there (Dean believes that every Democrat needs to be represented within the party, and for this egalitarian philosophy he was painted as a fool, mainly by fools.)
But the biggest slap (unfortunately, but facts being what they are I have to say this) came from Obama himself. His obligatory statement recognizing Dean's service read this way:
He launched a 50-state strategy that made Democrats competitive in places they had not been in years, working with my chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to give Democrats a majority in the House for the first time in over a decade.
Half of that is accurate. It is true that Dean launched the 50-state strategy, that it made Democrats competitive in places they had not been in years, and that it helped give Democrats a majority in the House for the first time in over a decade.
And it is also true that Emanuel, as chair of the Democratic congressional committee deserves some of the credit for what happened in the 2006 campaign cycle. But keep in mind that Democrats have since then gained a net of 24 more seats in the house, as well as (between the two cycles) fourteen in the Senate.
But we well know that Dean did not work at all with Emanuel. Emanuel in fact opposed Dean's strategy preferring to concentrate on places where Democrats were traditionally competitive (and I had myself once written a piece detailing back about 2003 that the GOP's congressional 'soft underbelly' was composed of northeastern Republicans who represented left-leaning districts and could be picked off just by tying them to the conservatism of the Republican leadership (using Chris van Hollen's 2002 upset of Maryland moderate Connie Morella as a model.) And that was in fact correct as far as it went, so that Democrats have taken over all 22 New England house seats and all but three in New York. But those wins alone would have only given Democrats a slim majority. They instead have a sizeable majority and it's because the 'fifty state strategy' allowed them to win Republican house seats all over the country. The fact that obnoxious Republicans like J.D. Hayworth, Charles Taylor, Robin Hayes, Virgil Goode, Bill Sali and Marilyn Musgrave, and Senator Rick Santorum, who had never been really pushed before lost, adds a measure of satisfaction.
Let's be blunt here: Emanuel and Dean don't like each other. Dean won the argument and turned out to be right. Emanuel is Obama's chief of staff. You figure out what the 'lauditory message' was supposed to say. There was no reason to give any specific mention of Rahm, all the more so since the scope of successes the party has gone through under Dean went far beyond the 2006 Congressional cycle. Issuing the statement after denying Dean even the chance to be present as his successor was introduced is a gross insult to a man to whom we all owe a heck of a lot.
I fully support the Obama administration and will continue to support them as we move forward during the most challenging economic crisis that America has faced in my 46 years. But a cheap shot is a cheap shot, and after everything Howard Dean has done for the party he deserves better than that. By signing off on that statement, the President-elect did cheapen himself. And I know he's a better man than that.
In an earlier post I discussed the successes of Howard Dean, certainly the most successful DNC chair I've seen in my lifetime.
And Barack Obama, while he built a very good organization himself, had the scaffolding of a national party that Howard Dean had built.
You may recall that back in 2004, Zell Miller (the turncoat from Georgia) had written a book entitled 'A National Party No More' in which he claimed that the Democratic party had become shrunken down to a collection of special interests in certain parts of the country and unable to compete nationally. Of course as Democrats, we took issue with Zell's book, but the truth is that in 2004, he was onto something. Howard Dean cured that problem though, building the Democratic party in every state so that among the numerous pickups that Democrats netted during Dean's four years at the DNC were victories in places where Democrats had simply not won anytime within the memory of most people. In fact by the time he was done, it was the Republican party that for all intents and purposes has been kicked out of the urban northeast, California (where only a Republico-Democrat like Arnold Scharzeneggar can come close to winning) and a lot of places in the upper midwest. Democrats, had they won the relatively close Wyoming open seat, would now have a Democrat in the congressional delegation (house or Senate) in all fifty states. And note-- the Governor of Wyoming is a Democrat (though he was first elected two years before Dean took over at the DNC.)
So what did Howard Dean get for his spectacularly brilliant and successful leadership? Well, first of all, he was snubbed by having his successor, Tim Kaine (who it's been known for some time had been hand-picked by the incoming President, as is his prerogative) announced on a day when Dean was in American Samoa, where he was building the party there (Dean believes that every Democrat needs to be represented within the party, and for this egalitarian philosophy he was painted as a fool, mainly by fools.)
But the biggest slap (unfortunately, but facts being what they are I have to say this) came from Obama himself. His obligatory statement recognizing Dean's service read this way:
He launched a 50-state strategy that made Democrats competitive in places they had not been in years, working with my chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to give Democrats a majority in the House for the first time in over a decade.
Half of that is accurate. It is true that Dean launched the 50-state strategy, that it made Democrats competitive in places they had not been in years, and that it helped give Democrats a majority in the House for the first time in over a decade.
And it is also true that Emanuel, as chair of the Democratic congressional committee deserves some of the credit for what happened in the 2006 campaign cycle. But keep in mind that Democrats have since then gained a net of 24 more seats in the house, as well as (between the two cycles) fourteen in the Senate.
But we well know that Dean did not work at all with Emanuel. Emanuel in fact opposed Dean's strategy preferring to concentrate on places where Democrats were traditionally competitive (and I had myself once written a piece detailing back about 2003 that the GOP's congressional 'soft underbelly' was composed of northeastern Republicans who represented left-leaning districts and could be picked off just by tying them to the conservatism of the Republican leadership (using Chris van Hollen's 2002 upset of Maryland moderate Connie Morella as a model.) And that was in fact correct as far as it went, so that Democrats have taken over all 22 New England house seats and all but three in New York. But those wins alone would have only given Democrats a slim majority. They instead have a sizeable majority and it's because the 'fifty state strategy' allowed them to win Republican house seats all over the country. The fact that obnoxious Republicans like J.D. Hayworth, Charles Taylor, Robin Hayes, Virgil Goode, Bill Sali and Marilyn Musgrave, and Senator Rick Santorum, who had never been really pushed before lost, adds a measure of satisfaction.
Let's be blunt here: Emanuel and Dean don't like each other. Dean won the argument and turned out to be right. Emanuel is Obama's chief of staff. You figure out what the 'lauditory message' was supposed to say. There was no reason to give any specific mention of Rahm, all the more so since the scope of successes the party has gone through under Dean went far beyond the 2006 Congressional cycle. Issuing the statement after denying Dean even the chance to be present as his successor was introduced is a gross insult to a man to whom we all owe a heck of a lot.
I fully support the Obama administration and will continue to support them as we move forward during the most challenging economic crisis that America has faced in my 46 years. But a cheap shot is a cheap shot, and after everything Howard Dean has done for the party he deserves better than that. By signing off on that statement, the President-elect did cheapen himself. And I know he's a better man than that.
Bush throws a 'Hail Mary'
Most Presidents, ten days before the end of their administration, would be busy packing, signing letters of reference for their staff, soliciting donors for their Presidential libraries, figuring out who they want to pardon,...
That's what most outgoing Presidents would be doing.
But then George W. Bush is one of a kind (thank God for that.)
In just his last ten days in office, he's looking to spend another third of a trillion dollars.
Specifically, he's asking Congress for the other half of the $700 billion TARP bailout fund. Recall that when the bill was passed, it was carefully divided into two halves-- half for Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to pass around, and half that would be appropriated after the new administration took office. Bush and Paulson have exhausted their half.
Congressional Democrats were notified Friday afternoon by the White House that they could get a request soon for the second half of the allocated bailout funds. Once Congress receives the request for the money, both chambers can try to block the release of the money if they do so within an expedited time frame....
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed unhappiness with the way Treasury used the first $350 billion to capitalize banks. Specifically, they object to how Treasury made investments with few strings attached and no process for tracking how the banks are using the money.
They also are unhappy that none of the $350 billion allocated to date has been used to prevent foreclosures.
No, instead of using them to help ordinary Americans, banks and other corporations that received Federal bailout funds with no strings attached used them for, among other things, a posh party thrown for AIG executives at a resort in California and the swallowing up of smaller but solvent banks by larger ones, a taxpayer-funded orgy of a short and nostalgic return to the era of 'mergers and acquisitions.' That's what banks used to do when they had money, and nobody bothered to make sure they wouldn't spend Federal funds to do the same thing again.
In fact, virtually the only part of the first half that was given with any real strings attached was the final $14 billion, given as a loan to the auto industry.
So now, Bush is claiming that he needs the other $350 billion. But he's not saying anything about who he plans to give it to, or why they need it. If there is another imminent financial crisis about to happen, then I want to know what my $1,000 share of that debt is being spent on. Not so some bank can buy some other bank, or so insurance executives can go to a spa and get me to pay for their pedicure. If the roof is about to cave in, and it can't wait for ten days, then I want to know why and how much it is going to cost. If absolutely necessary then release exactly what is needed and send it directly to the recipient-- with a clearly stated itemization of how it will be spent. But that's all. Don't hand Bush another $350 billion. The way he spends money, it will all be gone even faster than he will be.
Who is he looking to pay off, anyway?
That's what most outgoing Presidents would be doing.
But then George W. Bush is one of a kind (thank God for that.)
In just his last ten days in office, he's looking to spend another third of a trillion dollars.
Specifically, he's asking Congress for the other half of the $700 billion TARP bailout fund. Recall that when the bill was passed, it was carefully divided into two halves-- half for Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to pass around, and half that would be appropriated after the new administration took office. Bush and Paulson have exhausted their half.
Congressional Democrats were notified Friday afternoon by the White House that they could get a request soon for the second half of the allocated bailout funds. Once Congress receives the request for the money, both chambers can try to block the release of the money if they do so within an expedited time frame....
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed unhappiness with the way Treasury used the first $350 billion to capitalize banks. Specifically, they object to how Treasury made investments with few strings attached and no process for tracking how the banks are using the money.
They also are unhappy that none of the $350 billion allocated to date has been used to prevent foreclosures.
No, instead of using them to help ordinary Americans, banks and other corporations that received Federal bailout funds with no strings attached used them for, among other things, a posh party thrown for AIG executives at a resort in California and the swallowing up of smaller but solvent banks by larger ones, a taxpayer-funded orgy of a short and nostalgic return to the era of 'mergers and acquisitions.' That's what banks used to do when they had money, and nobody bothered to make sure they wouldn't spend Federal funds to do the same thing again.
In fact, virtually the only part of the first half that was given with any real strings attached was the final $14 billion, given as a loan to the auto industry.
So now, Bush is claiming that he needs the other $350 billion. But he's not saying anything about who he plans to give it to, or why they need it. If there is another imminent financial crisis about to happen, then I want to know what my $1,000 share of that debt is being spent on. Not so some bank can buy some other bank, or so insurance executives can go to a spa and get me to pay for their pedicure. If the roof is about to cave in, and it can't wait for ten days, then I want to know why and how much it is going to cost. If absolutely necessary then release exactly what is needed and send it directly to the recipient-- with a clearly stated itemization of how it will be spent. But that's all. Don't hand Bush another $350 billion. The way he spends money, it will all be gone even faster than he will be.
Who is he looking to pay off, anyway?
Thursday, January 08, 2009
A moment to give credit where it is due. To Howard Dean.
Barack Obama has announced that his choice for chair of the Democratic National Committee is Governor Tim Kaine of Virgnia.
I've seen Kaine on television, and he is good in front of the cameras. He certainly has showed his loyalty to the new President, endorsing Obama early and helping him win a key primary, the first big contest after Obama and Hillary Clinton fought to a draw on Super-Duper Tuesday. I believe that Kaine will continue to build in the work that outgoing chair Howard Dean did.
I'd like to take a moment though and thank any of you who were once "Deaniacs." I can't say that I was, having supported Wesley Clark in the primary election for President in 2004.
No matter. Let's go back to that year for a moment. As Democrats, we'd had it drilled into us by the right that 1) we were in a permanent and getting smaller minority, and that 2) the only way for Democrats to win was to adopt the Bill Clinton/DLC model: run more towards the right and turn our backs firmly on the notion that government could help people. Instead, let Republicans set the terms of debate, fight on their turf, using their language and accept as a premise that we were supposed to compete in terms of who could cut taxes, dismantle government programs and privatize services the fastest. And competing on 'their turf' was rhetorical only. Even Democrats who won (think Bill Clinton) did so by figuring out where they would compete and just writing off most of the rest of the country. A lot of people-- including Democrats, assumed after the GOP seized Congress 1994 that the only way a Democrat could win was to try and stitch together a 50% + 1 type majority (or a plurality) and not go for anything that might be considered bold. Too risky, they said. As a Democrat from a rural part of the West, I can tell you that there was both apathy and a certain sense of resentment that the national party had ignored areas like ours, just assuming we'd all vote for Republicans and hoping to perhaps outgun us once in a blue moon by turning out more urban Democrats.
Ronald Reagan was considered untouchable, and even Democratic politicians often referred to him as one who they looked to for ideas.
Howard Dean rejected all of that. Of course he had reason to. Howard Dean had been elected Governor of Vermont. Vermont was a state that even FDR never carried, losing it and Maine when he won every other state in 1936. Vermont was once a part of what was known as 'rock-ribbed Republican' New England, and as recently as 1988 it was still considered a GOP stronghold. But something had been going on there. Led by progressives as disparate as the owners and employees of Ben and Jerry's ice cream, and openly socialist congressman (now Senator) Bernard Sanders, liberalism had struck a chord in the Green Mountain State. Dean, along with Sanders and others articulated a vision of an America that was better than the mean-spirited 'sink or swim' land of the right. During the 1990's and early 2000's the state had moved until it was among the most progressive in America. And unlike, say, California where much of the shift has been fueled by immigration of people with fresh ideas, in Vermont the huge majority of the population was born and raised in that state. People just began to see things differently. And Howard Dean, as Governor, implemented the nation's first civil unions law and got the legislature to pass a plan giving health care coverage to all the children in the state. He also balanced the budget in the process.
And then he took his plan and ran for President. He didn't win the nomination-- done in by his now infamous geography lesson on the night he was upset in the Iowa caucuses, but those of us in the party had seen the future.
After Howard Dean failed to win, he ran for DNC chair in early 2005. By that time, I'd come around and let my DNC members know that was who I supported. And he won. And when the Bush administration tried early that year to privatize Social Security, a revitalized Democratic party hit back hard, and blocked it in Congress. Suddenly it was Republicans who were crossing over to vote with us, not the reverse. Then Dr. Dean (he is a physician, in fact) developed something new and revolutionary. He called it the '50 state strategy.' It involved sending paid organizers to every state. Even states that were solidly Republican were targeted, at least for organizing local party structure that could help in local and perhaps national races. I know that while some people here who were not paid did a lot of work to revitalize the party locally, it was helpful that there are paid staff at the state level to help provide leadership, guidance and structure.
Now granted, the failures of conservatism have been on full display the past few years. But really, there hadn't been any great successes before that for at least a couple of decades (and that was at best fleeting,) and let's remember that in both the 2002 and 2004 elections we had been outmaneuvered by the Karl Roves and Tom DeLays who ran the GOP (in October 2002, you may recall, the economy stank so Congressional Republicans-- at the behest of Rove-- changed the subject and insisted on the vote on the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq (AUMF) even though the start of the war was almost half a year away, and in 2004 the reverse happened and the GOP changed the subject away from Iraq by making the election about John Kerry instead of their own incumbent President-- a hard task to accomplish but it's what they did.)
All Howard Dean did was play better hardball than the GOP did. And his catch in two election cycles: A net of 54 congressional seats, it looks like 14 Senate seats and the White House. And here is a number that might put his success in perspective: Republicans held onto the Wyoming at-large congressional district by a relatively narrow margin. Had they not, then all fifty states would have included at least one Democrat in their delegation (Senate or House.) So right now, in forty-nine states, voters have seen fit to send a Democrat to either the house or the Senate. Incidentally, there are seven states that right now send only Democrats to Washington (four in New England, plus North Dakota, New Mexico and Hawaii.) Barack Obama even competed for-- and won-- Nebraska's second congressional district (which was worth an electoral vote.) This is Nebraska, that we are talking about. Obama also won Virginia (which had not voted for a Democrat since 1964), Indiana (also not since 1964) and North Carolina (not since 1976). In all of this, the 'fifty state strategy' played a part. The party organization was there, and ready to be put into play (as it also was in helping to win a congressional seat in Idaho, hold one in Alabama and win a Senate race in Alaska.)
Credit Howard Dean for that. Good-bye Doctor. May you stay involved.
Not bad for a simple country doctor from Vermont. But it would never have happened if millions of ordinary Americans hadn't come together and backed a guy who totally rejected the conventional wisdom of how Democrats could win elections. Thanks again if you were one of them.
I've seen Kaine on television, and he is good in front of the cameras. He certainly has showed his loyalty to the new President, endorsing Obama early and helping him win a key primary, the first big contest after Obama and Hillary Clinton fought to a draw on Super-Duper Tuesday. I believe that Kaine will continue to build in the work that outgoing chair Howard Dean did.
I'd like to take a moment though and thank any of you who were once "Deaniacs." I can't say that I was, having supported Wesley Clark in the primary election for President in 2004.
No matter. Let's go back to that year for a moment. As Democrats, we'd had it drilled into us by the right that 1) we were in a permanent and getting smaller minority, and that 2) the only way for Democrats to win was to adopt the Bill Clinton/DLC model: run more towards the right and turn our backs firmly on the notion that government could help people. Instead, let Republicans set the terms of debate, fight on their turf, using their language and accept as a premise that we were supposed to compete in terms of who could cut taxes, dismantle government programs and privatize services the fastest. And competing on 'their turf' was rhetorical only. Even Democrats who won (think Bill Clinton) did so by figuring out where they would compete and just writing off most of the rest of the country. A lot of people-- including Democrats, assumed after the GOP seized Congress 1994 that the only way a Democrat could win was to try and stitch together a 50% + 1 type majority (or a plurality) and not go for anything that might be considered bold. Too risky, they said. As a Democrat from a rural part of the West, I can tell you that there was both apathy and a certain sense of resentment that the national party had ignored areas like ours, just assuming we'd all vote for Republicans and hoping to perhaps outgun us once in a blue moon by turning out more urban Democrats.
Ronald Reagan was considered untouchable, and even Democratic politicians often referred to him as one who they looked to for ideas.
Howard Dean rejected all of that. Of course he had reason to. Howard Dean had been elected Governor of Vermont. Vermont was a state that even FDR never carried, losing it and Maine when he won every other state in 1936. Vermont was once a part of what was known as 'rock-ribbed Republican' New England, and as recently as 1988 it was still considered a GOP stronghold. But something had been going on there. Led by progressives as disparate as the owners and employees of Ben and Jerry's ice cream, and openly socialist congressman (now Senator) Bernard Sanders, liberalism had struck a chord in the Green Mountain State. Dean, along with Sanders and others articulated a vision of an America that was better than the mean-spirited 'sink or swim' land of the right. During the 1990's and early 2000's the state had moved until it was among the most progressive in America. And unlike, say, California where much of the shift has been fueled by immigration of people with fresh ideas, in Vermont the huge majority of the population was born and raised in that state. People just began to see things differently. And Howard Dean, as Governor, implemented the nation's first civil unions law and got the legislature to pass a plan giving health care coverage to all the children in the state. He also balanced the budget in the process.
And then he took his plan and ran for President. He didn't win the nomination-- done in by his now infamous geography lesson on the night he was upset in the Iowa caucuses, but those of us in the party had seen the future.
After Howard Dean failed to win, he ran for DNC chair in early 2005. By that time, I'd come around and let my DNC members know that was who I supported. And he won. And when the Bush administration tried early that year to privatize Social Security, a revitalized Democratic party hit back hard, and blocked it in Congress. Suddenly it was Republicans who were crossing over to vote with us, not the reverse. Then Dr. Dean (he is a physician, in fact) developed something new and revolutionary. He called it the '50 state strategy.' It involved sending paid organizers to every state. Even states that were solidly Republican were targeted, at least for organizing local party structure that could help in local and perhaps national races. I know that while some people here who were not paid did a lot of work to revitalize the party locally, it was helpful that there are paid staff at the state level to help provide leadership, guidance and structure.
Now granted, the failures of conservatism have been on full display the past few years. But really, there hadn't been any great successes before that for at least a couple of decades (and that was at best fleeting,) and let's remember that in both the 2002 and 2004 elections we had been outmaneuvered by the Karl Roves and Tom DeLays who ran the GOP (in October 2002, you may recall, the economy stank so Congressional Republicans-- at the behest of Rove-- changed the subject and insisted on the vote on the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq (AUMF) even though the start of the war was almost half a year away, and in 2004 the reverse happened and the GOP changed the subject away from Iraq by making the election about John Kerry instead of their own incumbent President-- a hard task to accomplish but it's what they did.)
All Howard Dean did was play better hardball than the GOP did. And his catch in two election cycles: A net of 54 congressional seats, it looks like 14 Senate seats and the White House. And here is a number that might put his success in perspective: Republicans held onto the Wyoming at-large congressional district by a relatively narrow margin. Had they not, then all fifty states would have included at least one Democrat in their delegation (Senate or House.) So right now, in forty-nine states, voters have seen fit to send a Democrat to either the house or the Senate. Incidentally, there are seven states that right now send only Democrats to Washington (four in New England, plus North Dakota, New Mexico and Hawaii.) Barack Obama even competed for-- and won-- Nebraska's second congressional district (which was worth an electoral vote.) This is Nebraska, that we are talking about. Obama also won Virginia (which had not voted for a Democrat since 1964), Indiana (also not since 1964) and North Carolina (not since 1976). In all of this, the 'fifty state strategy' played a part. The party organization was there, and ready to be put into play (as it also was in helping to win a congressional seat in Idaho, hold one in Alabama and win a Senate race in Alaska.)
Credit Howard Dean for that. Good-bye Doctor. May you stay involved.
Not bad for a simple country doctor from Vermont. But it would never have happened if millions of ordinary Americans hadn't come together and backed a guy who totally rejected the conventional wisdom of how Democrats could win elections. Thanks again if you were one of them.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Conservatives new mantra: The New Deal made the Great Depression last longer.
It's understandable that in seeking to figure out a rationale for opposing the Obama stimulus program, conservatives would seek to find ways to criticize the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt's big-spending set of Government programs that helped put millions to work and build much of this nation's infrastructure during the Great Depression. But lately they've gone from constructive criticism to the dumfoundingly stupid, claiming that the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression. In so doing, they tend to skip over the years 1933 (when it was put into place), 1934, 1935 and 1936, instead focusing on a short recession that marred the recovery during the years 1937-1938. Of course they ignore that this recession was caused precisely because Roosevelt changed course after the 1936 election and, taking advice from fiscal conservatives, he actually did cut spending on his programs and balance the budget.
Well, this doesn't suit the talk radio hosts who first started putting this notion into play, so I guess if history and facts don't work for them, what's a little historical revisionism, right?
In his latest column, David Sirota quotes University of California historian Eric Rauchway, who examined the the actual data and found that
Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms [while] the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent
Remember, in 1937-1938, was the year that Roosevelt tried to balance the budget by cutting spending.
Hence, if there is a lesson for Obama here, it is this one: DON'T take the advice of fiscal conservatives.
Well, this doesn't suit the talk radio hosts who first started putting this notion into play, so I guess if history and facts don't work for them, what's a little historical revisionism, right?
In his latest column, David Sirota quotes University of California historian Eric Rauchway, who examined the the actual data and found that
Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms [while] the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent
Remember, in 1937-1938, was the year that Roosevelt tried to balance the budget by cutting spending.
Hence, if there is a lesson for Obama here, it is this one: DON'T take the advice of fiscal conservatives.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Some predictions for 2009 (take these with a grain of salt.)
Some predictions for the New Year:
January: In his last act in office, President Bush will issue a full and unconditional pardon to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. A few days later, Burris will withdraw his name from consideration and Blago will name Karl Rove, who it is learned made a successful bid on a home on the foreclosure block in Cicero. All three of them will deny there was a deal.
Barack Obama will deliver a riveting inaugural speech. After that Joe Biden will rewind the teleprompter and give it again.
Also in January, Chip Saltsman will be elected as chair of the RNC, and the first thing he does after accepting his election will be to lead the assembled delegates in a chorus of, "Barack the Magic Negro," followed by the pledge of allegiance to the Confederate flag and a salute to the late Jesse Helms.
February: The unemployment rolls will swell with former members of the Bush administration. As part of his economic stimulus plan, Obama will offer them jobs earning $12 an hour welding steel girders as part of bridge replacement projects.
In February, card-check will pass and Wal-Mart will announce in a statement from their corporate headquarters they are officially having a hissy fit and closing all their stores.
March: Following slow sports book on the Super Bowl and March madness, the gaming industry becomes the latest American industry to ask for a bailout. They will ask for $20 billion. When Congress balks industry executives will offer 'double or nothing' over a game of craps. Congressional leaders will take them up on it, and roll boxcars.
Also in March there will be a move on to legalize marijuana. Astute White House observers saw this coming in January when Cheech Marin was introduced as the new Surgeon General.
April: Congress passes an amnesty bill making all undocumented immigrants who have not been convicted of a felony American citizens. They will avoid a filibuster by letting John McCain write the bill. The first fallout from this will occur almost immediately as a resolution is passed in the California legislature by a coalition that we quickly rehabilitate the image of the United States by renaming the country, "Los Estados Unidos."
Also in April, the booze industry will ask for a bailout. After sending a whole lot of free product to Capitol Hill for an all-night session, they will be approved for "twenty-shicksh hundred and a gazillion dollars."
Also in April, the Detroit Lions will draft Oklahoma Quarterback Sam Bradford first in the NFL draft. Bradford will refuse to play for the Lions unless they pay him $150 million up front and give him a car company. Desperate, Detroit agrees. Bradford takes over control of General Motors.
May: The U.S. Supreme Court upholds gay marriage. Almost immediately, pastor Ted Haggard will become the first pastor to officiate at his own wedding as he ties the knot with former Idaho Senator Larry Craig.
Also in May, as the price of oil stays under $50 a barrel and research on alternative fuels pushes ahead, Big Oil will ask for a bailout. They will be approved.
June: In order to shock people, Britney Spears will have her eyeballs pierced. Nobody will notice.
Also in June, the pharmaceutical industry will ask for a bailout. They don't need one but what the hey?-- they have the best lobbyists and they know they can get anything they want.
July: In order to shock people, Britney Spears will cut her ear off. Nobody will notice.
Also in July, the coffee industry will ask for a bailout. They will get it after congressional staffers realize that without it there might be no more cappucino.
August: In order to shock people, Britney Spears will have her face removed. Nobody will notice.
Also in August, American forces will capture Osama bin Laden in a cave along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. He will be caught when he steps outside during a rainstorm to take a shower.
September: Britney Spears will have the first face transplant for purely cosmetic purposes. People will notice-- mainly because the donor will be Jack Nicholson.
Also in September, a slow summer 'blockbuster' season will result in the movie industry asking for a bailout. They will be approved, and shortly thereafter a movie will open in theaters showing a bunch of politicians in suits and holding automatic weapons, heroically standing their ground and fighting off thousands of terrorists.
October: Robert Mugabe, running out of excuses and people to blame for his countries' ongoing economic crisis, will unleash a torrent of violence against the nation's animal population. Gangs of Mugabe thugs will beat
zebras for not being 'black enough.'
Also in October, the Obama administration will negotiate a comprehensive and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Combined with other peace intiatives the fallout will be immediate, as the arms industry asks for a bailout. They will be approved.
November: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will pardon another turkey. Specifically, she will say she bears no ill feelings towards John McCain.
Also in November, a financially troubled American industry will ask for a bailout and finally be denied. Shortly thereafter Phillip Morris, Liggett and RJR will file for bankruptcy.
December: Christ will make his second appearance on earth. It will turn out that he grew up in meager surroundings, the son of undocumented immigrants in east L.A., living in the tenements and attending public schools. A lot of people will be saying, "uh-oh."
January: In his last act in office, President Bush will issue a full and unconditional pardon to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. A few days later, Burris will withdraw his name from consideration and Blago will name Karl Rove, who it is learned made a successful bid on a home on the foreclosure block in Cicero. All three of them will deny there was a deal.
Barack Obama will deliver a riveting inaugural speech. After that Joe Biden will rewind the teleprompter and give it again.
Also in January, Chip Saltsman will be elected as chair of the RNC, and the first thing he does after accepting his election will be to lead the assembled delegates in a chorus of, "Barack the Magic Negro," followed by the pledge of allegiance to the Confederate flag and a salute to the late Jesse Helms.
February: The unemployment rolls will swell with former members of the Bush administration. As part of his economic stimulus plan, Obama will offer them jobs earning $12 an hour welding steel girders as part of bridge replacement projects.
In February, card-check will pass and Wal-Mart will announce in a statement from their corporate headquarters they are officially having a hissy fit and closing all their stores.
March: Following slow sports book on the Super Bowl and March madness, the gaming industry becomes the latest American industry to ask for a bailout. They will ask for $20 billion. When Congress balks industry executives will offer 'double or nothing' over a game of craps. Congressional leaders will take them up on it, and roll boxcars.
Also in March there will be a move on to legalize marijuana. Astute White House observers saw this coming in January when Cheech Marin was introduced as the new Surgeon General.
April: Congress passes an amnesty bill making all undocumented immigrants who have not been convicted of a felony American citizens. They will avoid a filibuster by letting John McCain write the bill. The first fallout from this will occur almost immediately as a resolution is passed in the California legislature by a coalition that we quickly rehabilitate the image of the United States by renaming the country, "Los Estados Unidos."
Also in April, the booze industry will ask for a bailout. After sending a whole lot of free product to Capitol Hill for an all-night session, they will be approved for "twenty-shicksh hundred and a gazillion dollars."
Also in April, the Detroit Lions will draft Oklahoma Quarterback Sam Bradford first in the NFL draft. Bradford will refuse to play for the Lions unless they pay him $150 million up front and give him a car company. Desperate, Detroit agrees. Bradford takes over control of General Motors.
May: The U.S. Supreme Court upholds gay marriage. Almost immediately, pastor Ted Haggard will become the first pastor to officiate at his own wedding as he ties the knot with former Idaho Senator Larry Craig.
Also in May, as the price of oil stays under $50 a barrel and research on alternative fuels pushes ahead, Big Oil will ask for a bailout. They will be approved.
June: In order to shock people, Britney Spears will have her eyeballs pierced. Nobody will notice.
Also in June, the pharmaceutical industry will ask for a bailout. They don't need one but what the hey?-- they have the best lobbyists and they know they can get anything they want.
July: In order to shock people, Britney Spears will cut her ear off. Nobody will notice.
Also in July, the coffee industry will ask for a bailout. They will get it after congressional staffers realize that without it there might be no more cappucino.
August: In order to shock people, Britney Spears will have her face removed. Nobody will notice.
Also in August, American forces will capture Osama bin Laden in a cave along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. He will be caught when he steps outside during a rainstorm to take a shower.
September: Britney Spears will have the first face transplant for purely cosmetic purposes. People will notice-- mainly because the donor will be Jack Nicholson.
Also in September, a slow summer 'blockbuster' season will result in the movie industry asking for a bailout. They will be approved, and shortly thereafter a movie will open in theaters showing a bunch of politicians in suits and holding automatic weapons, heroically standing their ground and fighting off thousands of terrorists.
October: Robert Mugabe, running out of excuses and people to blame for his countries' ongoing economic crisis, will unleash a torrent of violence against the nation's animal population. Gangs of Mugabe thugs will beat
zebras for not being 'black enough.'
Also in October, the Obama administration will negotiate a comprehensive and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Combined with other peace intiatives the fallout will be immediate, as the arms industry asks for a bailout. They will be approved.
November: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will pardon another turkey. Specifically, she will say she bears no ill feelings towards John McCain.
Also in November, a financially troubled American industry will ask for a bailout and finally be denied. Shortly thereafter Phillip Morris, Liggett and RJR will file for bankruptcy.
December: Christ will make his second appearance on earth. It will turn out that he grew up in meager surroundings, the son of undocumented immigrants in east L.A., living in the tenements and attending public schools. A lot of people will be saying, "uh-oh."
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Keep it up, and bash your way to another loss, Losers!
Some years ago, Rush Limbaugh came up with the idea of parodying 'political correctness' by intentionally using insulting, outdated or derogatory terms to poke fun at various groups. The idea was to criticize the idea that in order to avoid offending any particular group of people we had come up with race/gender/sexual orientation/disability/ethnicity-neutral terms and in some cases some institutions had even tried to ban some of the less 'politically correct' terms out of a fear that someone might be offended. And in a very narrow way, I agree with him, in that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees me the right to use any term I want to describe someone, even one that is deeply offensive to them.
However, if you say something that is designed to offend people, then you should not be surprised if they take offense at it. And being offended, you should not be surprised if they also tune out whatever else you are saying, especially in the area of partisan politics. And that brings us up to today, in which a parody of Barack Obama which originally was played on the Limbaugh show, entitled, "Barack the Magic Negro" is now being handed out as a campaign song by a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, prompting the current chair, Mike Duncan to issue a statement expressing shock at the use of the song, which was part of a larger collection on CD distributed by Chip Saltsman, formerly the campaign manager of the Huckabee campaign and now a candidate for RNC chairman. The exact text of Duncan's statement reads,
"The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party. I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction."
It is true that the song is just one on a collection of parodies from the Limbaugh show to appear on the CD, but then someone somewhere had to make a conscious decision to include it instead of some other parody.
And therein lies the rub. I doubt if many Republicans will listen to much that Duncan, who led the party through two consecutive historic defeats, says, but he is right. And it's not limited to just offending African-Americans (who it is safe to say have already been cemented in place for the foreseeable future as a Democratic voting bloc.) In fact, earlier this decade the GOP had at least played lip service to trying to recruit African-American candidates and working with black evangelical leaders (those most likely to be receptive to a Republican message) but this year that was gone, replaced by "Barack the Magic Negro." Well, to paraphrase Caesar, I came, I saw, and what I saw wasn't worth hanging around.
The GOP has become the anti-gay party, supporting anti-gay marriage initiatives, opposing legislation designed to stop discrimination in areas like hospital visitation, inheritance and adoption, agreeing to support hate-crimes legislation (sometimes) only if sexual orientation is not included as a hate-crime motivation (despite the fact that it ranks ahead of religion, gender or disability as an actual motivation for hate crimes) and using gay-bashing rhetoric in a number of campaigns around the country (and we haven't even gotten into the whole 'gays in the military' argument.) Of course gay people are (other than gay issues) no different in their concerns than straight people, worrying about their communities, their taxes, their kids' schools and the safety of the country. Some of them are downright conservative. But conservatives have done their best to drive gay Americans straight to the Democratic party, even to the extent that when openly gay former congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) spoke at the 2004 GOP convention a number of delegates openly turned their back on him in protest.
Then while casting around for an issue to 'galvanize' their base for the 2006 election, someone in the GOP brain trust hit on illegal immigration (an issue which has been with us ever since Congress in 1923 ended the open immigration policy and slammed the Golden Door shut for good.) Most of the time illegal immigration has remained on a low simmer, and most people when they stop and think about it realize that it is the accumulated difference between the number of jobs the market requires and the number Congress assigns to the job market via artificial immigration quotas. The recent attempt to politicize the issue has backfired however, as it cost the GOP three house seats in Texas and Arizona in the 2006 election and has cost the party the support of millions of Hispanic voters-- the nation's fastest growing electorate. Remember that in 2004, just four years ago, the GOP drew the support of 44% of Hispanic voters. In the 2006 midterms Republican support dropped to about half that. John McCain did a little better with Hispanics but not good enough to prevent a major loss of support. The reason for the loss of Hispanics by the GOP is clear: immigrant bashing has become Hispanic bashing, as some Latino Americans have suffered from racial profiling and guilt-by-association. More to the point, some Republicans have convinced themselves that they are only bashing "illegal" immigrants and it shouldn't have any effect on legal residents including legal Hispanic residents. This bit of self-denial depends on the assumption that somehow there is one gene pool of 'illegal' immigrants and another which includes everyone else. That is of course absurd. Many undocumented workers, especially those who've been here for awhile, have spouses, partners, children and other relatives who are not only legal but in many cases U.S. citizens and voters. Of course family, both immediate and extended is very important in the Hispanic community. The attack on 'illegal' immigrants is an attack on families, and once you've attacked someone's family you've pretty much lost their vote.
The GOP also suffers from a gender gap. They haven't openly attacked women as a group (limiting the bashing to women who happen to be feminists,) but at the same time they've not been very successfual at addressing women's issues. And it really shows up in Congress. After the 2006 elections, there were just as many male Republican members of the house as there were male Democrats. The difference was a 50-20 edge among female house members. Beyond that, most women, even those who don't consider themselves 'feminists' recognize that if it weren't for feminists they wouldn't have the opportunities they have today. So the whole feminist-bashing attack hasn't endeared the conservative movement to women, even those who themselves would never use that word as an adjective when writing a resume.
Beyond this, younger voters, those who have grown up in a 'politically correct' environment, don't (to their credit) have any taste for the prejudices and attitudes held by some of their elders. So the whole concept of ethnic or stereotypical 'bashing' just rubs them the wrong way, even when they themselves are not on the receiving end of it. And what we've seen lately is that unlike previous generations of young voters, the current generation is involved politically and they do show up and vote.
So go ahead, Republicans. Keep the 'bashing' coming. Make my day.
However, if you say something that is designed to offend people, then you should not be surprised if they take offense at it. And being offended, you should not be surprised if they also tune out whatever else you are saying, especially in the area of partisan politics. And that brings us up to today, in which a parody of Barack Obama which originally was played on the Limbaugh show, entitled, "Barack the Magic Negro" is now being handed out as a campaign song by a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, prompting the current chair, Mike Duncan to issue a statement expressing shock at the use of the song, which was part of a larger collection on CD distributed by Chip Saltsman, formerly the campaign manager of the Huckabee campaign and now a candidate for RNC chairman. The exact text of Duncan's statement reads,
"The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party. I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction."
It is true that the song is just one on a collection of parodies from the Limbaugh show to appear on the CD, but then someone somewhere had to make a conscious decision to include it instead of some other parody.
And therein lies the rub. I doubt if many Republicans will listen to much that Duncan, who led the party through two consecutive historic defeats, says, but he is right. And it's not limited to just offending African-Americans (who it is safe to say have already been cemented in place for the foreseeable future as a Democratic voting bloc.) In fact, earlier this decade the GOP had at least played lip service to trying to recruit African-American candidates and working with black evangelical leaders (those most likely to be receptive to a Republican message) but this year that was gone, replaced by "Barack the Magic Negro." Well, to paraphrase Caesar, I came, I saw, and what I saw wasn't worth hanging around.
The GOP has become the anti-gay party, supporting anti-gay marriage initiatives, opposing legislation designed to stop discrimination in areas like hospital visitation, inheritance and adoption, agreeing to support hate-crimes legislation (sometimes) only if sexual orientation is not included as a hate-crime motivation (despite the fact that it ranks ahead of religion, gender or disability as an actual motivation for hate crimes) and using gay-bashing rhetoric in a number of campaigns around the country (and we haven't even gotten into the whole 'gays in the military' argument.) Of course gay people are (other than gay issues) no different in their concerns than straight people, worrying about their communities, their taxes, their kids' schools and the safety of the country. Some of them are downright conservative. But conservatives have done their best to drive gay Americans straight to the Democratic party, even to the extent that when openly gay former congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) spoke at the 2004 GOP convention a number of delegates openly turned their back on him in protest.
Then while casting around for an issue to 'galvanize' their base for the 2006 election, someone in the GOP brain trust hit on illegal immigration (an issue which has been with us ever since Congress in 1923 ended the open immigration policy and slammed the Golden Door shut for good.) Most of the time illegal immigration has remained on a low simmer, and most people when they stop and think about it realize that it is the accumulated difference between the number of jobs the market requires and the number Congress assigns to the job market via artificial immigration quotas. The recent attempt to politicize the issue has backfired however, as it cost the GOP three house seats in Texas and Arizona in the 2006 election and has cost the party the support of millions of Hispanic voters-- the nation's fastest growing electorate. Remember that in 2004, just four years ago, the GOP drew the support of 44% of Hispanic voters. In the 2006 midterms Republican support dropped to about half that. John McCain did a little better with Hispanics but not good enough to prevent a major loss of support. The reason for the loss of Hispanics by the GOP is clear: immigrant bashing has become Hispanic bashing, as some Latino Americans have suffered from racial profiling and guilt-by-association. More to the point, some Republicans have convinced themselves that they are only bashing "illegal" immigrants and it shouldn't have any effect on legal residents including legal Hispanic residents. This bit of self-denial depends on the assumption that somehow there is one gene pool of 'illegal' immigrants and another which includes everyone else. That is of course absurd. Many undocumented workers, especially those who've been here for awhile, have spouses, partners, children and other relatives who are not only legal but in many cases U.S. citizens and voters. Of course family, both immediate and extended is very important in the Hispanic community. The attack on 'illegal' immigrants is an attack on families, and once you've attacked someone's family you've pretty much lost their vote.
The GOP also suffers from a gender gap. They haven't openly attacked women as a group (limiting the bashing to women who happen to be feminists,) but at the same time they've not been very successfual at addressing women's issues. And it really shows up in Congress. After the 2006 elections, there were just as many male Republican members of the house as there were male Democrats. The difference was a 50-20 edge among female house members. Beyond that, most women, even those who don't consider themselves 'feminists' recognize that if it weren't for feminists they wouldn't have the opportunities they have today. So the whole feminist-bashing attack hasn't endeared the conservative movement to women, even those who themselves would never use that word as an adjective when writing a resume.
Beyond this, younger voters, those who have grown up in a 'politically correct' environment, don't (to their credit) have any taste for the prejudices and attitudes held by some of their elders. So the whole concept of ethnic or stereotypical 'bashing' just rubs them the wrong way, even when they themselves are not on the receiving end of it. And what we've seen lately is that unlike previous generations of young voters, the current generation is involved politically and they do show up and vote.
So go ahead, Republicans. Keep the 'bashing' coming. Make my day.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Sad episode (not) in Gilbert underlines the disconnect people have between taxes and services
Gilbert, Arizona is a typical suburban/exurban community (in this case a suburb of Phoenix.) Upscale but not identifiably wealthy (like Paradise Valley, for example) and with a mixture of neighborhoods but few or none that would be considered 'bad' it is politically conservative-- the kind of place in Maricopa county that provides reliable Republican majorities that keep the county tilting red even though the city of Phoenix has begun voting Democratic. Gilbert has been singed by the foreclosure crisis like the rest of metro Phoenix but it has escaped with less of a hit than a lot of other communities. And like in most conservative communities, people there don't particularly like paying taxes and they will tell you that.
Gilbert isn't completely solidly contiguous however, containing several unincorporated 'county islands' surrounded by city. The people who live in those areas are generally a little more well off than the rest of the city, and they have steadfastly refused to be incorporated into the city, because then they would have to pay municipal taxes (though Gilbert's municipal taxes are not particularly high in comparison with other local cities.)
So a couple of years ago the issue of fire protection came up. The legislature passed a law in June stipulating that the residents of the 'county islands' pay a fee of $1.59 per $100 of secondary assessed valuation (a reduced tax, in other words) specifically for fire coverage. According to today's paper the city is being forced to 'eat' a significant loss at that, as the $1.59 only pays about half the cost of providing coverage in the expanded area.
Yesterday that was put to the test. And it failed badly. First of all, firefighters from three fire houses who responded to a residential fire discovered that residents of the 'island' had put 800 to 1000 pound concrete barricades up across the street they were coming down (apparently to keep out unwanted traffic from residents of the town of Gilbert; I guess being 'unincorporated' gives some idiots the right to think they can redraw the street map as they see fit without notifying emergency providers.) So the firefighters had to park their trucks, get out and spend several minutes dragging the barricades away while the fire was flaring out of control. Then they got there, and they discovered that since they were not within the city (where city law specifies that there must be a fire hydrant every five hundred feet) the nearest hydrant was nearly half a mile away. After patching together almost half a mile of fire hose, there was very little to do except put out the embers and make sure that the fire didn't spread to surrounding structures. The home was a total loss (though the good news is that no one was injured.)
A neighbor was interviewed in today's Arizona Republic, and she thought that the $1.59 'fire fee' should have covered the placement of hydrants. In fact it does not. It covers fire coverage-- and that's all. Essentially they paid the firefighters who responded to the call to remove their barricades, piece together a half mile fire hose and prevent the fire from spreading beyond that property. The cost of placing hydrants, a basic infrastructure item (and $15,000 per hydrant) is far more than the reduced tax they are paying will cover, even if the city got authorization to put them there, technically 'outside' of the city limits. But the people in the 'county island' seem to think they should be there-- in other words they refuse to join the city because they don't want to pay city taxes, but they want the city to use those city taxpayers' money to put an infrastructure improvement-- fire hydrants-- in their community that wasn't called for under the legislatively passed law (and recall the city of Gilbert has stated that the fee they are being forced to accept by the legislature only pays about half of the actual cost of coverage, and that's not including hydrants.)
What gets me here though is something that I've seen before. I remember living in a town where there was a municipal bond issue on the ballot to pay for basic services. A group of very vocal anti-tax people campaigned hard, and they succeeded. The measure lost. Fair enough. But then a couple of months later the town announced that it was cutting back on residential garbage collection, from every week to every other week, and all of a sudden the very same people who had been up in arms about the bond issue started complaining loudly about the cut in services. Apparently it didn't register on them that there was any kind of connection-- they must have been spoiled as kids, believing that the services they need will just materialize out of thin air without actually having to pay for it. Maybe they think that government is just awash in waste and fat, so that they can cut taxes and they will still find the money to maintain services by 'trimming fat.' I've talked to more than one person who's told me, after voting against a bond issue and expecting that things will be paid for, "They've got the money, you know they do." Well, in fact often they don't. Tax cuts = budget cuts = service cuts. A really simple equation.
Now, if you honestly believe in tax cuts, that's fine. But don't complain if services get cut. I believe the opposite-- I favor government providing quality service-- but I understand that the price I pay for it will be higher taxes.
Ironically, it is the more conservative regions of the country that most benefit from taxes, but apparently take that for granted. In fact, if you look at Federal spending on a state by state level (using 2005 figures, the most recent ones available) in terms of the amount of money received by the states per dollar of tax revenue collected within the state you will find for example that eight of the top ten states in return per tax dollar voted Republican in the 2008 election* while all ten of the bottom states for federal spending per tax dollar collected voted Democratic this year. In fact, it is even more stark than that. Texas, which gets back $0.94 in federal spending for every tax dollar collected in the state, is the only state that voted Republican this year that does not get a net benefit from federal largesse. Georgia, which barely comes out ahead (at $1.01) and Utah ($1.07) are the only other 'red' states that even come close to breaking even, while every other Republican state gets back at least 10% more in federal dollars than they put into the till. Or put another way, if conservatives got their dream and eliminated the IRS and handed everything back to the states that is now paid by the feds, most blue states could maintain the level of services they have now without having to collect as much as the feds are now collecting, while most red states would either have to drastically cut services, drastically raise taxes even above what their residents are paying in federal taxes now, or possibly do both of those things. Yes, the gospel of anti-big government, from those who most depend on continued big government spending.
But there are still people who think you can get something for nothing, that they can have their cake and eat it too. And until that delusion is addressed and people understand the connection between taxes and the services that are provided, I think we will continue to see more situations like the unfortunate one that happened yesterday not in Gilbert.
*-- yes, the District of Columbia in 2005 did benefit from $5.55 in federal spending in the district per tax dollar collected in the district, but that is neither surprising nor relevant since the District is the seat of the government and most of this was spent on the operation of the federal government. I don't have a figure on just what was spent on programs directly benefitting the district and its residents per tax dollar paid but I suspect it's only a fraction of this.
Gilbert isn't completely solidly contiguous however, containing several unincorporated 'county islands' surrounded by city. The people who live in those areas are generally a little more well off than the rest of the city, and they have steadfastly refused to be incorporated into the city, because then they would have to pay municipal taxes (though Gilbert's municipal taxes are not particularly high in comparison with other local cities.)
So a couple of years ago the issue of fire protection came up. The legislature passed a law in June stipulating that the residents of the 'county islands' pay a fee of $1.59 per $100 of secondary assessed valuation (a reduced tax, in other words) specifically for fire coverage. According to today's paper the city is being forced to 'eat' a significant loss at that, as the $1.59 only pays about half the cost of providing coverage in the expanded area.
Yesterday that was put to the test. And it failed badly. First of all, firefighters from three fire houses who responded to a residential fire discovered that residents of the 'island' had put 800 to 1000 pound concrete barricades up across the street they were coming down (apparently to keep out unwanted traffic from residents of the town of Gilbert; I guess being 'unincorporated' gives some idiots the right to think they can redraw the street map as they see fit without notifying emergency providers.) So the firefighters had to park their trucks, get out and spend several minutes dragging the barricades away while the fire was flaring out of control. Then they got there, and they discovered that since they were not within the city (where city law specifies that there must be a fire hydrant every five hundred feet) the nearest hydrant was nearly half a mile away. After patching together almost half a mile of fire hose, there was very little to do except put out the embers and make sure that the fire didn't spread to surrounding structures. The home was a total loss (though the good news is that no one was injured.)
A neighbor was interviewed in today's Arizona Republic, and she thought that the $1.59 'fire fee' should have covered the placement of hydrants. In fact it does not. It covers fire coverage-- and that's all. Essentially they paid the firefighters who responded to the call to remove their barricades, piece together a half mile fire hose and prevent the fire from spreading beyond that property. The cost of placing hydrants, a basic infrastructure item (and $15,000 per hydrant) is far more than the reduced tax they are paying will cover, even if the city got authorization to put them there, technically 'outside' of the city limits. But the people in the 'county island' seem to think they should be there-- in other words they refuse to join the city because they don't want to pay city taxes, but they want the city to use those city taxpayers' money to put an infrastructure improvement-- fire hydrants-- in their community that wasn't called for under the legislatively passed law (and recall the city of Gilbert has stated that the fee they are being forced to accept by the legislature only pays about half of the actual cost of coverage, and that's not including hydrants.)
What gets me here though is something that I've seen before. I remember living in a town where there was a municipal bond issue on the ballot to pay for basic services. A group of very vocal anti-tax people campaigned hard, and they succeeded. The measure lost. Fair enough. But then a couple of months later the town announced that it was cutting back on residential garbage collection, from every week to every other week, and all of a sudden the very same people who had been up in arms about the bond issue started complaining loudly about the cut in services. Apparently it didn't register on them that there was any kind of connection-- they must have been spoiled as kids, believing that the services they need will just materialize out of thin air without actually having to pay for it. Maybe they think that government is just awash in waste and fat, so that they can cut taxes and they will still find the money to maintain services by 'trimming fat.' I've talked to more than one person who's told me, after voting against a bond issue and expecting that things will be paid for, "They've got the money, you know they do." Well, in fact often they don't. Tax cuts = budget cuts = service cuts. A really simple equation.
Now, if you honestly believe in tax cuts, that's fine. But don't complain if services get cut. I believe the opposite-- I favor government providing quality service-- but I understand that the price I pay for it will be higher taxes.
Ironically, it is the more conservative regions of the country that most benefit from taxes, but apparently take that for granted. In fact, if you look at Federal spending on a state by state level (using 2005 figures, the most recent ones available) in terms of the amount of money received by the states per dollar of tax revenue collected within the state you will find for example that eight of the top ten states in return per tax dollar voted Republican in the 2008 election* while all ten of the bottom states for federal spending per tax dollar collected voted Democratic this year. In fact, it is even more stark than that. Texas, which gets back $0.94 in federal spending for every tax dollar collected in the state, is the only state that voted Republican this year that does not get a net benefit from federal largesse. Georgia, which barely comes out ahead (at $1.01) and Utah ($1.07) are the only other 'red' states that even come close to breaking even, while every other Republican state gets back at least 10% more in federal dollars than they put into the till. Or put another way, if conservatives got their dream and eliminated the IRS and handed everything back to the states that is now paid by the feds, most blue states could maintain the level of services they have now without having to collect as much as the feds are now collecting, while most red states would either have to drastically cut services, drastically raise taxes even above what their residents are paying in federal taxes now, or possibly do both of those things. Yes, the gospel of anti-big government, from those who most depend on continued big government spending.
But there are still people who think you can get something for nothing, that they can have their cake and eat it too. And until that delusion is addressed and people understand the connection between taxes and the services that are provided, I think we will continue to see more situations like the unfortunate one that happened yesterday not in Gilbert.
*-- yes, the District of Columbia in 2005 did benefit from $5.55 in federal spending in the district per tax dollar collected in the district, but that is neither surprising nor relevant since the District is the seat of the government and most of this was spent on the operation of the federal government. I don't have a figure on just what was spent on programs directly benefitting the district and its residents per tax dollar paid but I suspect it's only a fraction of this.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
The perils of foot dragging
Governors in the position of having an opportunity to pick a Senate seat certainly do face a daunting decision. They can promote a political ally, or give a boost to someone who can in turn, either through their personal popularity or their fundraising prowess, help the Governor further his or her own political career.
But the pitfalls are many as well. Choose poorly the reverse can happen. A Governor can turn an ally into an enemy, or suffer in terms of his or her own popularity because some people may disagree with the Senate selection.
What is clear though, is that the longer a Governor takes, the more intensely the spotlight shines, and the bigger the risks become.
We've obviously seen the Blagojevich scandal in Illinois, but even that is now taking a backseat to the intense and growing pressure that New York Governor David Paterson is under to alternately select Caroline Kennedy or not to select Caroline Kennedy (and if not Caroline Kennedy then all kinds of contradictory pressures as to who other than her to select.)
In contrast, outgoing Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner is leaving office without much heat. Granted, she is apparently retiring anyway, but despite questions that have been raised over her selection of an obscure aide to Joe Biden who is apparently just going to serve two years and keep the seat warm for Beau Biden, Joe's son who will run as soon as he gets back from Iraq, Minner isn't the focus of much media heat.
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter is starting to face a similar spotlight. The biggest question is whether he will appoint Ken Salazar's older brother, Congressman John Salazar to the Senate seat, or whether it will be someone with a different surname. My advice to Governor Ritter is this: If he doesn't want to end up in the same position as Governor Paterson, where virtually anything he does is sure to tick off a majority of the public and make some powerful enemies, he should act quickly and decisively and put a name out there.
But the pitfalls are many as well. Choose poorly the reverse can happen. A Governor can turn an ally into an enemy, or suffer in terms of his or her own popularity because some people may disagree with the Senate selection.
What is clear though, is that the longer a Governor takes, the more intensely the spotlight shines, and the bigger the risks become.
We've obviously seen the Blagojevich scandal in Illinois, but even that is now taking a backseat to the intense and growing pressure that New York Governor David Paterson is under to alternately select Caroline Kennedy or not to select Caroline Kennedy (and if not Caroline Kennedy then all kinds of contradictory pressures as to who other than her to select.)
In contrast, outgoing Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner is leaving office without much heat. Granted, she is apparently retiring anyway, but despite questions that have been raised over her selection of an obscure aide to Joe Biden who is apparently just going to serve two years and keep the seat warm for Beau Biden, Joe's son who will run as soon as he gets back from Iraq, Minner isn't the focus of much media heat.
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter is starting to face a similar spotlight. The biggest question is whether he will appoint Ken Salazar's older brother, Congressman John Salazar to the Senate seat, or whether it will be someone with a different surname. My advice to Governor Ritter is this: If he doesn't want to end up in the same position as Governor Paterson, where virtually anything he does is sure to tick off a majority of the public and make some powerful enemies, he should act quickly and decisively and put a name out there.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
California court nullifies most of the state's 'Good Samaritan' law
I'm not anti-lawyer or anti-lawsuit. I've only had to originate a lawsuit once in my life, when I was rear-ended while stopped for an emergency vehicle (I was clearly in the right on that one), and the other driver's insurance company kept giving me the runaround, re-assigning my case to somebody else and somebody else and somebody else (who were always out when I called) until I finally said the heck with it and called a lawyer. Last year I thought I had a fairly strong case that I could have sued a hospital over, but I was able to resolve it without doing that.
So I'm not anti-lawyer. There is a saying that it's easy to dislike lawyers until you need one. And I think that a lot of the so-called 'frivilous' lawsuits turn out to not be all that frivilous. A good example was the infamous McDonald's hot coffee case, in which a woman got second degree burns when she spilled some coffee on herself and won a lawsuit against McDonald's for three million dollars. At least that's the part that got reported in the media. Of course the media left out two crucial details: first that McDonald's knew that their coffee had burned other people in the past (including a two year old who spilled someone else's coffee on himself) and had been warned about its temperature by at least one state health department, and second that the judge in the case decided that three million dollars was an excessive amount for punitive damages and knocked it down to $400,000 (probably fair for a problem they'd known about for a long time and chose to ignore.)
Sometimes the courts are the last and only recourse for ordinary people when they are being pushed around by 'Mr. Big' (whether that means the government, a corporation or simply Mr. Big.)
However, I believe that the California Supreme Court erred yesterday when it allowed a lawsuit to go forward against a 'good samaritan.'
At issue was a woman who was paralyzed after being pulled from her car. The rescuer thought that the car might explode. It didn't. However, the rescuer used her best judgment at the time. If she had not pulled her friend out and the car had exploded, then would she have been liable for murder? Probably not, but clearly this is a judgment call and there are going to be times when people using their best judgment get things wrong.
Far more chilling though is that this opens up the system to lawsuits in which everyone who is not directly 'providing medical help' (the words the court used) can be sued for what help they do give. So for example, if you see a car broken down on the side of the road, find a lost child in the mall or see someone trapped in a burning vehicle (as was the case here) your best option may be to do nothing.
Some years ago I was coming back late at night from working in St. Johns, a town in the mountains in eastern Arizona, down a lonely two lane road (so lonely that you can drive for an hour on that road sometimes at night and never see a car coming the other way.) This was on a cold night in February, and the cold wind was blowing. I saw a truck broken down on the side of the road. A woman was in it, and she said that she felt safe enough in the truck but asked if I could pick up her husband (who had started walking home so he could get their other car). She said if I kept on going, I'd see him walking a mile or two down the road. I did, and I gave him a ride. Twelve miles, I gave him a ride. It was frankly cold enough out there that he might have frozen before he got home. Plus, his wife would sooner or later have frozen in the truck. There are no police out there because there is no traffic out there at that time of the night, and I didn't have a cell with me (even if I did, I doubt if it would have been in range out there.) Now, was I rendering 'medical assistance' (as the California court says I should be)? Absolutely not. So according to the court, I was a fool to let him in the car because if anything had happened (suppose he claimed that he wrenched his shoulder putting on the seatbelt?) then I could be sued.
This ruling is chilling to me, because it is exactly the kind of thing that deters people from rendering help where help is needed.
According to he California Supreme Court, the biblical 'Good Samaritan' was a fool. The rich man who walked on by the injured man and the priest were wise. And true, while he was binding up the wounds the 'Good Samaritan' was 'rendering medical assistance' but when he took the man to the inn and paid for his room, he was not directly doing so, and as such the man could have sued him.
So the rich man and the priest are now the smarter ones, and the Good Samaritan was a fool. Is this the kind of society we want?
So I'm not anti-lawyer. There is a saying that it's easy to dislike lawyers until you need one. And I think that a lot of the so-called 'frivilous' lawsuits turn out to not be all that frivilous. A good example was the infamous McDonald's hot coffee case, in which a woman got second degree burns when she spilled some coffee on herself and won a lawsuit against McDonald's for three million dollars. At least that's the part that got reported in the media. Of course the media left out two crucial details: first that McDonald's knew that their coffee had burned other people in the past (including a two year old who spilled someone else's coffee on himself) and had been warned about its temperature by at least one state health department, and second that the judge in the case decided that three million dollars was an excessive amount for punitive damages and knocked it down to $400,000 (probably fair for a problem they'd known about for a long time and chose to ignore.)
Sometimes the courts are the last and only recourse for ordinary people when they are being pushed around by 'Mr. Big' (whether that means the government, a corporation or simply Mr. Big.)
However, I believe that the California Supreme Court erred yesterday when it allowed a lawsuit to go forward against a 'good samaritan.'
At issue was a woman who was paralyzed after being pulled from her car. The rescuer thought that the car might explode. It didn't. However, the rescuer used her best judgment at the time. If she had not pulled her friend out and the car had exploded, then would she have been liable for murder? Probably not, but clearly this is a judgment call and there are going to be times when people using their best judgment get things wrong.
Far more chilling though is that this opens up the system to lawsuits in which everyone who is not directly 'providing medical help' (the words the court used) can be sued for what help they do give. So for example, if you see a car broken down on the side of the road, find a lost child in the mall or see someone trapped in a burning vehicle (as was the case here) your best option may be to do nothing.
Some years ago I was coming back late at night from working in St. Johns, a town in the mountains in eastern Arizona, down a lonely two lane road (so lonely that you can drive for an hour on that road sometimes at night and never see a car coming the other way.) This was on a cold night in February, and the cold wind was blowing. I saw a truck broken down on the side of the road. A woman was in it, and she said that she felt safe enough in the truck but asked if I could pick up her husband (who had started walking home so he could get their other car). She said if I kept on going, I'd see him walking a mile or two down the road. I did, and I gave him a ride. Twelve miles, I gave him a ride. It was frankly cold enough out there that he might have frozen before he got home. Plus, his wife would sooner or later have frozen in the truck. There are no police out there because there is no traffic out there at that time of the night, and I didn't have a cell with me (even if I did, I doubt if it would have been in range out there.) Now, was I rendering 'medical assistance' (as the California court says I should be)? Absolutely not. So according to the court, I was a fool to let him in the car because if anything had happened (suppose he claimed that he wrenched his shoulder putting on the seatbelt?) then I could be sued.
This ruling is chilling to me, because it is exactly the kind of thing that deters people from rendering help where help is needed.
According to he California Supreme Court, the biblical 'Good Samaritan' was a fool. The rich man who walked on by the injured man and the priest were wise. And true, while he was binding up the wounds the 'Good Samaritan' was 'rendering medical assistance' but when he took the man to the inn and paid for his room, he was not directly doing so, and as such the man could have sued him.
So the rich man and the priest are now the smarter ones, and the Good Samaritan was a fool. Is this the kind of society we want?
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Republicans shoot themselves in the shorts.
When things are going well, even when you appear to lose, they end up going the way you wanted. Hence the situation for Democrats on Capitol Hill and the auto industry bailout.
A couple of weeks ago, Democrats in Congress were adamant that the auto bailout should come from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the $700 billion bailout mainly targeted towards the financial industry that Congress passed earlier this year, or if not from that source then in the form of a loan from the Federal Reserve.
The Bush administration and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson balked at that and refused to spend money from the program, asking instead the Congress pass a separate bailout for the auto industry. And after making that clear, President Bush threatened to veto any bailout that took money from the TARP program (even future funds from it), and instead insisted that it should come from $25 billion already appropriated and earmarked to go to the Detroit automakers under a seperate bill to finance research and development of new cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicles.
After several days of negotiations with the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid backed down and agreed to tap the research and development money. They agreed to a $14 billion package, which would keep the automakers solvent until January, when the next Congress and President can develop a longer term plan.
So then members of Congress started questioning union contracts. And the union made some concessions on payment to laid off workers and health care.
Once those were in, Harry Reid made another concession and agreed to not give Federal judges a pay raise in order to rope in wayward Democrat Clair McCaskill of Missouri.
So then Senate Republicans started demanding that the bill included a new wage structure in which union workers in Michigan would be paid on the same wage scale as non-union workers in Alabama. The union refused.
So then they launched a filibuster that garnered 43 votes, enough to block the measure. It died in the Senate.
So yesterday White House spokeswoman Dana Perrino said that the Bush administration will look at using TARP funds, or if not that then a loan from the Treasury Department. Heck, by the end of the day yesterday the White House announcement even had GM stock almost all the way back where it started the day.
Either way, whether TARP funds are used or it comes from the Treasury Department, this is where Democrats began on this whole thing. The $25 billion fund for cleaner vehicles will remain intact, there will be very few strings attached relating to union benefits, and the judges will get their pay raise.
Which is exactly what the Democratic leadership's position was in the first place.
It's great when your opponent is a party as leaderless, as directionless and as tied in knots as today's GOP. Even when they beat you, the result is that you actually get what you wanted to begin with.
A couple of weeks ago, Democrats in Congress were adamant that the auto bailout should come from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the $700 billion bailout mainly targeted towards the financial industry that Congress passed earlier this year, or if not from that source then in the form of a loan from the Federal Reserve.
The Bush administration and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson balked at that and refused to spend money from the program, asking instead the Congress pass a separate bailout for the auto industry. And after making that clear, President Bush threatened to veto any bailout that took money from the TARP program (even future funds from it), and instead insisted that it should come from $25 billion already appropriated and earmarked to go to the Detroit automakers under a seperate bill to finance research and development of new cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicles.
After several days of negotiations with the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid backed down and agreed to tap the research and development money. They agreed to a $14 billion package, which would keep the automakers solvent until January, when the next Congress and President can develop a longer term plan.
So then members of Congress started questioning union contracts. And the union made some concessions on payment to laid off workers and health care.
Once those were in, Harry Reid made another concession and agreed to not give Federal judges a pay raise in order to rope in wayward Democrat Clair McCaskill of Missouri.
So then Senate Republicans started demanding that the bill included a new wage structure in which union workers in Michigan would be paid on the same wage scale as non-union workers in Alabama. The union refused.
So then they launched a filibuster that garnered 43 votes, enough to block the measure. It died in the Senate.
So yesterday White House spokeswoman Dana Perrino said that the Bush administration will look at using TARP funds, or if not that then a loan from the Treasury Department. Heck, by the end of the day yesterday the White House announcement even had GM stock almost all the way back where it started the day.
Either way, whether TARP funds are used or it comes from the Treasury Department, this is where Democrats began on this whole thing. The $25 billion fund for cleaner vehicles will remain intact, there will be very few strings attached relating to union benefits, and the judges will get their pay raise.
Which is exactly what the Democratic leadership's position was in the first place.
It's great when your opponent is a party as leaderless, as directionless and as tied in knots as today's GOP. Even when they beat you, the result is that you actually get what you wanted to begin with.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Top three I''m glad to see go.
Now that the election (including runoffs, delayed elections, etc.) is over, I'm ready (once again) to publish my post on the top three departures (yeah, I know that the Minnesota recount is still technically going on but even if things really turn around and Franken wins, Coleman isn't really a Republican who I can't stand.) This year's list was a little harder to assemble than 2006 (when I picked Don Rumsfeld, Rick Santorum and J.D. Hayworth), but then most of the really 'low hanging fruit' was gone. But not all of it. I might also add that this list is only a 'feet first' list-- those who actually are leaving because they lost an election (or in the case of Rumsfeld in 2006, were forced to leave not on their own accord.) Hence, although I'd love to include my departing congressman Rick Renzi (who is departing to federal court where he will face trial on charges of extortion, money laundering and embezzlement) he at least chose to not seek re-election, which makes him ineligible for this list.
So here is the 2008 list.
3. (tie) Ted Stevens/William Jefferson
No, Blago isn't gone yet. And as I just noted Renzi (and also indicted California Republican John Doolittle) at least are leaving on their feet by retiring instead of having the office ripped away from them directly by the voters. Not so with Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in the Senate (and also the king of pork), who last year was convicted on bribery charges and who still almost pulled out a win in Alaska (must be something in the water up there.) "Almost" is the operative word though. Stevens lost to Anchorage mayor Mark Begich, and for that we can all be thankful. Then last week, the same thing happened to William Jefferson. Despite running in a heavily African-American and Democratic district in New Orleans (a place where politicians have long been synonymous with corruption,) voters got rid of Jefferson and elected a Republican, Anh "Joseph" Cao (who in this year of firsts, is the first Vietnamese-American elected to Congress.) As you may recall, Jefferson is the indicted Congressman who tried to hide $90,000 in cash in his refrigerator. He managed to eke out a win in 2006 when he was involved in a runoff against a very controversial Democrat, but against a guy who was supposed to be a token opponent (Cao) and where the pundits hadn't even bothered to make a projection, he lost in an election that was delayed because of Hurricane Gustav. As I wrote last week, I am very happy about this outcome. Corruption is a problem that stretches across partisanship. Barack Obama had pointedly refused to endorse Jefferson this year (the only Democratic member of Congress who had sought Obama's endorsement that he turned down). So good riddance to Mr. Stevens and Mr. Jefferson. Maybe they can share something else in the future besides just being tied on this list. Like, maybe a cell, a bunk and a toilet.
2. Robin Hayes
"liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."
-- Rep. Robin Hayes, (R-NC).
Yeah, just feel the love and warmth around this guy. This kind of speech may go over well with talk radio listeners and right wing loonies, but Hayes apparently forgot that he had to win more votes than that. Talk radio nuts and right-wingers who think liberals are evil and malicious don't make up the majority of the electorate, not even in Jesse Helms' home state. Hayes, through a spokeswoman at first denied saying this, until he was confronted with an audiotape. Hayes had, until he made this comment had been leading in a competitive race that was leaning his way, but ended up losing solidly to Democratic challenger Larry Kissell. It is worth noting that this occurred in North Carolina, where Senator Liddy Dole also stumbled late by poisoning the water and trying to tie rival Kay Hagan to an atheist group, even to the point of hiring someone to mimic Hagan's voice saying something she never said. It is also worth noting that though Barack Obama, thanks to intensive voter registration drives and an excellent ground game won the state, Kissell (in his district) and Hagan (statewide) did even better than Obama, indicating that there were some North Carolinians who voted for John McCain but couldn't handle the kind of rhetoric that they heard coming from Hayes and Dole.
1. Marilyn Musgrave
Without a doubt, Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) was the biggest target for progressives this year. For starters, she has been the most conservative member of Congress according to the American Conservative Union, which gave her a 99 percent liftime rating. Musgrave worked hard to change comprehensive sex education to abstinence-only (as a school board member, then a state legislator and then as a congresswoman.) She also took a very hardline against any kind of recognition of rights for gays, arguing that homosexuality was a disease. She also tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. Musgrave was also one of Congress' most vocal opponents of abortion, and sponsored several anti-abortion initiatives. Musgrave also proposed sponsored legislation designed to outlaw online gambling, especially internet poker.
Musgrave is more than just a social conservative however. She is conservative all the way down the line, getting support from the National Taxpayers Union, the Club for Growth and a number of anti-tax organizations. She has pushed hard for the elimination of all estate (inheritance) taxes. She is a staunch supporter of various initiatives to drive down wages, from Right to Work legislation to her working to convince President Bush to suspend the Davis-Bacon wage protection act in the gulf coast following Hurricane Katrina (which Bush had to do a U-turn on following a public outcry, including from gulf coast residents who questioned why a representative from Colorado was giving advice to the President on how to pay people who were working to rebuild after the hurricane.)
Musgrave was running in a district that is a classic swing district. It includes a number of Republican-leaning rural counties, Larimer county, home of Colorado State University and reliably liberal, and Weld county, a suburban Denver county where she had won in the past. Musgrave has been remarkably scandal-free, so as an incumbent, even in a Democratic year, in theory she should have been able to win. Her opponent was Betsy Markey.
Markey's line was very simple and direct: Musgrave was too conservative. And it worked, as Markey won. And won big, by a double digit margin. So the message is clear. Conservatives for years made a living off of attacking liberals for being liberals. But if you're too conservative, that alone may be enough to beat you in the future.
So here is the 2008 list.
3. (tie) Ted Stevens/William Jefferson
No, Blago isn't gone yet. And as I just noted Renzi (and also indicted California Republican John Doolittle) at least are leaving on their feet by retiring instead of having the office ripped away from them directly by the voters. Not so with Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in the Senate (and also the king of pork), who last year was convicted on bribery charges and who still almost pulled out a win in Alaska (must be something in the water up there.) "Almost" is the operative word though. Stevens lost to Anchorage mayor Mark Begich, and for that we can all be thankful. Then last week, the same thing happened to William Jefferson. Despite running in a heavily African-American and Democratic district in New Orleans (a place where politicians have long been synonymous with corruption,) voters got rid of Jefferson and elected a Republican, Anh "Joseph" Cao (who in this year of firsts, is the first Vietnamese-American elected to Congress.) As you may recall, Jefferson is the indicted Congressman who tried to hide $90,000 in cash in his refrigerator. He managed to eke out a win in 2006 when he was involved in a runoff against a very controversial Democrat, but against a guy who was supposed to be a token opponent (Cao) and where the pundits hadn't even bothered to make a projection, he lost in an election that was delayed because of Hurricane Gustav. As I wrote last week, I am very happy about this outcome. Corruption is a problem that stretches across partisanship. Barack Obama had pointedly refused to endorse Jefferson this year (the only Democratic member of Congress who had sought Obama's endorsement that he turned down). So good riddance to Mr. Stevens and Mr. Jefferson. Maybe they can share something else in the future besides just being tied on this list. Like, maybe a cell, a bunk and a toilet.
2. Robin Hayes
"liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."
-- Rep. Robin Hayes, (R-NC).
Yeah, just feel the love and warmth around this guy. This kind of speech may go over well with talk radio listeners and right wing loonies, but Hayes apparently forgot that he had to win more votes than that. Talk radio nuts and right-wingers who think liberals are evil and malicious don't make up the majority of the electorate, not even in Jesse Helms' home state. Hayes, through a spokeswoman at first denied saying this, until he was confronted with an audiotape. Hayes had, until he made this comment had been leading in a competitive race that was leaning his way, but ended up losing solidly to Democratic challenger Larry Kissell. It is worth noting that this occurred in North Carolina, where Senator Liddy Dole also stumbled late by poisoning the water and trying to tie rival Kay Hagan to an atheist group, even to the point of hiring someone to mimic Hagan's voice saying something she never said. It is also worth noting that though Barack Obama, thanks to intensive voter registration drives and an excellent ground game won the state, Kissell (in his district) and Hagan (statewide) did even better than Obama, indicating that there were some North Carolinians who voted for John McCain but couldn't handle the kind of rhetoric that they heard coming from Hayes and Dole.
1. Marilyn Musgrave
Without a doubt, Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) was the biggest target for progressives this year. For starters, she has been the most conservative member of Congress according to the American Conservative Union, which gave her a 99 percent liftime rating. Musgrave worked hard to change comprehensive sex education to abstinence-only (as a school board member, then a state legislator and then as a congresswoman.) She also took a very hardline against any kind of recognition of rights for gays, arguing that homosexuality was a disease. She also tried to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. Musgrave was also one of Congress' most vocal opponents of abortion, and sponsored several anti-abortion initiatives. Musgrave also proposed sponsored legislation designed to outlaw online gambling, especially internet poker.
Musgrave is more than just a social conservative however. She is conservative all the way down the line, getting support from the National Taxpayers Union, the Club for Growth and a number of anti-tax organizations. She has pushed hard for the elimination of all estate (inheritance) taxes. She is a staunch supporter of various initiatives to drive down wages, from Right to Work legislation to her working to convince President Bush to suspend the Davis-Bacon wage protection act in the gulf coast following Hurricane Katrina (which Bush had to do a U-turn on following a public outcry, including from gulf coast residents who questioned why a representative from Colorado was giving advice to the President on how to pay people who were working to rebuild after the hurricane.)
Musgrave was running in a district that is a classic swing district. It includes a number of Republican-leaning rural counties, Larimer county, home of Colorado State University and reliably liberal, and Weld county, a suburban Denver county where she had won in the past. Musgrave has been remarkably scandal-free, so as an incumbent, even in a Democratic year, in theory she should have been able to win. Her opponent was Betsy Markey.
Markey's line was very simple and direct: Musgrave was too conservative. And it worked, as Markey won. And won big, by a double digit margin. So the message is clear. Conservatives for years made a living off of attacking liberals for being liberals. But if you're too conservative, that alone may be enough to beat you in the future.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
This political clown is right out of the 1920's. And he needs to go to prison
I'm still having trouble absorbing the absolutely shocking news involving Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and the degree and breadth of his corruption 'spree' (to quote U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald.) Among the most shocking allegations are that he tried to sell his appointment to fill the Senate seat formerly occupied by Barack Obama (or appoint himself if no one would pay his price), and also that he worked to block the Chicago Tribune from selling Wrigley Field until they fired editorial writers who had been critical of him and replaced them with 'editorial support' (presumably meaning editorial writers who were willing to write nicer things about Blagojevich.) The transcripts of Blagojevich's own words are all over the internet by now, and they are pretty damning-- though those on the right side of the blogsphere who want to try and spin this into an attack on Obama are tripping over themselves since Blagojevich profanely complained that the Obama people 'wouldn't give him anything.' In fact, Valerie Jarrett, who was known to be Obama's choice for the job, abruptly removed her name from consideration, apparently right away once she found out that Blagojevich was going to make the appointment based on what he could get out of it instead of more wholesome considerations. It is even being reported that Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel may have tipped off Fitzgerald about the potential sale of the Senate seat so he could add it to the long list of investigations he had ongoing involving the Illinois Governor.
I wrote a couple of days ago regarding Louisiana Democratic congressman William Jefferson, who is facing a court date after being indicted on bribery and corruption charges that I was glad to see him go.
As in the case of Jefferson, I refuse to support Blagojevich just because he is a Democrat. My sense of partisan loyalty ends when it comes to felony corruption. If he does not resign immediately there is no question that he should be impeached by the Illinois legislature. Even before that though the Illinois legislature should immediately act on Senator Dick Durbin's recommendation and take the power to fill this seat away from the Governor and schedule a special election.
Remember how as Democrats we held the high moral ground during the Abramoff scandal, the Plame scandal and other scandals that rocked the previous Republican congress and administration. But we should not claim that our public servants are less susceptible to scandal. Instead we must maintain that high moral ground by drawing a sharp contrast to the 'hanging-on-until-the-last' attitude that characterized the Tom Delay/Scooter Libby Republicans. We have to speak out and take a strong stance against corruption.
And for that matter, that includes ongoing ethical questions. Right now Charlie Rangel, a Democrat who I've always admired, is being investigated by the House Ethics Committee. While I agree that he deserves to have the investigation run its course before any action is taken, I believe that it would be appropriate for him to step aside as the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee until he is either cleared by the Ethics Committee, or the charges are sustained in which case it will be up to the House what action to take.
Political corruption can show up in politicians of any political stripe. And it is never acceptable.
I wrote a couple of days ago regarding Louisiana Democratic congressman William Jefferson, who is facing a court date after being indicted on bribery and corruption charges that I was glad to see him go.
As in the case of Jefferson, I refuse to support Blagojevich just because he is a Democrat. My sense of partisan loyalty ends when it comes to felony corruption. If he does not resign immediately there is no question that he should be impeached by the Illinois legislature. Even before that though the Illinois legislature should immediately act on Senator Dick Durbin's recommendation and take the power to fill this seat away from the Governor and schedule a special election.
Remember how as Democrats we held the high moral ground during the Abramoff scandal, the Plame scandal and other scandals that rocked the previous Republican congress and administration. But we should not claim that our public servants are less susceptible to scandal. Instead we must maintain that high moral ground by drawing a sharp contrast to the 'hanging-on-until-the-last' attitude that characterized the Tom Delay/Scooter Libby Republicans. We have to speak out and take a strong stance against corruption.
And for that matter, that includes ongoing ethical questions. Right now Charlie Rangel, a Democrat who I've always admired, is being investigated by the House Ethics Committee. While I agree that he deserves to have the investigation run its course before any action is taken, I believe that it would be appropriate for him to step aside as the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee until he is either cleared by the Ethics Committee, or the charges are sustained in which case it will be up to the House what action to take.
Political corruption can show up in politicians of any political stripe. And it is never acceptable.
Monday, December 08, 2008
English-- our national languish
In 1947, as he was pondering how best to create a new nation that would last, thrive and prosper, one of the biggest problems that Mahatma Gandhi had to consider was that of language. In India, there were literally hundreds of different languages and dialects spoken, by dozens of distinct ethnic groups. Hindi speakers wanted Hindi for the national language, Urdu speakers wanted it to be Urdu and speakers of other languages, while conceding that their local tongues didn't lay claim to as many speakers as Hindi or Urdu, hoped that each region of India would be able to choose its own official language. Each option offered risks which bordered on unacceptable. If Ghandi chose Hindi or Urdu then he risked creating a two tier society (even while working to rid India of the ancient but oppressive caste system) in which native speakers would have an advantage in business, schools and other competitive fields, and as such might naturally come to assume that they were somehow naturally advantaged while speakers of other languages might become similarly resentful. If he allowed each region to select its own language then he risked creating deep regional divisions that might eventually lead to the rise of nationalism among ethnic minorities and the further division of the country (Gandhi's worst nightmare had already occurred, when the British had partitioned the country into a predominantly hindu India and a predominantly muslim Pakistan.)
Gandhi made his decision. And when he did it confounded everyone and angered many. Gandhi decided that the official language of India would be English, the hated tongue of the colonial masters. Gandhi however saw the logic in this decision. First, it did not give anyone an innate advantage, as the colonial language was equally detested everywhere. Second, by decreeing that governmental communications would be published in English and that school children would study it, he guaranteed the basic solvency of India because it meant that an Indian from anywhere in the country could sit and talk to an Indian from anywhere else in the country. Third, he believed that by educating students in English, India would develop faster and develop stronger business ties with the English speaking world (though I doubt if he foresaw the use of call centers in his country by American credit card companies.)
History has shown it to have been a wise decision however. And I do see the logic and agree with it that in the United States it is good to have everyone learn to speak English so that we can all communicate with each other.
However, we have gone too far in the direction of 'English only,' and to the point where it is becoming harmful not only to our citizenry but to our economic standing in the world. Our education model, which is essentially hased on nineteenth and early twentieth century ideas about how to study linguistics, assumes that children should not learn a foreign language until they are old enough to conjugate a verb. Generally this is in high school. In fact, some years ago I tried to enroll my then nine-year old daughters to audit a Spanish class at the local community college (along with myself, we were all going to audit the class together.) The official response however was that they could not enroll because they had to be fourteen. However, this is a very wrong-headed approach to the problem. Children learn languages best at a young age. Recent research has even showed that during puberty the brains of children change, and it appears that one of the changes is that the brain is less adept and learning new language skills. So the crux of the argument is this-- it's OK if a student learns bad grammar in another language. Kids learn bad grammar in English, and we are able to work on fixing the double negatives, the slang and the poor writing skills in junior high and high school. But the basic knowlege of the English language is there by then. So there is precedent for the idea that learning a language early doesn't preclude the study of word structure and other more advanced language skills later.
That doesn't mean of course that people can't learn one or more second languages later on in life, but it is and will always be that-- a 'second' language. Your basic thought processes will always be in your first language, so that you will always be at least at a slight disadvantage when speaking to someone who grew up speaking the language that you studied all those long hours out of books and audiocassettes to try and perfect. You may remember how to say something, but they don't have to remember. It's a part of their thought process and comes out naturally.
The truth is, that in today's world knowing more than one language is important. In Europe it's always been that way, as European countries are about the size of U.S. states on average and it is necessary to know more than one language if one wants to travel anywhere. Even in America, let's just say that if you apply for a job in Los Angeles and know one language and the other applicant is bilingual then guess who gets the job? Businesses are there to make money, and they won't hire someone who can't communicate with some of their potential customers when someone else applies who can. But the real problem is when it comes to trade. In an increasingly globalized world, international trade is itself an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars per year. And the people who manage and drive that industry are those who can communicate with the people on both ends of the line. In general, they is not Americans. For example, nearly all of the hundreds of billions of dollars in trade between the U.S. and China is directed and managed by Chinese middlemen. That's because millions of Chinese kids are taught at a young age to speak English as well as Chinese, while very few Americans are fluent in Mandarin. So when it comes time to arrange a deal then the power broker that someone calls is most probably Chinese.
In contrast, I'd like to talk about my cousin's daughter (I'll call her Alice). My cousin is on my father's side, and our family is American all the way back to the Mayflower (I had an ancestor who outfitted the Mayflower and rented it to the pilgrims, and he himself came over ten years later, in 1630.) She is married to a man from central America. So Alice grew up speaking both English and Spanish. She can easily switch back and forth between the two languages and carry on a conversation in either one without having to stop and think about how to say something. She is also an excellent student.
Alice is an prime example of what we could have-- IF we changed 'English only' to 'English and' then we would with one shot both guarantee that we could all speak to each other AND give people the language skills that they will need, and that we collectively need for them to have in an increasingly interconnected and global world. We could also do away with some of the sillier controversies we have in schools today. If we required all kids to learn in elementary school two languages, one of which would be English and the other of which would be something else with the goal that by the end of sixth grade all kids would be fluent in at least two languages, then all kids would also be on an equal footing. Those whose native language was not English would have to learn English. The rest would know English but would have to learn something else (which would be a matter of choice-- and yes, I'd include sign language as a valid choice.)
But it's time we quit debating with ourselves about teaching and learning languages and instead realized that we must move forward on it. In a world of global business, our economic future depends on it. If we do not, and assume that the status quo is good enough then we will languish on the vine as others pass us up. And therein is a thought for the title of this essay.
Gandhi made his decision. And when he did it confounded everyone and angered many. Gandhi decided that the official language of India would be English, the hated tongue of the colonial masters. Gandhi however saw the logic in this decision. First, it did not give anyone an innate advantage, as the colonial language was equally detested everywhere. Second, by decreeing that governmental communications would be published in English and that school children would study it, he guaranteed the basic solvency of India because it meant that an Indian from anywhere in the country could sit and talk to an Indian from anywhere else in the country. Third, he believed that by educating students in English, India would develop faster and develop stronger business ties with the English speaking world (though I doubt if he foresaw the use of call centers in his country by American credit card companies.)
History has shown it to have been a wise decision however. And I do see the logic and agree with it that in the United States it is good to have everyone learn to speak English so that we can all communicate with each other.
However, we have gone too far in the direction of 'English only,' and to the point where it is becoming harmful not only to our citizenry but to our economic standing in the world. Our education model, which is essentially hased on nineteenth and early twentieth century ideas about how to study linguistics, assumes that children should not learn a foreign language until they are old enough to conjugate a verb. Generally this is in high school. In fact, some years ago I tried to enroll my then nine-year old daughters to audit a Spanish class at the local community college (along with myself, we were all going to audit the class together.) The official response however was that they could not enroll because they had to be fourteen. However, this is a very wrong-headed approach to the problem. Children learn languages best at a young age. Recent research has even showed that during puberty the brains of children change, and it appears that one of the changes is that the brain is less adept and learning new language skills. So the crux of the argument is this-- it's OK if a student learns bad grammar in another language. Kids learn bad grammar in English, and we are able to work on fixing the double negatives, the slang and the poor writing skills in junior high and high school. But the basic knowlege of the English language is there by then. So there is precedent for the idea that learning a language early doesn't preclude the study of word structure and other more advanced language skills later.
That doesn't mean of course that people can't learn one or more second languages later on in life, but it is and will always be that-- a 'second' language. Your basic thought processes will always be in your first language, so that you will always be at least at a slight disadvantage when speaking to someone who grew up speaking the language that you studied all those long hours out of books and audiocassettes to try and perfect. You may remember how to say something, but they don't have to remember. It's a part of their thought process and comes out naturally.
The truth is, that in today's world knowing more than one language is important. In Europe it's always been that way, as European countries are about the size of U.S. states on average and it is necessary to know more than one language if one wants to travel anywhere. Even in America, let's just say that if you apply for a job in Los Angeles and know one language and the other applicant is bilingual then guess who gets the job? Businesses are there to make money, and they won't hire someone who can't communicate with some of their potential customers when someone else applies who can. But the real problem is when it comes to trade. In an increasingly globalized world, international trade is itself an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars per year. And the people who manage and drive that industry are those who can communicate with the people on both ends of the line. In general, they is not Americans. For example, nearly all of the hundreds of billions of dollars in trade between the U.S. and China is directed and managed by Chinese middlemen. That's because millions of Chinese kids are taught at a young age to speak English as well as Chinese, while very few Americans are fluent in Mandarin. So when it comes time to arrange a deal then the power broker that someone calls is most probably Chinese.
In contrast, I'd like to talk about my cousin's daughter (I'll call her Alice). My cousin is on my father's side, and our family is American all the way back to the Mayflower (I had an ancestor who outfitted the Mayflower and rented it to the pilgrims, and he himself came over ten years later, in 1630.) She is married to a man from central America. So Alice grew up speaking both English and Spanish. She can easily switch back and forth between the two languages and carry on a conversation in either one without having to stop and think about how to say something. She is also an excellent student.
Alice is an prime example of what we could have-- IF we changed 'English only' to 'English and' then we would with one shot both guarantee that we could all speak to each other AND give people the language skills that they will need, and that we collectively need for them to have in an increasingly interconnected and global world. We could also do away with some of the sillier controversies we have in schools today. If we required all kids to learn in elementary school two languages, one of which would be English and the other of which would be something else with the goal that by the end of sixth grade all kids would be fluent in at least two languages, then all kids would also be on an equal footing. Those whose native language was not English would have to learn English. The rest would know English but would have to learn something else (which would be a matter of choice-- and yes, I'd include sign language as a valid choice.)
But it's time we quit debating with ourselves about teaching and learning languages and instead realized that we must move forward on it. In a world of global business, our economic future depends on it. If we do not, and assume that the status quo is good enough then we will languish on the vine as others pass us up. And therein is a thought for the title of this essay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
