Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’

The Mission of the 116th Congress

January, 2019

“I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it.”

― John Stewart Mill

[John Stuart Mill, in a Parliamentary debate with the Conservative MP, John Pakington, May 31, 1866.]”

 

Introduction

 

The voters of the 2018 mid-term elections have spoken and have made an important move toward restoring democracy in America. It is now time to focus on an agenda for the new 116 Congress. This Congress will convene on January 3, 2019 perhaps even before noon.

It is one thing for candidates in a campaign mode to make promises in order to get elected; it is quite another thing to now face the reality of actually having to govern. Now that the Democrats will be in control of the House of Representatives, everyone is anxiously awaiting the results of the Mueller investigation. As they say, “Inquiring minds want to know.”

A wrench was thrown into the Muller investigation on November 6, 2018 when interim Attorney General Mathew Whitaker was appointed by Donald Trump to replace fired Attorney General Sessions. Unfortunately, the new interim A.G. possesses a strong ideological tie to Donald Trump.

It terms of legal precedent and the United States Constitution, Whitaker’s beliefs about established law make him something of an odd-ball. His fitness for the job has yet to be determined, although there is the strong suspicion he is not qualified and should not be appointed permanent Attorney General. He is also currently under F.B.I. investigation. This is about his involvement as a member of an advisory board for World Patent Marketing (WPM). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently shut down WPM for fraud and scamming people. Some of these people were disabled veterans who were scammed out of their life savings. Whitaker also made legal threats against litigants wishing to sue WPM. Whitaker’s lack of professionalism and history of this company will likely end his position as the interim United States Attorney General.  We’ll just have to wait to see how all of the interactions between Mueller and Whitaker play out during the weeks ahead. I’m hoping that Whitaker too will be indicted by the Mueller team for obstruction of justice if he makes any move to undermine the future indictment of the President of the United States, or any in his administration or family members.

Now What?

In the meantime, the 116th Congress needs to develop and carry out specific goals and objectives to achieve over the next 2 years and beyond. I am going to suggest in the pages ahead what their platform ought to be. They need to be successful in order to convince the American public that they are capable of real change. They need to convince the American public that voting Republican in 2020 would be as catastrophic as it was in 2016. Aside from differing value judgments this is because Republicans seldom succeed at what they undertake.

Why did Republicans nearly always fail during the last 20 years? What is holding back Republicans more than anything else are the groups within the party known as the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus. Belonging to these groups must be a “sweet job.” They get paid for putting up roadblocks to everything, then sit back and collect their paychecks all for doing nothing.

Conservatives as a group are historically almost always on the wrong side of history. Just consider at a minimum the issue of Integration back in the 1950s and putting up roadblocks to enactment of the Social Security Act in 1935. On August 14, 1935 The Social Security Act established a system of old-age benefits for workers, benefits for victims of industrial accidents, unemployment insurance, and aid for dependent mothers and children, the blind and the physically handicapped.

This was a monumental piece of legislative reform the likes of which the world could only imagine. It was a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress who spearheaded the creation and passage of the Social Security Act of 1935. Republicans could have been part of this landmark historical achievement. Instead, they sat on the sidelines during this whole event in American History.

The following should be the goals and objectives of the 116th Congress:

Goals

Return Democracy to America

Improve the Over-all Well Being of Americans

Regain International Status and Respect as a Nation

 

The Nature of Goals

Goals tend to be end states, the thing one wants to aim for, achieve and bring about. Granted, the above goals need to be more specific, and measurable. Otherwise, goals are simply value judgements and lacking concrete steps and specificity to know when one arrives at the final destination. However, life is seldom clear-cut and well-defined. Ambiguity, normlessness and vagueness are all-to-often our reality when setting goals.

Nevertheless goals, however nebulous at times, can still provide a direction and be something to work for and move toward when trying to achieve that “end state.”  Not to burden my reader with the complexities of goal setting, let me give an example: I want to buy a new jaguar car in January, 2019. This goal is specific, has a time line, and is measurable (either you buy it or you don’t). Compare this goal to one that is more diffuse or vague in nature. “I want to save the world.” This goal is terrible. How does one define “save”? There is no time line and measuring it is not defined or specified, and there is total ambiguity; that is, what does that goal really mean in the first place?

In the world of American party politics goal planning can be very unwieldly, especially when parties are constantly re-defining themselves. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the real motivations and values underlying the goal planning process.

Objectives

Objectives lead one to the strategies or methods developed to achieve one’s stated goals. In January, 2019 the 116th Congress will convene to begin the difficult process of governing by undoing certain things that have been implemented by the Trump Administration. In addition, they will need to simultaneously forge ahead with their own agenda for change and their own set of goals, objectives (including methods and strategies). It is a job of great importance and awesome responsibility. And, leadership will be crucial at every step.

The purpose of this Blog is to explain what I think their goals and objectives ought to be. As a progressive with ultra-liberal values [90% of the time] yet sometimes conservative on national defense and military issues [10% of the time] the following are the objectives I think this new Congress should work on, support and achieve.

 

Goal

Return Democracy to America

Objectives

Impeach Trump

As the late Howard Cosell used to say, “Tell it..Like..It is” Well, enough has already been written about Donald Trump. But I do have something to say about his immoral character. Cutting to the chase, he is a psychiatrically and intellectually challenged individual. He is naïve, dishonest and a gifted liar. He is a classic ego-maniac, narcissistic insecure white racist, and a misogynistic degenerate. He is a sociopathic bully, a phony, a con man, a charlatan who lies every time he opens his mouth. Donald Trump of course only does two things wrong in life: everything he says and everything he does.

To say that he suffers from feelings of inadequacy or inferiority is to point out the obvious. More importantly, he is a criminal, a traitor to his country and deserves to be behind bars. Said another way; he is a menace to civilized society. If that wasn’t enough—just consider the following. He is also the most incompetent, unknowledgeable buffoon to ever be elected to public office in the United States. (Now, I’d like to tell you what I really think of him, but civility demands that I not use any expletives and/or rhetorical commentary). From my perspective as an artist (color me blue) he needs to be in an orange jump suit or a white straight jacket.

The late Will Rogers once said, “I never met a man I didn’t like.” As we all know, Will Rogers never met Donald Trump. Impeaching Donald Trump is the most important objective for the 116th Congress to address. His removal from Office of the presidency is long overdue.

Eliminate Gerrymandering in the United States

Gerrymandering is the manipulation of voting boundaries to benefit a particular political party. Both gerrymandering and cheating are perpendicular in definition. Although Gerrymandering provides benefits by packing district votes, the method utilizes dishonesty.

In an article by  the AP on June, 25, 2017 a very convincing argument was made that gerrymandering helped the Republican Party in 2016 more than it did the Democrats. It was achieved by political cheating and voter disenfranchisement all in deference to political party. Here is an abbreviated part of this article:

“Analysis: Partisan gerrymandering has benefited Republicans more than Democrats

The 2016 presidential contest was awash with charges that the fix was in: Republican Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that the election was rigged against him, while Democrats have accused the Russians of stacking the odds in Trump’s favor.

Less attention was paid to manipulation that occurred not during the presidential race, but before it — in the drawing of lines for hundreds of U.S. and state legislative seats. The result, according to an Associated Press analysis: Republicans had a real advantage.

The AP scrutinized the outcomes of all 435 U.S. House races and about 4,700 state House and Assembly seats up for election last year using a new statistical method of calculating partisan advantage. It’s designed to detect cases in which one party may have won, widened or retained its grip on power through political gerrymandering.

The analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts.

Traditional battlegrounds such as Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and Virginia were among those with significant Republican advantages in their U.S. or state House races. All had districts drawn by Republicans after the last Census in 2010.

The AP analysis also found that Republicans won as many as 22 additional U.S. House seats over what would have been expected based on the average vote share in congressional districts across the country. That helped provide the GOP with a comfortable majority over Democrats instead of a narrow one.”

Reverse Trump’s Executive Orders

His entire barrage of Executive orders need to be (on day one) reversed and an assessment report undertaken to report all damages done to people and resources. Go to court if necessary to get this objective done.

Create Laws to eliminate all Money from Politics

If this objective is achieved, it will help to finally elevate the status of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate to a status like that of the United States Supreme Court. No more will Americans be able to say, “We have the best politicians money can buy.” Money has tainted politics in America from the very beginning. If politicians ever want to achieve any degree of respectability, they need to eliminate all money in politics.

Eliminate the Electoral College in deference to popular vote only

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The Electoral College is an arcane process for electing a president. The election of 2016 is filled with irony. It is incredibly ironic because the Founding Fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. Why? Because they feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. So, the Electoral College, no matter how originally perceived, has now failed in the 21st Century to prevent a tyrant from becoming President of the United States.

The Electoral College also created the primacy of its own electoral process, over that of the popular vote. It renders popular vote more symbolic than real or significant. In the 2016 election some 3 million voters were disenfranchised by this arcane Electoral College system. The popular vote should have made Hillary Clinton President of the United States.

The time has arrived for a new Constitutional Amendment on electing presidents. If we pay lip service to the idea that every person’s vote count, then we as a nation ought to damn well mean it. The Electoral College flies in the face of any notion of a true democratic process. Real democracy is not static or immutable; real democracy is capable of counting every vote and making every vote count.

Initiate a new Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

It’s been nearly 100 years since women first earned the right to vote. It was called the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a nation we are long overdue for an Equal Rights Amendment.

Make sure 50% of the leadership roles such as Heads of Committees are held by women

Given the opportunity to show the country just how much more capable Democrats are than Republicans it’s time to set in stone a new egalitarian standard for the nation. Women are truly equal with men. What differences there are between men and women such as height, weight, and muscle mass or “perceived privilege” has absolutely no relevance when compared to innate intelligence, thinking ability or leadership qualities.

Reopen the case against Supreme Court associate justice Brett Kavanaugh. This time a real investigation will be conducted

Although I am in favor of liberal judges rather than conservative ones, the real issue here is trust. During the early part of his confirmation hearing Nominee Kavanaugh said some things that convinced me, when he talked about how he analyzes judicial cases, he seemed very reasonable and objective. He was on point.

It must be pointed out that judicial or legal reasoning is not like any other way of thinking. Legal thinking and analysis needs to be fact-driven and respectful of legal precedent. Highly intelligent judges tend to put their biases aside when analyzing data and the law. I would direct you to previous blogs where I discussed various theories of judicial reasoning and analysis, especially with respect to how the United States Constitution is interpreted.

Sometimes judges on the U.S. Supreme Court change political stripes. And it is true that historically more conservative judges leaned to the liberal side once they were on the highest court, much more than the reverse where a former liberal Court of Appeals judge turned conservative once they were elevated to the highest court.

The following is an interesting article written by Jon D. Hanson and Adam Benforado,

For the Boston Review, dated April 9, 2016.

It is titled, “THE DRIFTERS: Why the Supreme Court makes justices more liberal.”

Editor’s note: This story first appeared in Boston Review. At the time of original publication, Antonin Scalia was still alive. Scalia died this year.

“When Justices William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor left the bench last year, conservatives were in an anxious mood: though pleased at the prospect of shifting the Supreme Court to the right, they were worried by the record of past Republican appointments. The refrain in conservative commentary, repeated with special intensity during the Harriet Mires affair, was: Not another Souter. Not another Kennedy. Not another O’Connor. And they might have added: Not another Blackmun. Not another Stevens. Not another Warren.

They were right to be concerned. While there have been a number of relatively reliable conservative justices over the years—Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Rehnquist being prime examples—and some important right-shifting exceptions—notably Felix Frankfurter, appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Byron White, appointed by John F. Kennedy—the tendency in recent decades to drift leftward has been strong enough to gain both popular and scholarly attention. Indeed, Larry J. Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, has suggested that about one quarter of confirmed nominees over the last half century have wound up “evolving from conservative to moderate or liberal.”

 

Richard Nixon, for instance, thought he was getting solid right-wingers when he appointed Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell, only to find, several years later, Blackmun authoring Roe v. Wade and Powell swing-voting to permit affirmative action in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Coincidentally, in Bakke, Justice John Paul Stevens—then a recent Gerald Ford appointee—wrote a dissent joined by the court’s most conservative members, though a few decades later he would emerge as the most consistently liberal voice on the bench.

Justices O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy—though they remain tied to their conservative mainstays on certain issues, such as federalism—both seem to have embarked on similar leftward journeys, particularly with respect to individual rights and liberties. Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, O’Connor struck a resoundingly conservative chord in her early opinions on women’s and racial-minority rights, only to join with liberal colleagues in cases touching on the same issues over the last 15 years—most strikingly in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe’s central holding, and Grutter v. Bollinger, which vindicated a law-school affirmative-action program. Kennedy, also a Reagan appointee, was initially celebrated by conservatives as “Bork without the beard.” Yet he later provided key votes to knock down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas and overturn the death penalty for juveniles in Roper v. Simmons—prompting Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, to rechristen him “the most dangerous man in America.”

There is no doubt that the presidential nomination process greatly influences the large-scale jurisprudential trends in expected directions. Still, that a Supreme Court appointment is both so important—in President Bush’s words, “one of the most consequential decisions a president makes”—and so scrutinized, casts the many examples of unpredicted drift as a real mystery. Why are presidents, and other backers, so often disappointed by the eventual performance of their nominees? And why do so many Supreme Court justices drift to the left, especially on matters of individual rights?

One fashionable theory is that, in our post-Borkean world, presidents must put forward nominees who can survive the contentious confirmation process—thus, ones who have shorter paper trails and less ideological baggage. This “advice and consent” bottleneck allows through only candidates with unpredictable judicial dispositions.

While this has some validity, presidential buyer’s remorse is as old as the process itself and may develop even when a president nominates a lifelong ally or a well-known public figure. By the time of his nomination, Earl Warren had established himself as a dedicated conservative: he had been the attorney general and three-term Republican governor of California and Thomas Dewey’s running mate in the famously narrow loss to Harry Truman and Alben Barkley. In short, Earl Warren hardly seemed an unknown quantity when Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed him as Chief Justice in 1953; and yet it was Earl Warren—the same Earl Warren who as attorney general during World War II backed the internment of Japanese citizens —who as chief justice inaugurated a liberal revolution on the court and became a champion of minority rights.”

To read the full body of the article just go online and use the article’s title as your search term.

Now, back to judge Kavanaugh:

That having been said earlier I still think it is important to know if Judge Kavanaugh has any skeletons hanging in his closet. The testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was very compelling to say the least. In this situation a real investigation needs to be carried out if not by the FBI then perhaps in conjunction with a Congressional investigating committee. Perhaps then either Judge Kavanaugh will be vindicated or he won’t. As Sgt. Joe Friday said in Dragnet long ago, “Just show me the facts, ma’am.”

After the 2020 election install new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court for a total of 15 justices. It’s also important to require a 2/3 vote in the Senate in order to confirm and approve any nominee for the highest court in the land

Rationale

When Roosevelt was reelected in 1936 he had to deal with a Supreme Court that wouldn’t pass his New Deal legislation. He did this by getting passed the 1937 Judicial Procedures Reform Bill. What this bill did was to require all justices on the court to retire at age 70.

The U.S. Constitution says nothing about how many justices can compose the court. The number of justices we have now is simply based on prior arbitrary decisions of the U.S. government. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t necessarily have to be composed of just 9 justices.

Roosevelt’s “packing the court plan” worked and a host of New Deal legislation was subsequently approved by the highest court. One could argue that Roosevelt’s political interference to subvert the highest court in the land isn’t any different than current Republican attempts to pack the court with ultra-conservative tainted judges. They’ve done everything they can to subvert an honest process by having no real investigation done by the FBI, hiding Kavanaugh documents during his time with the Bush administration, and only half-heartedly, if at all, showing respect toward witnesses and victims of sexual battery, lewd licentious behavior, and attempted rape.

Goal   

Improve the Over-all Well Being of Americans

Objectives

Create a New Tax Plan for the Country

All individual tax rates should be 10%. All Corporate tax rates should go back to 35%. Since January 1, 2018 corporate tax rates are a flat 21%. We can thank the Trump tax plan for that boondoggle. If one adds corporate tax monies that are hidden overseas a lot of tax money is lost by the American people.

All small businesses’ tax rates should be 10%. However, a corporation or small business could reduce their tax burden conditional upon the number and percent of new hires over the number and percent of new hires in the previous tax year. The greater the number and percent of new hires—the greater the tax relief provided.

In these two types of business entities taxes are conditional on results, not promises. In this way all businesses would be incentivized because of conditionality. I recommend small business owners bear a much smaller tax burden since they employ the vast number of workers in this country. Simultaneously, the minimum hourly wage should become $20 an hour, effective January 1, 2020.

Enact a Brand New Immigration Policy with an Ellis Island Approach to integrating non-citizens into society and help them become American citizens.

Under this plan racial or religious profiling as criteria for admission to the United States is dead. Unlike Ellis Island in New York during the early 1900s and before, the 21st Century will require one Processing Center to be along the Canadian border, another in El Paso, Texas, and a third Processing Center near Los Angeles, California.

Develop a Proven and Effective Ground to Air and Sea to Air Missile Defense Program

There is a great need for the 116th Congress to play a leadership role with respect to a viable effective Missile Defense Program. This issue has been a bi-partisan issue that both Democrats and Republicans have worked toward.

The new Congress needs to stay on top of this issue. Given the importance of protecting the nation during an actual nuclear strike by a foreign power, efforts must proactively be implemented including the once defunct Star Wars Program originally proposed by President Reagan. However, it’s time to come into the 21th Century. Call such a program the new Strategic Missile Defense Program or NSMDP. A broader title might be SHIELD, which could apply to all systems directed at countering incoming missiles.

Create a One-Payer Health Care System for all Americans

Currently, Medicare is a single-payer national health insurance program in the United States, begun in 1966 under the Social Security Administration and now administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the U.S. federal government.

It provides health insurance for Americans aged 65 and older who have worked and paid into the system through the payroll tax. It also provides health insurance to younger people with some disability status as determined by the Social Security Administration, as well as people with end stage renal disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Medicare is currently funded by a combination of a payroll tax, premiums and surtaxes from beneficiaries, and general revenue.

Under this objective the Bernie Sanders model should be enacted into law. It will include a viable and enriched health care benefit system and put every citizen under Medicare. In addition, affordable supplemental insurance could augment anyone’s Medicare program especially for long term care and in-home health care services.

A new enriched Medicare program must provide all medical services from Surgery to Psychiatry. In addition, all drugs, especially ground-breaking experimental cancer drugs will be free-of-charge to everyone covered under Medicare or Medicaid. The federal budget for all medical research should also be quadrupled over current governmental allocations. This is America; therefore we ought to have the best healthcare in the world bar none

Now money is realistically always an issue. I recommend a very first time ever federal national sales tax of 5 percent. Why? The GDP in 2020 will be an estimated 22.23 trillion dollars. Using a 2020 time frame a 5% sales tax would annually raise 1.1115 trillion dollars. But as everyone knows, health care costs are estimated to be 17.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product.

That 17.9 percent would represent about 3.3 trillion dollars in 2020. Said another way, health care in this country is astronomically expensive. However, mandatory spending cuts by the Trump administration had eliminated a net $2,033 billion (B) over the 2018–2027 periods. This included reduced spending of $1,891B for healthcare, mainly due to the proposed repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA/Obamacare). Republicans failed to repeal the ACA.

Doing the math 1,891 billion is actually 1.891 trillion dollars. When you add this amount to my sales tax plan, we now have 3.002 trillion dollars which comes close to the 3.3 trillion in healthcare costs. Last year under the Trump administration corporations paid only approximately $400 billion in taxes when corporations still had a tax rate was 35%.  Going back to a 35% tax rate for corporations would close the gap or short-fall. Theoretically, the 3.4 trillion in revenues could be dedicated exclusively to healthcare.

However, obviously my “steal from Peter in order to pay Paul” idea does need a lot of work. Anyone with viable ideas would be welcome to express them in some kind of forum. But this is getting to the heart of what politics is really all about—making hard decisions about scarce resources; it is an ominous responsibility.

Whether one is a Democrat, Republican or Independent, we all need good quality healthcare. Therefore, the 116th Congress has got its work cut out for it. I wish I had better more definitive answers for my readers on the issue of health care and its cost, but I don’t. It is a hard nut to crack. It is doable but will require really tough resource and tax decisions.

Institute a New National Call-in Center for Identifying Hate Groups and White Nationalists

This Call-in Center needs to be directly under the Control of the United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. The “eyes and ears” of 300+ million citizens is much better than a simple string of agency generated leads or criminal acts or events after the fact. In particular, people in rural areas of the country will be pivotal to detecting and reporting hate militia groups hiding in the forests or mountain areas of the U.S. landscape.

Pass a New Law for all 50 states to adopt the Gun Law Restrictions of California and/or Massachusetts

As a registered gun owner from California I can say I had to jump through a bunch of hoops in order to buy my guns. I use my guns primarily for target practice and home protection.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with strong gun laws. Guns should not be in the hands of everybody. And safety is job one for me. Massachusetts has the best most restrictive gun laws in the nation; California is second. Guns are never going to disappear as they are protected by the Second Amendment. You should read former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia’s case response to District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008). This was a landmark case that made a lot of sense. The Associated Press reported the following back in 2015 following Scalia’s death:

“Opponents of a ban on the kinds of military-style weapons often used in spree killings – most recently in San Bernardino – often say that denying civilians the right to own such guns would violate their Second Amendment rights, or that it is not possible in any case to define such weapons in law.

So let’s turn to an undisputed conservative – one who opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action and so many other liberal agenda items. Is it possible to define the kinds of weapons that should not be in civilian hands, and does regulating them violate the Second Amendment?

Here is Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court reversed a long-held position and ruled that the Second Amendment did give Americans individual right to own firearms. The court said the District’s ban on handguns in private homes went too far, but that regulation of gun ownership was compatible with the Second Amendment:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S. Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

 

Justice Scalia also wrote:

 

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

The prefatory clause, to which the justice refers, of course, is the one about “a well-regulated militia.” The AR-15, used in San Bernardino, is an M-16 knockoff. unusual’ and subject to regulation or an outright ban under the Second Amendment.” So rather than saying “assault weapons,” in the future perhaps we should say “the kinds of weapons that Justice Antonin Scalia has defined as ‘dangerous.

The Mission of the New 116th Congress will be to bring suit where necessary when dangerous weapons are involved. This tact of specificity when creating regulatory legislation (with citations referring to District of Columbia vs. Heller) just might bear fruit.

 

 Double or triple the resources of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in order to investigate all civilian shootings by a Police Officer in the United States

Nearly 1,000 people are killed by police every year in the United States. Putting local police or local district attorneys in charge of investigating their own is like putting a fox in charge of the hen house. It makes no sense at all. All investigations of these killings need objectivity and impartiality. The FBI has several thousand agents nationwide. If they need more agents to investigate killings by police officers—then so be it!

 

Goal

Regain International Status and Respect as a Nation

Objectives

Make a Formal Apology to our Allies

In addition, after Trump is removed by the 116th Congress it needs to make an unprecedented gesture to the world—a heartfelt apology to all our allies around the world for our countries colossal error in judgment for electing a total buffoon to the White House. Both a verbal and written proclamation of regret needs to be promulgated to the entire world, and in a timely manner.

Institute a strong policy of coordination among the Congressional Judiciary Committee and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to surveil all U.S. Congressmen, Senators, and Federal Court Judges for any corruption.

In conjunction with this, a new Cabinet level Czar of Government Ethics needs to be created with powers of investigation, promulgation of facts, and the authorization to censor, terminate employment, or otherwise convene a grand Jury to charge those whose ethics violations rise to the level of criminality.

In addition any current statutes on Moral Turpitude would now include crimes of omission as well as crimes of commission. As an example of moral turpitude involving crimes of omission consider the example of Representative Jim Jordan failing to report sexual abuse of young collegiate wrestlers at Ohio State University during his tenure there as a wrestling coach.

Convince the United Nations to eliminate all countries to the UN that are based on a dictatorship. Work to destroy all dictatorships in the world and their leaders (tyrants)

The United Nations is an institution that needs to defend its own Declaration of Human Rights, a landmark post-World War II proclamation that was passed back in 1948. It was one of the  most prodigious accomplishments of this multi-nation organization. The HR Proclamation laid out what the world needs to stand for. The United Nations stands as a beacon for the world in spite of the fact some countries are unwilling or unable to adopt the explicit Human Rights Declaration that was promulgated to the world.

It is from the pulpit of the U.N. that it needs collectively to stand up for what it believes in. As a world body of nations, it needs to demonstrate real courage. They could make a too long overdue commitment to oust dictatorships from the United Nations, to isolate and topple them from the rest of humanity. That is the goal. One objective that would follow would be to eliminate all dictators and dictatorships altogether from the face of the earth.

Final Thoughts

Having the power to make societal change is an awesome responsibility especially during an era of so many attacks on Democracy and democratic institutions. I can only hope that the gravity of the situation in American, with its utter lack of leadership in Washington D.C. will soon change course. I hope that the new 116th Congress will show real courage, and act quickly, decisively and responsibly.

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Cheer Up!

There Are Good Remedies to the Kavanaugh Problem

Introduction

As we head towards conclusion of the Kavanaugh hearings, both Republicans and Democrats are in a titanic battle that is completely political in nature. Whether Kavanaugh is confirmed or not, there are good remedies most citizens are unaware of that will probably satisfy sixty-five percent of the American voting population. What are these remedies? Well, some are short-term fixes and some are longer-term.

General Overview

The state of Maryland where Kavanaugh went to school has no Statute of Limitations on certain sexual crimes committed:

“No time limit for prosecution of any felony sexual offenses (Smallwood v. State, 51 Md.App. at 468, 443 A.2d at 1006, (in this State a prosecution for a felony “may be instituted anytime during the life of the offender.”))

There is no “bye your leave or stay out of jail card” just because time has elapsed.

If Kavanaugh is appointed, his confirmation can be rescinded because, whether a U. S. Supreme Court justice or not, no one in a democracy is above the law. Republicans more than Democrats are in a “Catch-Twenty-Two” situation where they are damned if they confirm him, and damned if they don’t. Why? Because a blue wave is coming baby and it’s more powerful than a 100 foot wave tsunami and Hurricane Florence combined.

As it looks today Democrats are, in the mid-term elections, going to retake the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and several governorships in previously red states. When the Democrats come into office in January there are several legislative actions they can take despite what the Republicans do in September. However, in the months ahead remaining Republicans will get a new lame-duck president (Mike Pense) once Donald Trump is impeached by the new Democratic majority in Congress.

It won’t be till 2020 that major judicial reforms regarding the U.S. Supreme Court should come about.

Why? Because the U.S. Constitution only allows presidents to bring forth nominations for the United States Supreme Court. Also, presidents cannot appoint nominees directly because the U.S. Constitution requires the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

An amendment to the U. S. Constitution would be needed to let Congress bring forth nominees but currently legislators cannot do that. The Congress could set in motion a Constitutional Amendment but that would be a lengthy process that could take years to complete. Therefore, some of my recommendations ahead relate to short-term fixes and others that are more long-term.

Short-Term Proposed Remedies

One of the first acts of the new congress, following the mid-term elections (meaning January 2019) should be to have the FBI conduct a thorough investigation of any and all allegations made against Kavanaugh. If it is found that Kavanaugh committed crime(s) he should be immediately prosecuted and removed from any judgeship.

One of the most important acts of the new Congress will be to impeach President Donald Trump. The safety, sanity and authenticity of a real democracy in the United States is currently in peril. Once removed from office Trump, who is a traitor to his country, needs to experience total asset forfeiture of all his holdings, and he should be given a new wardrobe—A large orange jumpsuit.

Long-Term Proposed Remedies

When Roosevelt was reelected in 1936 he had to deal with a Supreme Court that wouldn’t pass his New Deal legislation. He did this by getting passed the 1937 Judicial Procedures Reform Bill. What this bill did was to require all justices on the court to retire at age 70.

The U.S. Constitution says nothing about how many justices can compose the court. The number of justices we have now is simply based on prior arbitrary decisions of the U.S. government. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t necessarily have to be composed of just 9 justices.

Roosevelt’s “packing the court plan” worked and a host of New Deal legislation was subsequently approved by the highest court. One could argue that Roosevelt’s political interference to subvert the highest court in the land isn’t any different than current Republican attempts to pack the court with ultra-conservative tainted judges. They’ve done everything they can to subvert an honest process by having no real investigation done by the FBI, hiding Kavanaugh documents during his time with the Bush administration, and only half-heartedly, if at all, showing respect toward witnesses and victims of sexual battery, lewd licentious behavior, and attempted rape.

One could ultimately argue that since justices themselves tend to tailor their decisions based on societal value judgments that are couched and hidden in sophisticated legal analysis and jargon; by effect, it creates an analytical subterfuge which belies the fact that U.S. Supreme Court justices are supposed to be defenders of facts, the law, legal precedent, and the United States Constitution.

A previous blog of mine explored the faulty analysis (by conservatives and those who promote a strict literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution) because they have failed to understand what the original founders said themselves about how to interpret their new constitution by future generations of Americans. The founders recognized the need for flexibility of legal opinions over time in accordance with the needs of a changing country and a changing citizenship.

Most sociologists today explain that differences in human societal collective actions, including legal ones, are caused by differing social values. Said another way, rightly or wrongly, values rule society and all its actions. And change in values leads to tension among the people. Let’s be honest, whether liberal, moderate, or conservative, change is always difficult and anxiety provoking.

Psychologists also contribute to our understanding of social behavior. Currently they have been able to detect highly individual and internal processes that have led to how our current President manifests psychiatric, sociopathic and dementia symptoms. There is nothing more dangerous than a sociopathic amoral president with power. Either academic perspective explains very well why the country and our democracy has been corrupted and perverted by some Russian stooge in the White House since January 20, 2017.

My recommendation in the long-term category is that before a new version of the 1937 Judicial Reform law is passed, we first need to elect a democratic president because, based on the U.S. Constitution, only presidents can nominate justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On a personal note I think an arbitrary, yet useful number of Supreme Court justices, should number 13 rather than 9. The transition, when justices retire, might be less fraught with conflict and anxiety particularly during confirmation hearings of a new nominee. Then again maybe I’m just too optimistic an individual. Maybe 21 justices is a better number to put on the U. S. Supreme Court. What would be your ideas on this issue?

Final Comments

The major reason the United States is on a perilous path to self-destruction actually goes back to 1994 when a gaggle of conservative Republicans tried to high-jack the country with its “Contract with America.” At the time President Clinton referred to their proposal as more like a “Contract on America.”

The lasting signature of the Republican Party, then as now, is to pass very little legislation that helps people; they oppose all efforts to control “the good old white boy network.” They did pass one piece of legislation granting tax benefits. But the new taxes really benefited large corporations and already wealthy individuals and essentially accomplished nothing in all other social/economic areas. “Trickle-Down Economic Theory” was disproved decades ago.

The Republican political party is the party of “no.” The Tea Party members of 2010 and the Freedom Caucus of today deserve to be booted from Congress during the next 4 years. Senators like Grassley, McConnell and Hatch are at the top of the list of people who need to be removed from political office.

I’ve said to my friends many times over the years that conservatism is nothing to be proud of, but nevertheless there is nothing wrong with having moderately conservative political views; after all, no one is perfect.

Now that there are at least three women bringing sexual allegations against Kavanaugh I’d like to recommend, that any senator who votes to confirm Kavanaugh in the days ahead, should be voted out of the Senate come their reelection day.

These days Republicans are more recalcitrant or obstreperous than ever. Now that they’ve reached a new all-time low for lack of decency and moral character, Republicans have earned a new description worthy of a plaque. Not only is conservatism nothing to be proud of it, now it is something to be truly ashamed of.

Read Full Post »

A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both—Dwight David Eisenhower

Some of the objectives I’m about to describe are my political hopes for 2018 are tongue-in-cheek. But some items I am deadly serious about. One hint: I really do want President Trump impeached early in 2018. Some of the other objectives follow from this. It’s up to you to decide whether the ideas and opinions expressed in this blog are something you’d like to see happen in 2018.
This holiday season each of us sees the future as we would personally like it to be. Here are my wishes and hopes for 2018:

Goal: A Better Country and World

Donald Trump is impeached in early 2018 for Obstruction of Justice and other crimes.

The Freedom Caucus is utterly destroyed in the November, 2018 mid-term elections
After November, 2018 Republicans will cease to exist as a viable political party in the United States.
There will be no war with North Korea.
Black Ops from the CIA will be put in charge to do diplomacy with North Korea: Like the Gambino crime family, Black Ops will make Kim Jong-Un “an offer he cannot refuse.”
The people of Russia will overthrow Vladimir Putin.
The people of Iran will overthrow its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
The United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights will become World Law for all nations to adhere to.
The United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division will put forth the effort to investigate all police shootings in the United States.
Betsy (Elizabeth Dee DeVos), the educational Czar in the Trump Administration, will be fired.
Jim Jordan, the Republican Congressman from Ohio will be impeached along with his other Freedom Cauca’s cronies for Obstruction of Justice.
Core diehard Trump supporters will be deported from the United States for treasonous acts of disloyalty, lack of voter competence and outright un-American values that are anti-thetical to our country’s laws, the United States Constitution, and the principled institutions of our democracy.
The United States government in 2018 will no longer accept the now defunct “Trickle-Down-Economics Theory” of job creation. Instead its Guiding Principle will be [not promises of job creation] but stipulating and connecting tax breaks to actual jobs created. Otherwise, the tax cut money will be treated as a loan to be repaid to the United States government. Said another way No Business or Corporate welfare or gifts allowed. We want results not promises.

If all of these hopes and wishes were to come to fruition in 2018 it would indeed make America Great Again. Below is a little humor to entertain you as we enter 2018.

  • “So enjoy your victory, Trump voters! Because when you’re dying because you don’t have health insurance to treat the infection you got from a back alley abortion you had to get because of fetal lead poisoning, you can say to yourself, ‘At least I didn’t vote for someone with a private email server.'” –Bill Maher
  • “As you know, Trump is being accused of sexual misconduct by a slew of women. Of course, that is a case of ‘he said’ and ‘she said, she said, she said, she said, she said.'” –Jimmy Kimmel
  • “Trump denied the (groping) allegations, calling them ‘ludicrous’ at a rally today. But here’s the problem for Trump: There’s very good reason to believe he did what he’s accused of. Why? Because an irrefutable, inside source told us so: Donald Trump. Donald Trump is his own Deep Throat. He’s Creep Throat.” –Seth Meyers

Enjoy 2018 everyone!!!

Read Full Post »

He came out of the gold-plated suites and privileged classes of New York, screwing over others as an unbearable dork.
A loan from his father made it really all possible. But he helped to create a son who was insecure and irascible.
A braggart and a playboy he soon became, shamelessly flaunting his wealth with nobody but himself to blame.
But woe-is-me his elitist education and job success couldn’t correct a defective personality, given his proclivity for lying and womanizing and that was his reality.
By night he had the morals of an alley cat, but in the daylight of business he was nothing but a “dirty” little rat. Some women nonetheless saw him as somebody’s Mr. Right, despite the fact he really wasn’t too bright.
Onward and upward ever did he go, trampling people and businesses just for show. Oh my! He went ahead buying and building, building and buying, buildings that could reach the sky, that he was somehow the perfect guy who ended up so high.
But soon his empire began to crumble, implode and abort, when he finally started to end up in bankruptcy court.
He desperately wanted to be wealthy beyond all belief, but when his Atlantic City and fraudulent Trump University ended in a legal brief, it caused contractors and students alike only misery and grief. With this business failure and his tumbling fall, they began to feel he was not a clever business mogul at all. Soon the public began recognizing he always wanted others to take the blame, for his bad business decisions and that brought him much shame.
. He began to have dreams that he was some kind of Adonis and God’s gift to women with whom he was never modest. He liked to grope and fondle women any time he wanted, and cavalierly act and never be undaunted.
It is alleged he raped, beat and threatened a young girl of 13 in 1994; he believed he could get away with it, after all, he thought; she was just a little whore.
The irony of ironies surfaced just five years earlier when Trump couldn’t be anything but surlier, when he accused and condemned publicly like a shark, five minority teenage boys of raping and beating a white female jogger in New York City’s Central Park.
Exoneration followed when the five young men were released from prison when justice had finally arisen. Trump continued his aggression because of his obsession despite the fact their convictions were vacated based on DNA evidence and a murderer’s confession.
Trump enjoys hurting innocent people; it’s his way of feeling superior like a rising phoenix soaring above a church steeple. Just like a criminal offender who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client, Trump looks in his own mirror and sees an awesome 10 foot giant. Delusions of grandeur follow him everywhere, but he, quite frankly, doesn’t really give a damn or a care.
Bigger and bigger his fantasies did grow, till one day he could even see his own glow. .He thought to himself I am the anointed one, and wouldn’t it be so much fun to become the next president for which there is no precedent. He dwelled on this fantasy ‘till one day he thought he really should be president and become the White House’s next resident. Didn’t you know, it was all just to be a really big TV reality show?
Elected he was and that caused such a buzz. The American people immediately went into a catastrophic depression, hoping beyond hope his actions wouldn’t bring war, locus, petulance or even a recession.
He and his tweeter have created much theater. This barbarian has many short comings because his tweets are like non-sensical nothings. His arguments and statements are mostly fallacious and he desperately needs an editor to deal with his thinking processes that are non-sequitur.
He bragged about crowds being larger than ever, thinking his lies would make him look clever. Despite losing to Hillary Clinton by 3 million in the popular vote, he tried to hide his lack of support behind his ugliest, ugliest gloat.
One of Trump’s greatest mistakes came back to punch him in the chin, 21 days after he had appointed then terminated a security advisor named Flynn. Successes by Trump seem to elude him making him feel all the more grim. What can you expect from the president, who Senator Mitch McConnell said, “Our New president, of course, has not been in this line of work before.” and probably thought to himself he’s really just a baboon and a jerk?
Running a government in today’s world is no small matter. The only thing Trump has going for him is his egotistically-driven swagger. Trump has done nothing to really help his own base, other than to generate divisiveness based on someone’s race.
It seems a delusional state can always amass, when followers follow him and his values so crass, and values everyone should dump in the trash. Collectively, Trump and his ardent followers are headed toward the gates of hell, where they all together one day will dwell.
This charlatan and con man extraordinaire with his authoritarian personality and outlook on life, is creating a country with too much strife. The Nazis, KKK and white nationalists came out of the woodwork, to sing the praises of their anointed God in the White House and put to sleep forever any notion of sanity, because everywhere they go they are nothing but a calamity promoting their insanity.
Playing to his base or his white-nationalist Homies he showed he was dictator of all the people by firing Mr. Comey. Mr. Comey was a distinguished director of the FBI and was forced to be laid-off, so Trump could continue to run the government like an evil despicable man named Adolf.
He tries to convince everyone he is really a tough guy and a smart-looking social dandy, but most believe this is a façade; he’s really a sissy-like pansy. He walks around the White House like a Peacock in heat, thinking about how best to construct his next tweet.
Final Poetic Comments
Most people in the country wanted to puke at the fluke of the 2016 election. They wanted to wish it away, keep him at bay, and never be president—not a single day. He brought the American public to tears, by creating incipient anguish and playing to their worst fears.
History books must omit any mention of American’s greatest political rake, while Trump voters come to accept the fact that they caused our country’s greatest mistake.
When he leaves office there will be no statutes or honors to bestow upon Trump, except for that golden calf that will bring such wrath. Once again Moses will come down from Mount Sinai and chastise Trump supporters for their wanting an autocracy instead of a democracy, all because of their fatuous idolatry.
But another group known as elected republicans can share in the blame as well, because come midterm election day in 2018, they have about as much chance of surviving the election as a snowball in hell.
Trump has surprised everyone by working with democrats to do something to perhaps end their stale-matted combats. At stake today are the lives of 800,000 DACA immigrants who are often treated without respect and fear their departure might be imminent.
Republicans want no role in helping these people stay in America, because love of humanity is for them just too esoterica. They never want to help blacks, Hispanics, Asians or other minorities, the socially disenfranchised, or the lower economic classes. This is because that would defy the moneymakers and republicans always need to dehumanize the masses. Just like the 1994 Contract with America failed and never came to pass, the voters in 2018 need to kick them all out on their ass.
To be sure, there is nothing wrong with being a political conservative; however, it’s just better to choose to be a forward-looking liberal alternative. After all, no conservative is perfect because he lives in the past where time waits for no one, and he hides behind false narratives and the rhetoric of divisiveness, and can’t get legislation through Congress, because of his lack of purpose and decisiveness.
At the heart of a republican’s defect is the inability to put themselves in the shoes of another, or to act benevolently like a caring big brother. Words like sympathy and empathy have great meaning, but republicans prefer to treat others with an attitude that is de-meaning. Remember the sage advice we heard in our youth sometimes out of the blue, “Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you.”
Bigots and bandits the Republican Party does comprise, for an informed public that should come as no surprise. Trump the con man played the public for fools and pretended to drain the swamp by changing all the rules. He’ll never keep his promises or create a new promised land. He will bypass any original campaign promises with a sigh, because at heart Donald Trump only believes in one thing—“Me, Myself and I.”
Donald Trump is kind of existential threat to humanity, creating through his executive orders a state of mass insanity. He is not unlike all the nut cases in Samuel Beckett’s 1952 play, “Waiting for Godot,” where they demonstrate that life has no meaning at all, and only suffering, or didn’t you know? That is, he is more than a threat to our mere existence. He threatens our entire way of life, underlying American values and Constitution, all at his insistence.
Impeachment Impeachment where do we stand? It’s waiting for witnesses to take the stand. Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power, collusion with Russians, financial crimes and mental incapacitation will soon be terms that are much much clearer, once the House prosecutors and the Senate jury get nearer, to impeaching that garish rogue who thought he was in vogue, who came on the scene despite being obscene.
It’s a sad commentary on American life that we’ve all had to bear witness to a real life tragicomedy in the White House for almost 9 months now. Why has there been any comedic aspect to it? It’s because every time Donald Trump or his surrogates opened their mouth, I was constantly laughing like hell!!! Once again, I say this from my heart; it demonstrates just how peculiar it is when life imitates art.

Read Full Post »

The 2016 Election, the Media, Favorability Ratings, and the Shifting American Electorate

 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

 

The cornerstone of all science is observation. Lately I’ve made some interesting observations that raise a lot of questions about the 2016 election, the media and the shifting American electorate.

     The Status of the Republican Party

A good question to consider is why more than 50% of Republican voters seem to prefer outsiders rather than professional politicians, for example (Trump, Carson or Fiorina). By comparison, on the Democratic side, Democrats mostly seem to prefer tried and true democratic professional politicians like Clinton, Sanders, or O’Malley. I do not have a guiding theory to explain these peculiar political party differences in preference. Although Democrats too have different preferences among their candidates, they appear nonetheless to be more at ease with their choices than do the Republicans.

This is a fair question to ask—why it is Republicans are so dissatisfied, and why it is the Republican Party is in such disarray due to in-fighting.

With respect to these questions, I do have some ideas that relate to congressional gridlock, and favorability of the candidates as seen by demographically different voters.

Congressional Gridlock and Demographic Preferences

Many Republican voters who now express contempt for professional politicians are the same voters who willingly sent professional Republican politicians to Congress during the 2014 mid-term elections. It was a Republican landslide just a year ago. This may mean that Republican voters since 2014 have no one to blame but themselves for their own dissatisfaction.

And it’s true. Although the Republican Party since the 2014 mid-term elections has controlled both the House and the Senate, virtually nothing has been achieved due to recalcitrant ultra-conservatives and other malcontents who desired to commit mischief with gridlock and threatening to shut down the United States government.

During the last year, and more recently, Republicans wanted to defund Planned Parenthood. The results: their efforts failed. They also wanted to nix the Iran nuclear diplomatic agreement. The results: their efforts failed. They wanted to deep-six Obamacare and they failed (several times I might add). They wanted to shut down the government over the fiscal budget (in 2013). Except for a few days, the result was abject failure again and condemnation and scorn by the American people against the Republicans. All the President had to do was threaten a veto and they caved in like a very bad West Virginia mining accident. With Republicans in the majority, why couldn’t they control and overturn a presidential veto?

In addition, it is clear that Republican ultra conservatives from the Benghazi Committee have been wasting millions of taxpayer dollars money in order to vilify and tarnish the reputation of Hilary Clinton. Please observe the “smokescreen of doubt” that was created from these hearings; also note that no charges of any kind have yet been filed against Hilary Clinton. Polls showed that even Republican voters understand what was really happening in those hearings.

The Media and Republican Presidential Candidates

There is one area where I am in complete agreement with Republican presidential candidates. It is their anger at the media. There are liberal media and there are conservative media, and they are just as biased as any politician. It’s a common belief that the media are able to sift through truth and falsity and always have the public’s interest in mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many hide behind the smokescreen of the First Amendment in order to keep hidden their real intentions. Head-hunting and biased questions (and got-you questions) are still the goal of many reporters around the country. When watching them work, as in the debate in Colorado recently, I felt that the public’s interest in learning a candidate’s real view on many important issues was left out. Consequently, the media had their own agenda that night. Our interests were totally ignored.

Gone are the days of superior reporters like Edward R. Murrow, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, and the great Walter Cronkite. Today, we’re more likely to get Heckle or Jeckle as “talking heads” news journalists or commentators. There are some exceptions to what I’m saying.

In fairness, today there are some really good people in the media such as Don Lemon, Erin Burnett, Rachel Maddow and one of the very best news reporters, Lester Holt. What I like about these journalists is that, although some opinion creeps into their shows, they nevertheless make a real sincere effort to bring out the facts for the public.

I do have some personal experience with this issue. Back in 1996 I wrote a very positive editorial for the Sacramento Bee on the Chief of Naval Operations who had committed suicide. I had worked directly as a gunnery yeoman for the Admiral when he was just an Ltjg/Lt. onboard the U.S.S. John R. Craig (DD-885) during the Vietnam War.

Subsequent to my editorial, I was contacted by a reporter from The Washington Post. He too was writing a story about the Admiral. However, he lied to me about what he was really up to. When his article came out in the Washington Post a week or two later, it was a lousy chop piece denigrating the reputation of the Admiral. This Admiral was the first ever enlisted man in United States Navy to rise from seaman recruit to top officer in the U.S. Navy with four stars (as Chief of Naval Operations). The hard lesson I learned was never ever trust a reporter.

When the public is looking for facts about a presidential candidate, always remember it is your responsibility to sift out truth from falsity. You can never depend on the media.

Favorability Ratings

Another important significant factor is favorability ratings. This may be the closest thing to looking inside the heart of the voter, where their sense of who is best for the White House is a gut level reaction to that candidate. Are they liked, or not?

     Research by the Pew Research Center indicates the Republican Party may be in deep trouble next year with the electorate.

The Republican Party’s image has grown more negative over the first half of this year. Currently, 32% have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, while 60% have an unfavorable view. Favorable views of the GOP have fallen nine percentage points since January. The Democratic Party continues to have mixed ratings (48% favorable, 47% unfavorable).

The Democratic Party has often held an edge over the GOP in favorability in recent years, but its advantage had narrowed following the Republicans’ midterm victory last fall. Today, the gap is as wide as it has been in more than two years.

Republicans in particular are now more critical of their own party than they were a few months ago. About two-thirds (68%) express a favorable opinion of their party, the lowest share in more than two years. Six months ago, 86% of Republicans viewed the GOP positively.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted July 14-20, 2015 among 2,002 adults, finds little change in more specific perceptions of the two parties.

As has been the case over the past four years, the Republican Party is viewed as more extreme in its positions than the Democratic Party. Currently, 52% say the GOP is more extreme, compared with 35% who say this better describes the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party continues to hold wide advantages over the Republicans on empathy and honesty. By 53% to 31%, the Democratic Party is viewed as “more concerned with the needs of people like me.” And the Democrats hold a 16-point lead on governing in an honest and ethical way (45% to 29%).

Neither party has an edge in perceptions about which could better manage the Federal government: 40% say the Republican Party, while an identical percentage prefers the Democrats.

On issues, the Democratic Party holds double-digit advantages as better able to handle the environment (by a margin of 53% to 27%), abortion and contraception policies (50% to 31%), education (46% to 34%) and health care (46% to 36%).  The Republican Party has wide leads for better reflecting people’s views on gun control (48% to 36%) and dealing with the terrorist threat at home (44% to 34%).

In some cases, such as terrorism and foreign policy, the Republicans have lost ground since January. There has been little change in views of the parties on other major issues, including the economy and immigration. Neither party holds a significant advantage on these issues.

The survey finds little change in Barack Obama’s job approval: 48% approve of the way he is handling his job as president while 45% disapprove. Obama’s rating fell into negative territory at the end of last year, but has been mixed since January.

Recent Pew Research Center surveys have found signs of dissatisfaction with the GOP among Republicans. In May, just 41% of Republicans said they approved of the job performance of the leaders of the GOP-led Congress. In 2011, after Republicans had won control of the House, 60% of Republicans approved of the job being done by their party’s leaders in Congress.

     The current survey finds that positive views of the GOP among Republicans have declined 18 percentage points since January, from 86% to 68%. Independents also view the Republican Party less favorably; 29% today, compared with 37% six months ago.

Democrats by contrast continue to express highly positive opinions of their party: 86% view the party favorably, little changed from 84% in January. Independents’ views of the Democratic Party remain at 38%, unchanged since January.

The advantage the Republican Party had on a number of major issues has eroded since earlier this year. The Democratic Party has improved its position on foreign policy, taxes, policies about abortion and contraception, and terrorism since February.

The Democratic Party’s advantage on abortion and contraception has increased 16 points since February; currently 50% say Democrats could do the better job dealing with policies on abortion and contraception, while just 31% say the GOP could. Though these ratings reflect a shift from February (when the parties ran even on this issue), the edge Democrats now hold is similar to its advantage in October 2014.

Five months ago Republicans were seen by more Americans as the party better able to handle foreign policy (48% said Republicans, 35% Democrats); today, the public is equally likely to say Republicans (38%) as Democrats (41%) could better handle foreign policy. And while the GOP maintains a 10-point advantage as the party better able to address the terrorist threat at home (44% vs. 34%), that edge has narrowed since earlier this year.

Over the last two years, the Republican Party has opened a gap over the Democratic Party when it comes to views about which party better reflects American views about gun control. In May 2013, following months of debate about gun policy, the public was divided over which party could better deal with gun control. Today, the GOP holds a 13-point edge on this issue.

Democrats Hold Edge on Health Care, Neither Party Has Advantage on Economy, Immigration

Health care remains an issue that favors the Democratic Party. Currently 46% prefer the Democratic Party on health care, while 36% prefer the GOP. The Democratic Party has maintained an advantage on this issue for much of the last several years.

Democrats also enjoy a 12-point edge on education policy (46% vs. 34%). And on the environment, the public favors Democrats by about two-to-one (53% say the Democratic Party could do the better job, 27% say the GOP).

Americans continue to be divided over which party would do a better job handling the economy. Today, 44% say Democrats could do the better job, while nearly as many (41%) say Republicans could do the better job. Neither party has held a significant edge on this issue over the last year. Last July the Republicans held an eight-point advantage (47% vs. 39%) on the economy.

The parties also run even on the budget deficit and immigration, little changed since October of last year. The public has been split over which party is better able to handle immigration for the last several years.

There remain substantial divides by age and race over which party is better on immigration. The Democratic Party holds the edge on this issue among Americans under fifty, 48% of whom say it could do the better job on immigration, while just 36% say the GOP does. In contrast, the GOP performs better among those over fifty on immigration: 44% say it would do the better job, while 35% say the Democratic Party.

Whites favor the Republican Party over the Democratic Party by a 10-point margin on immigration, while both African-Americans (by 36 points) and Hispanics (by 29 points) are more likely to say the Democratic Party is better able to handle this issue.

Yet there are substantial divides within whites. While white women are roughly evenly split over which party can better address immigration (39% say Democrats, 40% Republicans), white men favor the GOP by a 20-point margin (51% vs. 31%).

And among whites with college degrees, the Democratic Party holds a slim edge (46% to 38%), while those without college degrees and those who have not attended college favor the GOP on immigration: 50% vs. 26%. Among those with some college experience the percentages are 46% vs. 34%.

Overall, Independents are divided over which party could do the better job addressing immigration (38% say each party). As with most issues, partisans overwhelmingly say their own party could do the better job on this issue.

Democratic Party Viewed More Positively Than GOP on Key Traits

The Democratic Party continues to enjoy an advantage on a number of key traits and qualities, and these views are little changed since last fall. By a 22-point margin, more say the Democratic Party is “more concerned with the needs of people like me.” The Democratic Party has held a similar-sized lead on this trait since 2011, and at least a double-digit edge going back to when this question was first asked more than 25 years ago in 1988.

The Democratic Party also leads the Republican Party as the party that governs in a more honest and ethical way (45% vs. 29%). This balance of opinion is also little changed over the last few years.

As it has been since 2013, the public is divided over which party can best manage the federal government: 41% say the Democratic Party, while 40% say the GOP.

And more Americans identify the Republican Party as “more extreme in its positions” (52% say this, while 35% say the Democratic Party). This view is little changed since 2011.

Congressional Evaluations Remain Highly Negative

     Views of Congress continue to hover near record lows: Just 25% of Americans view Congress favorably, while 69% says they have an unfavorable opinion.

Although the GOP now controls both the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats hold similar views of Congress: 29% of Democrats and 28% of Republicans rate it favorably. By comparison, Democratic ratings of Congress were consistently higher than Republicans’ ratings when Democrats controlled both chambers from 2007 to 2010.

Republican ratings of Congress are little changed since last summer, but Democratic ratings – which had grown more negative following the 2014 election – have rebounded somewhat (up seven percentage points since March).

Independents’ opinions of Congress are more negative than those in either party. Just 22% say they have a favorable view of Congress, relatively unchanged in recent months.

Views of Barack Obama

Obama’s job approval rating is little changed over the first half of 2015, with Americans about equally likely to say they approve of his performance (48%) as disapprove (45%).

Currently, about eight-in-ten Republicans (82%) disapprove of Obama’s performance, while views among independents remain mixed (48% disapprove, 44% approve). Obama continues to receive positive ratings from about eight-in-ten Democrats (79% approve, 16% disapprove). Ratings of Obama among partisans and independents are relatively unchanged over the last year.

Obama’s approval ratings continue to differ by generation, with younger generations more likely to view his job performance positively. Currently 55% of Millennials (those now ages 18-34) approve of his job performance, as do half of Generation Xers (those 35 to 50). By comparison, 44% of Baby Boomers (51 to 69 year olds) approve of Obama, along with just 37% of those in the Silent Generation (currently ages 70 to 87).

On five issues included in the survey, Obama gets a positive net rating on one: race relations. About half (48%) approve of his handling of race relations, while 43% disapprove. The public holds mixed views on Obama’s handling of health care policy (46% approve, 50% disapprove), the economy (45% approve, 51% disapprove) and global climate change (41% approve, 39% disapprove).

Obama’s performance on foreign policy remains in negative territory, and is little changed over the past few years: Just 38% now approve of how Obama is handling the nation’s foreign policy, while 52% say they disapprove.

While there has been little change in Obama’s approval ratings on many issues in the last year, his rating on health care policy has improved since December: Today, 46% approve of his handling of health care, up from 39%.

Obama’s rating on health care policy has improved across many political and demographic groups, but the change is particularly pronounced among those under 30: In December, 37% of 18-29 year olds approved of Obama’s handling of health care policy; currently 52% approve.

Obama on Foreign Policy: ‘Not Tough Enough’ for Many Americans

Just over half of Americans (53%) continue to say that Barack Obama’s approach to foreign policy and national security is “not tough enough”; 37% say he handles these matters about right, while just 4% say he is too tough. These attitudes are virtually unchanged since November 2013.

Republicans are far more critical of Obama’s approach to foreign policy than Democrats or independents. Eight-in-ten Republicans (80%) say he is not tough enough, compared with 54% of independents and just 32% of Democrats. Most Democrats (58%), along with about a third of independents (34%) say his approach is about right.

The 2016 Election

Let’s take a look now at the overall picture that is unfolding for the 2016 presidential election.

By the Numbers

In November of 2016 the United States will elect a new President. It is estimated that approximately 207,643,594 voters will show up at the polls and cast their ballots. Approximately 55 million will be Republicans, 72 million will be Democrats, and 42 million will be Independents who’ll split the vote.

Whoever the Democrat’s choice to run for president in 2016, it is evident that person is going to become our next President.

The reasons are fivefold: (1) the Republicans are once again out of favor with the American electorate, (2) most Americans blame Republicans for the gridlock in Washington D.C., (3) most young Millennial voters look askance at, and do not identify with, the values of conservatives in this new progressive modern era, (4) the Democrats outnumber republicans by 17 million potential voters in a general election, and (5) the powerful AFL/CIO has a block of 12 million voters who will vote for the candidate who policies favor the working man and woman. From the longshoreman to the steel worker, including assembly line automotive workers, this powerful voting group has determined many elections since the beginning of the industrial age. Democrats or Republicans who ignore the needs of these voters do so at their own peril.

Traditionally, labor unions feel more at ease with Democrats than Republicans, the latter of which tend to favor big business and Wall Street over labor unions.

 

Final Comments

A big question looms over the Republican electorate: If the Republicans control the House and the Senate, why didn’t they satisfy Republican voters who sent them to Washington in the first place? It appears the Republican Party tends not to be progressive or forward-looking.

It may very well be that dissatisfaction among Republican voters has been simmering for some time, going back to the mid-term elections of 1994 when they were promised a “Contract with America.” It was proposed by the Republican Party. Once again the result of Contract with America was utter failure. They achieved virtually nothing that was proposed or promised.

President Bill Clinton jokingly said at the time, “the Contract with America was really a Contract on America.”

To this author it is really not surprising that extremist, obstreperous and recalcitrant Tea Party members of Congress, as well as other irresponsible right wing demagogic conservatives, drove an irredeemable ideological wedge between most Republican lawmakers (moderate Republicans versus conservative Republicans) This is the mess the Republican Party finds itself in 2015.

Such a quixotic and largely self-serving approach to governing the people has been, and will continue to be, a political disaster.

One will recall that within days after the 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama, Republicans in Congress wanted to evaluate, not only what went wrong, but the very values of the Republican Party that led to their defeat.

That moment of self-reflection didn’t last long. Within weeks they were picking fights and engaging in congressional bickering, troublemaking with gridlock at every turn. Although some Republican voters approved of the watchdog approach over the Obama administration, most Republicans still expected there was something in it for them, namely legislation that would lower taxes and reduce the national budget and deficit, reduce the size of government and generally get things done. What happened was the Republicans in office forget why they were elected in the first place?

Consequently, most Republican voters today are pissed off at professional politicians in the Republican Party because of prior elected official’s failure to pass legislation helpful to Republican voters. As a result, the silent majority of Republicans may not be so silent anymore.

My original observation is important. Consequently, you’ll notice that on the Republican side, Republican voters are now more interested in outsiders, or those outside of Washington. Specifically, the polls are now showing widespread support for Republican non-professional politicians like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. It should be pointed out that historically being a non-politician running for President of the United States is not all that unusual.

For example, Dwight David Eisenhower did not hold elected public office prior to becoming President. Neither did Zackery Taylor, John Adams or Ulysses S. Grant. Therefore it would not be unprecedented if an outsider running for president in 2016 became president of the United States. But, as the old expression goes “that was then and this is now.”

I made my prediction a while ago. That is, the Republican Party has as much chance of winning the presidency in 2016—as a snowball in hell. With all the Republican in-fighting, and the fact they were primarily blamed for all of the post-2008 gridlock, it’s clear they will fail to regain the White House in 2016.

While I could spend days articulating why Republican values miss the mark because of a modern and ever changing progressive American electorate, one important factor as to how the country will vote—is the factor of favorability. It will likely predict the election outcome in 2016. And, not surprisingly, demographics differentiate specific favorability ratings of the candidates. And, of course, Democrat Party voters outnumber Republican Party voters. Given that blacks and Hispanics and educated whites, along with younger voters do not favor the Republican Party, it’s time Republican voters once again reassess its values and what it means to be a conservative with non-inclusive values in a diverse culture.

All of this said—one factor may trump (no pun intended) the economy as a presidential issue. That is the issue of foreign policy since the horrific attacks in Paris.

On the surface one might think that the Republican hardliners would have an advantage as terrorism gains traction on the international scene. This is a complex issue given the humanitarian concerns of “collateral damage.”

Republican presidential candidate Senator Lindsay Graham has some good ideas about putting together a regional army to destroy ISIS. But his numbers in surveys are still hovering slightly below 1% of the Republican vote. The other Republican candidates, like everything else they do, are all talk and no action. More bluster than anything else.

Remember, the good citizens of this country don’t elect the president—The Electoral College does.

It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency. There currently are 538 total Electoral College votes (435 House, 100, Senate, and 3 from the District of Columbia). It is important that both political parties work to get out the vote in 2016. State majorities matter except in Maine and Nebraska (congressional district method).

If the Democrat presidential candidate turns out to be Hilary Clinton, she will need to have either retired General Wesley Clark or former Florida Governor Charlie Crist run as her running mate. If she does the ticket will be unbeatable and I predict she will win the presidency in 2016 with 304 Electoral College votes. The Republicans would therefore win only 234 Electoral College votes, and thus lose the 2016 election.

 

Read Full Post »

President Obama’s Real Accomplishments in Office   Introduction Where politics is concerned there always seems to be a real disconnect between facts on the one hand, and political rhetoric espoused by the media and the various political parties on the other. Citizens expect the media to decipher fact from fiction. But since the media is often biased in favor of one political party over another, the voting public is actually left to their own devices to determine fact from fiction. As a consequence, the average citizen is left out in the cold where unbiased evaluation of a candidate for political office is concerned. As we all know, politicians talk more about values, not facts. Facts are often used to measure results of a politician’s programs, while values are used to make promises and to encourage the public to vote for a particular candidate. Facts are too dangerous for politicians while values are safer when interacting with the public.   Purpose of Blog The purpose of this Blog is to present to my cyberspace public a factual review of the real accomplishments of the President of the United States, Barack Obama. I will review his accomplishments in two ways: Review the two most important promises the President made back in 2008 which were to lower the unemployment rate and create middle class jobs for Americans. The second way is to list the accomplishments of Barack Obama. When it came to the President’s promises, both related to economics. This was important since the country came close to a financial disaster and collapse during President Bush’s last term in office. At the time he made his promises, little did he know that his vision for America would be met by a recalcitrant and often times obstreperous Congress, particularly the House of Representatives. Despite the juggernaut of destructive gridlock offered up by the Republican Party and its Tea Party members, achievements were made in the last 6 years by the President. The Promises of President Obama The first promise was to lower the unemployment rate, and the second was to create jobs for middle-class Americans. I will present data that supports these promises, and I will carefully review actual achievements. The Unemployment Rate The President took office in January 2009. At that time the unemployment rate had been climbing during the previous year under the Bush Administration from 5.0 percent in January 2008 to 7.8 percent in January, 2009. The rate of unemployment continued to rise to a high of 10 percent in October 2009 as a lagging effect of the recession and near financial collapse in 2008. It continued to drift from 9.9 down to 9.4 percent during the rest of 2009, and continued through to the end of 2010. By this time the policies of the President and the Federal Reserve Board (primarily the economic stimulus packages) were starting to have an effect on the unemployment rate. In January 2011 the unemployment rate dropped to 9.1 percent. A year later it was 8.2 percent. By January 2013 it was 7.9 percent. In January 2014 the unemployment rate had dropped to 6.6 percent. In June 2014 the unemployment rate dropped again to 6.1 percent. During the President’s watch, the unemployment rate declined 39 percent. As of August 2014 the unemployment rate still stayed at 6.1 percent. It would, of course, be simplistic and rather naïve to either ascribe total credit or total blame to the person holding office of the presidency for the lion’s share of any economic change. The reality is economic cycles and the economy itself each have a life of its own (see my previous Blogs on economics and economic theories).  Nevertheless, fiscal and economic policies of any President do matter.  So from a policy standpoint, President Barack Obama has very much helped impact the unemployment rate in a positive way, thus achieving his first promise. Unemployment Rate (January 2004 – June 2014)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004  5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005  5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006  4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007  4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008  5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009  7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010  9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011  9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012  8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9
2013  7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2014  6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1

  Source: Department of Labor Statistics     Job Creation and Growth   It is a fact that, since President Roosevelt, the average amount of private sector jobs created during Democratic Presidential terms is 1,463,220 and the average amount during Republican Presidential terms is a paltry 642,000 jobs.     Obama’s Second Promise

52 Straight Months of Private Sector Job Growth

July 3, 2014 Under President Obama’s leadership, the economy has added private sector jobs for 52 straight months. During this span, 9.7 million private sector jobs have been created. In the Senate,    Democrats are fighting to continue this positive trend and help speed along the economic recovery.   President Obama’s Major Accomplishments What follows is a PARTIAL list of Obama’s accomplishments so far.

 

Despite the characterizations of some Republicans, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office. Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%.

Fiscal Responsibility

Within days after taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. The President created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

Improving the Economy, Preventing Depression

Obama pushed through and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “the stimulus package,” despite the fact that not one Republican voted for that bill. In addition, he launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Act. In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. Obama completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan. Obama oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years.  He oversaw a bailout of General Motors that saved at least 1.4 million jobs, and put pressure on the company to change its practices, resulting in GM returning to its place as the top car company in the world. Obama also doubled funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which is designed to improve manufacturing efficiency. He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which was designed to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices. He increased infrastructure spending after years of neglect.  Obama signed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, expanding on the Making Home Affordable Program to help millions of Americans avoid preventable foreclosures. The bill also provided $2.2 billion to help combat homelessness, and to stabilize the housing market. Through the Worker, Home Ownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Obama and Congressional Democrats provided tax credits to first-time home buyers, which helped the U.S. housing market recovery. He initiated a $15 billion plan designed to encourage increased lending to small businesses. Obama created business.gov, which allows for online collaboration between small businesses and experts remanaging a business. (The program has since merged with SBA.gov.) He played a lead role in getting the G-20 Summit to commit to a $1.1 trillion deal to combat the global financial crisis.  Obama took steps to improve minority access to capital.  He created a $60 billion bank to fund infrastructure improvements such as roads and bridges. He implemented an auto industry rescue plan, and saved as many as 1 million jobs.  Many are of the opinion that he saved the entire auto industry, and even the economy of the entire Midwest. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Obama saved at least 300,000 education jobs, such as teachers, principals, librarians, and counselors that would have otherwise been lost. Obama dismantled the Minerals Management Service, thereby moving forward to cut ties between energy companies and the government. He provided funding to states and the Department of Homeland Security to save thousands of police and firefighter jobs from being cut during the recession. He used recovered TARP money to fund programs at local housing finance agencies in California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona and Michigan. Obama crafted an Executive order establishing the President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability to assist in financial education for all Americans.

Wall Street Reforms and Consumer Protection

Obama ordered 65 executives who took bailout money to cut their own pay until they paid back all bailout money. He pushed through and got passed Dodd-Frank, one of the largest and most comprehensive Wall Street reforms since the Great Depression.  Dodd-Frank also included the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Obama made it so that banks could no longer use YOUR money to invest in high-risk financial instruments that work against their own customers’ interests. He supported the concept of allowing stockholders to vote on executive compensation.  Obama wholly endorsed and supported the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009 that would close offshore tax avoidance loopholes. He made a deal with Swiss banks that permit the US government to gain access to the records of criminals and tax evaders. He established a Consumer Protection Financial Bureau designed to protect consumers from financial sector excesses. Obama oversaw and then signed the most sweeping food safety legislation since the Great Depression.

Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination

Obama advocated for and signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which made it a federal crime to assault anyone based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. He pushed through, signed and demanded the Pentagon enact a repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that forced soldiers to lie to fight for their country, and put our troops at risk by disqualifying many qualified soldiers from helping. Obama appointed Kareem Dale as the first ever Special Assistant to the President for Disability Policy. Helped Congress pass and signed the Civil Rights History Act.  He extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. Obama has appointed more openly gay officials than anyone in history.  He issued a Presidential Memorandum reaffirming the rights of gay couples to make medical decisions for each other. He established a White House Council on Women and Girls. He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers. This was after the GOP blocked the bill in 2007. Only 5 Republican Senators voted for the bill.    Obama wrote and signed an Executive Order establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies evaluate the effect of their policies and programs on women and families. He expanded funding for the Violence against Women Act. Under Obama’s watch, National Labor Relations Board has issued final rules that require all employers to prominently post employees’ rights where all employees or prospective employees can see it, including websites and intranets, beginning November 2011.

Fighting Poverty

Obama provided a $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps). He signed an Executive Order that established the White House Office of Urban Affairs.

Improved Foreign Relations and American Status Abroad

Obama visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any previous president during his first six months in office. As he promised, he gave a speech at a major Islamic forum in Cairo early in his administration. He did much to restore America’s reputation around the world as a global leader that does the “right thing” in world affairs, at least according to the rest of the planet. He re-established and reinforced our partnership with NATO and other allies on strategic international issues. Closed a number of secret detention facilities. Obama improved relations with Middle East countries by appointing special envoys. He pushed for military to emphasize development of foreign language skills. Offered $400 million to the people living in Gaza, called on both Israel and the Palestinians to stop inciting violence. He refused to give Israel the green light to attack Iran over their possible nuclear program. He worked to make donations to Haiti tax-deductible in 2009. He established a new U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. Issued an Executive Order blocking interference with and helped to stabilize Somalia. He established new, more reasonable policies in our relations with Cuba, such as allowing Cuban-Americans to visit their families and send money to support them. He ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. It was Republicans (and a smattering of Democrats) who prevented him from following through. Obama ordered a review of our detention and interrogation policy, and prohibited the use of torture, or what Bush called “enhanced interrogation.” He ordered interrogators to limit their actions to the Army Field manual. He ordered all secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere to be closed.  He released the Bush torture memos.   On his second day in office, he signed a detailed Executive Order that banned torture, reversed all Bush torture policies, and put the United States in compliance with the Geneva Convention. In response to the emerging “Arab Spring,” he created a Rapid Response fund, to assist emerging democracies with foreign aid, debt relief, technical assistance and investment packages in order to show that the United States stands with them. Obama passed the Iran Sanctions Act, to prevent war, and to encourage Iran to give up their nuclear program.  Obama ended the Iraq War. In response to current events with an ISIS invasion in Iraq President Obama ordered air strikes and offered humanitarian assistance to Iraq religious minorities under threat of death from ISIS. He has now created an international coalition through NATO to annihilate ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He authorized and oversaw a secret mission by SEAL Team Six to rescue two hostages held by Somali pirates. The importance of this international act of terrorism was later made into a movie with Tom Hanks.

Better Approach to Defense

Obama created a comprehensive new strategy for dealing with the international nuclear threat. He authorized a $1.4 billion reduction in Star Wars program in 2010. He restarted nuclear nonproliferation talks and built up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols to where they had been before Bush. He signed and pushed to ratification a new SALT Treaty. Negotiated and signed a new START Treaty that will last until at least 2021. Through the Defense Authorization Act, he reversed the Bush Administration and committed to no permanent military bases in Iraq. He developed the first comprehensive strategy with regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan designed to facilitate the defeat of al Qaeda and the withdrawal of most troops, as well as the rebuilding of Afghanistan. He returned our focus to Afghanistan, stabilized the country, and began the process of withdrawing our troops. Obama fulfilled his campaign promise and ended our involvement in Iraq in 2011. However, current events have altered a total and complete withdrawal from Iraq. Despite the current problems in Iraq the president, during his administration, has taken steps to severely weaken al Qaeda and limit their ability to terrorize the world. Many of the top al Qaeda leaders have been killed or otherwise neutralized. He negotiated and signed a nuclear nonproliferation treaty with India. He took decisive action to use NATO to limit the slaughter of innocents in Libya, so that the Libyan people could topple a despotic government and determine their own fate.   Veterans He made sure that families of fallen soldiers could be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB by providing funding for it.  He also ended the media blackout on coverage of the return of fallen soldiers. He funded Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with an extra $1.4 billion to improve veterans’ services. He provided the troops with better body armor. He created the Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record program for military personnel in order to improve the quality of their medical care. He put an end to the Bush-era stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan beyond their enlistment date. He supported and signed the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act, which made more money available to enable better medical care for veterans. He ushered through the largest spending increase in 30 years for the Department of Veterans Affairs for improved medical facilities, and to assist states in acquiring or constructing state nursing homes and extended care facilities. He created the Green Vet Initiative, which provided special funding to the Labor Department to provide veterans with training in green jobs. He oversaw a $4.6 billion expansion of the Veterans Administration budget to pay for more mental health professionals.

Education

He has repeatedly increased funding for student financial aid, and at the same time cut the banks completely out of the process. He completely reformed the student loan program to make it possible for students to refinance at a lower rate. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he invested heavily in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education. This includes a major expansion of broadband availability in K-12 schools nationwide as well as an expansion in school construction. Also, through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he put $5 billion into early education, including Head Start. He signed the Post-9/11 GI Bill, also known as GI Bill 2.0 He oversaw expansion of the Pell Grants program to expand opportunity for low-income students to go to college. He passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which provided an extra $12.2 billion in funds.

Greater Transparency and Better Government

He signed an order banning gifts from lobbyists to anyone in the Executive Branch. He signed an order banning anyone from working in an agency they had lobbied in previous years. He also put strict limits on lobbyists’ access to the White House. He held the first-ever online town hall from the White House, and took questions from the public. The Obama White House became the first to stream every White House event, live. He established a central portal for Americans to find service opportunities. He provided the first voluntary disclosure of the White House Visitors Log in history.  He crafted an Executive Order on Presidential Records, which restored the 30-day time frame for former presidents to review records, and eliminated the right for the vice president or family members of former presidents to do the reviews. This will provide the public with greater access to historic White House documents, and severely curtails the ability to use executive privilege to shield them. He improved aspects of the Freedom of Information Act, and issued new guidelines to make FOIA more open and transparent in the processing of FOIA requests.

National Safety and Security

He’s restored federal agencies such as FEMA to the point that they have been able to manage a huge number of natural disasters successfully. He authorized Navy SEALS to successfully secure the release of a US captain held by Somali pirates and increased patrols off the Somali coast. Obama has repeatedly beefed up border security. He ordered and oversaw the Navy SEALS operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

Science, Technology and Health Care

He created a Presidential Memorandum to restore scientific integrity in government decision-making. Obama opened up the process for fast-tracking patent approval for green energy projects. He eliminated the Bush-era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. He also provided increased federal support for biomedical and stem cell research. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he committed more federal funding, about $18 billion, to support non-defense science and research labs. He signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first comprehensive attempt to improve the lives of Americans living with paralysis. He expanded the Nurse-Family Partnership program, which provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families, to cover more first-time mothers.  His EPA reversed research ethics standards which allowed humans to be used as “guinea pigs” in tests of the effects of chemicals to comply with numerous codes of medical ethics. Obama conducted a cyberspace policy review. Obama provided financial support for private sector space programs. He oversaw enhanced earth mapping to provide valuable data for agricultural, educational, scientific, and government use. He ushered through a bill that authorized the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products.  As a result, the FDA has ordered tobacco companies to disclose cigarette ingredients and to ban sale of cigarettes falsely labeled as “light.” Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he provided $500 million for Health Professions Training Programs. He also increased funding for community-based prevention programs. He oversaw a 50% decrease in cost of prescription drugs for seniors. He eliminated the Bush-era practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug companies on price. Two weeks after taking office, he signed the Children’s Health Insurance Re-authorization Act, which increased the number of children covered by health insurance by 4 million. He held a quick press conference, and urged Congress to investigate Anthem Blue Cross for raising premiums 39% without explanation. Rep. Waxman responded by launching a probe, and Anthem Blue Cross put the increase on hold for two months. He ushered through and signed the Affordable Health Care Act, which expanded health insurance coverage to 30 million more people, and ended many common insurance company practices that are often detrimental to those with coverage. Through the Affordable Health Care Act, he allowed children to be covered under their parents’ policy until they turned 26. Through the Affordable Health Care Act, he provided tax breaks to allow 3.5 million small businesses to provide health insurance to their employees; thereby 29 million people will receive tax breaks to help them afford health insurance. Through the Affordable Health Care Act, he expanded Medicaid to those making up to 133% of the federal poverty level. Through the Affordable Health Care Act, health insurance companies now have to disclose how much of your premium actually goes to pay for patient care. Provisions in Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act have already resulted in Medicare costs actually declining slightly this fiscal year, for the first time in many years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Last year’s increase was 4%. Compare that to the average 12% annual inflation rate during the previous 40 years. Strengthening the Middle Class and Families Obama worked to provide affordable, high-quality child care to working families. He cracked down on companies that were previously denying sick pay, vacation and health insurance, and Social Security and Medicare tax payments through abuse of the employee classification of independent contractor. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he cut taxes for 95% of America’s working families. Under Obama, tax rates for average working families are the lowest they’ve been since 1950. He extended and fully funded the patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax for 10 years. He extended discounted COBRA health coverage for the unemployed from 9 months to 15 months, and he’s extended unemployment benefits several times.

Environment and Energy

Obama fast-tracked regulations to allow states to enact federal fuel efficiency standards that were above federal standards. His fast-tracked regulation increased fuel economy standards for vehicles beginning with the 2011 model year. It was the first time such standards had been increased in a decade. He oversaw the establishment of an Energy Partnership for the Americas, which creates more markets for American-made biofuels and green energy technologies. His EPA reversed a Bush-era decision to allow the largest mountaintop removal project in US history. He ordered the Department of Energy to implement more aggressive efficiency standards for common household appliances. He ordered energy plants to prepare to produce at least 15% of all energy through renewable resources like wind and solar, by 2021. (As you can see, Republicans are trying hard to kill it.) He oversaw the creation of an initiative that converts old factories and manufacturing centers into new clean technology centers. Obama bypassed Republican opposition in Congress, and ordered EPA to begin regulating and measuring carbon emissions. His EPA ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. He doubled federal spending on clean energy research. He pushed through a tax credit to help people buy plug-in hybrid cars. He created a program to develop renewable energy projects on the waters of our Outer Continental Shelf that will produce electricity from wind, wave, and ocean currents. Obama reengaged in the climate change and greenhouse gas emissions agreements talks, and even proposed one himself. He also addressed the U.N. Climate Change Conference, officially reversing the Bush-era stance that climate change was a “hoax.” He fully supported the initial phase of the creation of a legally binding treaty to reduce mercury emissions worldwide. He required states to provide incentives to utilities to reduce their energy consumption. Following Bush’s eight year reign, he reengaged in a number of treaties and agreements designed to protect the Antarctic. He created tax write-offs for purchases of hybrid automobiles, and later he and Democrats morphed that program into one that includes electric cars. Mandated that federal government fleet purchases be for fuel-efficient American vehicles, and encouraged that federal agencies support experimental, fuel-efficient vehicles. Obama oversaw and pushed through an amendment to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 authorizing advances from Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  He also actively tried to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to eliminate the liability limits for those companies responsible for large oil spills. He initiated Criminal and Civil inquiries into the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  Through Obama’s EPA, he asserted federal legal supremacy, and barred Texas from authorizing new refinery permits on its own.  He strengthened the Endangered Species Act. His EPA improved boiler safety standards to improve air quality and save 6500 lives per year. Through the EPA, he took steps to severely limit the use of antibiotics in livestock feed, and to increase their efficacy in humans.  Obama increased funding for National Parks and Forests by 10%. He announced greatly improved commercial fuel efficiency standards. He announced the development of a huge increase in average fuel economy standards from 27.5mpg to 35.5mpg starting in 2016 and 54.5 starting in 2025.

Other Accomplishments

Obama has expanded trade agreements to include stricter labor and environmental agreements such as NAFTA. He oversaw funding of the design of a new Smithsonian National Museum of African-American History, which is scheduled to open on the National Mall in 2015.  He protected the funding during the recent budget negotiations. He oversaw and passed increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor is the first Hispanic Justice in the Court’s history, and these women represent only the third and fourth women to serve on the court, out of a total of 112 justices. He appointed the most diverse Cabinet in history, including more women than any other incoming president.  He eliminated federal funding for abstinence-only education, and he rescinded the global gag rule. Obama loosened the rules, and allowed the 14 states that legalized medical marijuana to regulate themselves without federal interference.  His FDA banned the use of antibiotics in livestock production.  Obama ushered through and signed national service legislation, increasing funding for national service groups, including tripling the size of the AmeriCorps program.     The material used for the list of accomplishments was obtained from the article below. It has been altered somewhat due to many of the current events that have taken place globally in last few weeks and months. Read the original article at http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html     Post Script It is clear that President Obama is one of the most successful presidents of all time. Despite a much fractured Congress and a very disruptive Republican/Tea Party, President Barack Obama has exceeded all expectations as a president. Whoever the next president in 2016 is—one thing is for sure—she/he will definitely follow in the footstep of a presidential giant. As an aside, I hope the voting public will evaluate the Republican/Tea Party in a fair and balanced manner. It should be based on the number of their accomplishments for the American people since President Bush left office. That evaluation should be very easy based on the overwhelming number of their accomplishments. At the last count Republicans/Tea Party have ZERO ACCOMPLISHMENTS. If you really want to know which party to support in the upcoming mid-term elections this fall, just ask yourself one important question based on the following. Twenty years ago the Republicans swept into office with their promise in 1994 of a Contract with America. A November 13, 2000 article by Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, stated, “…the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” President Bill Clinton often remarked that the Republicans had actually put forth a “Contract on America.” The question you need to ask yourself and answer is—What part of Contract with America, if any, was ever accomplished by the Republican Party? If the answer is none of it, then you should clearly know which party or candidates to support in the upcoming mid-term elections. Why, you ask? — Because history, including political history, has a habit of repeating itself. The government shutdown, and economic harm that was subsequently felt by the American people a year ago, was caused by Republican/Tea Party members in Congress. I think it is fair to say that any Republican/Tea Party members running in the mid-term elections in 2014 (who supported the government shutdown) should have no subsequent role in that government since they tried to “deep six” it in 2013.

Read Full Post »

The Tea Party in America:

Political Lunatic Fringe or New Face of the Republican Party?

 

Introduction

Historians will one day write about one of the greatest crises to face the United States Government. That crisis occurred within just a few days ago when the country was on a catastrophic train wreck to oblivion. What happened was this: the government began to go into a tailspin with a partial shutdown of the U.S. government which included a catastrophic threat of financial default and ruin of the country’s credit status. In addition, there was a threat that the nation’s debt limit was not going to be extended beyond October 17, 2013.  This chaos, in turn, would directly prevent the U.S. government from paying its bills and meeting its financial obligations.

The following is an edited version of an Associated Press article:

“Standard & Poor’s estimated the shutdown has taken $24 billion out of the economy, and the Fitch credit rating agency had warned that it was reviewing its AAA rating on U.S. government debt for a possible downgrade.

President Obama and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill were the decisive victors in the fight, which was sparked by Tea Party Republicans including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. They prevailed upon skeptical GOP leaders to use a normally routine short-term funding bill in an attempt to “defund” the 2010 Affordable Health Care Law known as ‘Obama care.’

‘We fought the good fight. We just didn’t win,’ House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, conceded. He was given positive reviews from Republicans for his handling of the crisis, though it again exposed the tenuous grasp he holds over the fractious House GOP conference. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said the American people disapproved of how Republicans, and also Democrats and the president, handled the budget gridlock.

‘Hopefully, the lesson is to stop this foolish childishness,’ McCain said Thursday on CNN. The shutdown sent approval of the GOP plummeting in opinion polls and exasperated veteran lawmakers who saw it as folly. ‘It’s time to restore some sanity to this place,’ House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., said before the vote.’[i]

Who Created the Economic Crisis?

The instigators of this crisis were a minority of congressmen in the House of Representatives representing just one political faction of the Republican Party. This political faction is known as the Tea Party.

Public polls during the crisis overwhelmingly condemned the Republican Party in general for holding the country hostage. But the Tea Party, as instigators, was blamed even more for their reckless, irresponsible, failed and ill-conceived plan, that in15 days into the shutdown had already hurt a million+ people nationwide.

Initially, it was their plan to use the shutdown as a bargaining chip in their desire to force concessions on the Affordable Care Act, and to cut federal spending. And this misguided extremism via extortion was attempted as a strategy in lieu of the normal legislative process. Such a deleterious plan, approved and executed by the Tea Party, gives the distinct impression that Tea Party members are “not-too-bright.”

It’s fair to say that Tea Party ultraconservatives are, as a result of their failure to implement a destructive financial meltdown and default of the United States government, earned the scorn of the American people, but are now the laughing stock of the nation. Because of Tea Party actions, the United States, at the very least, was embarrassed before the international community and our allies.

Now that the dust has settled (at least for a while in Washington D.C.) it’s important to learn more about what the Tea Party is really all about. Are they dangerous individuals who need to be tried for treason? Are they right-wing ideologues representing the values of the most extremist conservative viewpoints giving a great portrayal of a lunatic fringe? Do they actually represent a threat to the American people?

And finally, should people who cavalierly took the nation to the near brink of financial ruin, harming millions of people in their wake, be held accountable and charged with criminal acts and eventually punished accordingly? These questions should now be asked by people in government, the FBI, and the United States Department of Justice.

But first it is important to ask a set of less dire questions to get a correct picture of who these people are, including those currently (but perhaps temporarily) holding office in the House of Representatives. Ultimately, one needs to assess the facts by asking a set of simple questions:

 

  • What is the Tea Party?
  • What do they want?
  • What are their Demographics?
  • What’s Public Opinion of the Tea Party?
  • Who is Funding the Tea Party?

 

What is the Tea Party?

The Tea Party movement is an American decentralized political movement that is primarily known for advocating a reduction in the U.S. National debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes. The movement has been called partly conservative, partly libertarian, and partly populist. It has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.

The name is derived from the Boston Tea Party of 1773, an iconic event in American history.  Anti-tax protesters in the United States have often referred to the original Boston Tea Party for inspiration.  References to the Boston Tea Party were part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier. By 2001, a custom had developed among some conservative activists of mailing tea bags to legislators and other officials as a symbolic act.

 

What do they want?

 

The Tea Party does not have a single uniform agenda. The Tea Party generally focuses on government reform. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases. To this end, Tea Party groups have protested the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), stimulus programs such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act), cap and trade, health care reform such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, also known simply as the Affordable Care Act or “Obama care”) and perceived attacks by the federal government on their 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendment rights.

The decentralized character of the Tea Party, with its lack of formal structure or hierarchy, allows each autonomous group to set its own priorities and goals. Goals may conflict, and priorities will often differ between groups. Many Tea Party organizers see this as strength rather than a weakness, as decentralization has helped to immunize the Tea Party against co-opting by outside entities and corruption from within.

The Tea Party has generally sought to avoid placing too much emphasis on traditional conservative social issues. National Tea Party organizations, such as the Tea Party Patriots and Freedom Works, have expressed concern that engaging in social issues would be divisive. Instead, they have sought to have activists focus their efforts away from social issues and focus on economic and limited government issues. Still, many groups like Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Tea Parties, TeaParty.org, the Iowa Tea Party and Delaware Patriot Organizations do act on social issues such as abortion, gun control, prayer in schools, and illegal immigration.

Tea Party groups have also voiced support for right to work legislation as well as tighter border security, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. After the Republican Party lost seats in Congress and the Presidency in the 2012 elections, they began to work at the state level to nullify the healthcare reform law.

They have also protested the IRS for controversial treatment of groups with “tea party” in their names. They have formed Super Pac’s to support candidates sympathetic to their goals, and have opposed what they call the “Republican establishment” candidates.

Even though the groups have a wide range of goals, the Tea Party places the Constitution at the center of its reform agenda. It urges the return of government as intended by the Founding Fathers.

It also seeks to teach its view of the Constitution and other founding documents. Scholars have described its interpretation variously as originalist, popular, or a unique combination of the two. However, their reliance on the Constitution is selective and inconsistent. Adherents cite it, yet do so more as a cultural reference rather than out of commitment to the text, which they seek to alter.

Several constitutional amendments have been targeted by some in the movement for full or partial repeal, including the 14th, 16th, and 17th. There has also been support for a proposed Repeal Amendment, which would enable a two-thirds majority of the states to repeal federal laws, and a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would limit deficit spending. Had the United States had such an amendment during World War II, the U.S. would have lost that war.

One attempt at forming a list of what Tea Partiers wanted Congress to do was the basis of the Contract from America. It was a legislative agenda created by conservative activist Ryan Hecker with the assistance of Dick Armey of Freedom Works. Armey had co-written the previous Contract with America released by the Republican Party during the 1994 midterm elections.

One thousand agenda ideas that had been submitted were narrowed down to twenty-one non-social issues. Participants then voted in an online campaign in which they were asked to select their favorite policy planks. The results were released as a ten-point Tea Party platform. The Contract from America was met with some support within the Republican Party, but it was not broadly embraced by GOP leadership, which released its own ‘Pledge to America.’

 

What Are Their Demographics?

The vast majority of the Tea Party Caucus comes from the West and the South. Whether by accident or design, the public faces of the Tea Party in the House of Representatives are Midwesterners.

But while there may be Tea Party sympathizers throughout the country in the House of Representatives, the Tea Party faction alone used the debt ceiling issue to plunge the nation into crisis. Overwhelmingly this faction is Southern in its origins.

Sam Stein of the Washington Post wrote an interesting article called: Tea Party Survey: Old, Conservative, Hate Obama, and Like Fox News.

According to Sam Stein:

“The individuals who make up the Tea Party movement are largely conservative and get their news from Fox; they’re generally old and of moderate to low income; and they’re fairly convinced that their taxes are going to rise in the next few years, even though they likely won’t.

Those conclusions are part of a new study put together by The Winston Group, a conservative-leaning polling and strategy firm run by the former director of planning for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. And they provide a telling new window on the political force that has revamped the Republican Party and altered the landscape of the 2010 elections.

In the course of conducting three national surveys of 1,000 registered voters, Winston was able to peg the percentage of the public that identifies itself with the Tea Party at roughly 17 percent. The group pledges that it is independent of any particular party (indeed 28 percent of Tea Party respondents in the Winston survey labeled their affiliation as such). But on pretty much every defining political or demographic issue, the movement lines up with the GOP or conservative alternatives.

Sixty-five percent of Tea Party respondents called themselves ‘conservative’ compared to the 33 percent of all respondents who did the same. Just eight percent of Tea Party respondents said they were ‘liberal.’”

Forty-seven percent of Tea Party respondents said that Fox News was either the top or second source of news they turn to, compared with 19 percent of the overall public who said the same thing.

More than 80 percent (81 percent) of Tea Party respondents expressed very little approval of Barack Obama’s job as President, which exceeded disapproval levels held even by Republicans (77%) and conservatives (79%).

All these data points suggest that the Tea Party crowd is comprised predominantly of conservatives. And, not surprisingly, the demographics of the movement seemingly align with those who traditionally vote for the conservative candidate as well. Fifty-six percent of Tea Party respondents are male; 22 percent are over the age of 65 (compared with just 14 percent who are between the ages of 18 and 34); and 23 percent fall in the income range of $50,000 and $75,000.

In another survey, Tea Party supporters are likely to be older, white and male. Forty percent are age 55 and over, compared with 32 percent of all poll respondents; just 22 percent are under the age of 35, 79 percent are white, and 61 percent are men. Many are also Christian fundamentalists, with 44 percent identifying themselves as “born-again,” compared with 33 percent of all respondents.”

The Tea Party Members in Congress

     Fiery Republicans known as the Tea Party Caucus are at the center of the debate over which version of a plan – if any   – to cut spending and raise the debt limit should be adopted in Congress.These conservatives, many of whom were swept into office during the 2010 midterm elections, have made it their mission to rein in spending and shrink the size of government, even if it meant taking the country to the edge of default.

Here is the full list of the official Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives, with the freshman representatives in BOLD:

Sandy Adams (FL-24)
Robert Aderholt (AL-04)
Todd Akin (MO-02)
Rodney Alexander (LA-05)
Michele Bachmann (MN-06)
Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06)
Joe Barton (TX-06)
Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Gus Bilirakis (FL-09)
Diane Black (TN-06)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Dan Burton (IN-05)
John Carter (TX-31)
Bill Cassidy (LA-06)
Howard Coble (NC-06)
Mike Coffman (CO-06)
Ander Crenshaw (FL-04)
John Culberson (TX-07)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
Blake Farenthold (TX-27)
Stephen Lee Fincher (TN-08)
John Fleming (LA-04)
Trent Franks (AZ-02)
Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Vicky Hartzler (MO-04)
Wally Herger (CA-02)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Lynn Jenkins (KS-02)
Steve King (IA-05)
Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Jeff Landry (LA-03)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-09)
Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
David McKinley (WV-01)
Gary Miller (CA-42)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Rich Nugent (FL-05)
Steven Palazzo (MS-04)
Steve Pearce (NM-02)
Mike Pence (IN-06)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Tom Price (GA-06)
Denny Rehberg (MT-At large)
David Roe (TN-01)
Dennis Ross (FL-12)
Edward Royce (CA-40)
Steve Scalise (LA-01)
Pete Sessions (TX-32)
Adrian Smith (NE-03)
Lamar Smith (TX-21)
Cliff Stearns (FL-06)
Tim Walberg (MI-07)
Joe Walsh (IL-08)
Allen West (FL-22)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03)
Joe Wilson (SC-02)

What’s Public Opinion of the Tea Party?

The Tea Party is more unpopular than ever before, according to a Rasmussen poll recently released, with just three in 10 voters holding favorable views of the movement. Half of respondents said they view the party unfavorably. The Rasmussen survey used automated phone calls to survey 1,000 likely voters back in January..

The numbers obtained in the survey represented a considerable dive in support since the Tea Party’s heyday in 2009, when a majority of voters rated it favorably.

Many of the Senate challengers with Tea Party backing were defeated in 2012, and the movement suffered another PR blow after a falling out among the leadership of the Tea Party group, Freedom Works.

Although most members of the House’s Tea Party Caucus were reelected in November, the group had some high-profile losses, including the defeats of former Reps. Joe Walsh and Allen West. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), the chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus, barely retained her seat.

The movement is now widely seen by the public as declining, according to the Rasmussen poll — 56 percent of voters said the Tea Party became less influential over the past year, and just 8 percent said they identified as part of the Tea Party movement.

Other polling conducted since the election has found similar results when looking at the Tea Party’s popularity, but with a larger number of people saying they agreed with or were part of the movement. A CNN/ORC poll conducted in November last year found that half of Americans viewed the Tea Party unfavorably, actually a modest improvement from the movement’s standing in late 2011.

A December poll from Politico/GWU found that 21 percent of likely voters identified with or considered themselves part of the Tea Party movement. Polls from CNBC in November both found that about 20 percent of adults were supporters of the movement.

In an article by Carol Forsloff titled, “Tea Party Demographics: White, Republican, Older Male with Money” reported,

“Several polls are now out, assessing the demographics of the Tea Party Movement that largely agree the majority of its members are Republican, largely white, above the mean in age and income and voted for John McCain.

So do Tea Party people reflect the average American as they represent themselves? Not usually if you are a middle-aged woman of Hispanic background, an African-American male or a union member in New England just scraping by, according to the polls.”

A conservative blogger examined this analysis of Tea Party members, citing CNN statistics declaring they are predominantly male, more college educated and higher earners than the general population at large, but not necessarily older or just from the South. A progressive blogger on ThinkProgress looked at the CNN statistics and relayed the same information as the conservative fellow, stating the following:

“Turns out that the ‘tea party’ movement sweeping the nation is disproportionately composed of individuals who have higher-than-average incomes. It’s also disproportionately composed of men. And disproportionately composed of white people. And disproportionately composed of self-identified conservatives. And disproportionately composed of self-identified Republicans.

In other words, well-to-do conservative white men don’t much care for Barack Obama’s policies. Which, of course, is something we already knew from the exit polls back in November 2008.”

Who is Funding the Tea Party?

In an August 30, 2010, article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said that the billionaire brothers David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch and Koch Industries are providing financial and organizational support to the Tea Party movement through Americans for Prosperity, which David founded. The AFP’s “Hot Air Tour” was organized to fight against taxes on carbon use and the activation of a cap and trade program.

In 1984, David Koch also founded Citizens for a Sound Economy, part of which became Freedom Works in a 2004 split, another group that organized and supports the movement.

Koch Industries issued a press release stating that the Kochs have “no ties to and have never given money to Freedom Works”. Former ambassador Christopher Meyer wrote in the Daily Mail that the Tea Party movement is a mix of “grassroots populism, professional conservative politics, and big money”, the last supplied in part by the Kochs. Mayer says that the Koch brothers’ political involvement with the Tea Party has been so secretive that she labels it “covert”.

Post Script

     Many organizations in society, including political organizations, engage in what is called sub-optimizing behavior. That’s when stated goals are not the real goals; they are simply stated goals.

The real goals of organizations, political groups, or individuals are often hidden and not stated publicly. Words from politicians often disguise their real motives. Beliefs and values dominate all our lives. And the Tea Party is no exception, especially when backed by Big Business and the Billionaire Koch Brothers and Koch Industries.

Based on the behavior of Tea Party members in Congress, my assumption these last few weeks is that the Tea Party in America is a lunatic fringe and is the new face of the Republican Party.

     Currently only 8% of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party members. And, it appears the Tea Party in Congress has a stranglehold on other Republicans. It’s okay for people to cling to their values and beliefs. But when such values and beliefs threaten the United States with financial disaster and ruin, then it’s time for other stronger forces to counter such attacks on the integrity of the United States and its people.

     As much as I’d like to see it, it’s unlikely these congressional reprobates will ever be tried for treason or brought up on criminal charges by the U.S. Department of Justice. The best thing the people can do is toss the Tea Party members out of Congress in the next election. Another option is to petition their immediate recall from office.

  

The Ongoing Problem of Gridlock     

The vast majority of Americans are moderate “Middle-of-the-Road” Independents, Democrats and Republicans. When one has different values from their fellow citizens, it naturally creates tension, suspicion, distrust, and polarization. Since 2008 we’ve witnessed the worst of these political differences acting out as irreconcilable gridlock when it comes to carrying out the various duties of the government (passing a budget on time, passing legislation to help our citizens, properly defending the country, etc.). For several years now gridlock  has created and prevented very little from being accomplished.

          Politics has always been called, “the Art of Compromise.” This is an old saying that no longer appears applicable in modern day politics.

The primary function of politicians should be to honestly represent their constituency. But at the same time politicians need to make prudent, critical choices in the handling of scarce resources (taxpayer dollars). That latter function is an awesome responsibility that needs careful attention to detail. But the overriding responsibility of those in Congress today should be to help their fellow citizens live better, more prosperous lives.

Unfortunately, the legacy of conservatism or radical conservatism has never aligned itself with helping people. During the last 160 years, conservatives were opposed to the abolition of slavery, fought against giving women the right to vote, fought against integration, desegregation and later busing, opposed the New Deal during the Depression of the 1930s, opposed the Social Security Act in 1935 and later, minimum wage laws. They were a major voice against the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, and were responsible for promoting racism and Jim Crow, particularly in the old South. During the 1970s conservatives also opposed affirmative action.

In more recent years, conservatives have opposed amnesty for illegal aliens. They also want to cut entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, and now their strident attitude is to oppose the President’s Affordable Care Act that promotes universal healthcare. One way of characterizing all this political history is that, if legislation was going to help a lot people and improve their lives, conservatives were “hell-bent” to oppose it.

At this point in history the Tea Party has been at the center of Washington’s gridlock. The only real option for Americans in the 2014 and 2016 national elections is to terminate Tea Party conservatives and most Republicans from holding office in the United States Congress.

This doesn’t mean that creating jobs, cutting spending or raising or lowering taxes aren’t important issues; they certainly are. But Tea Party members who take a simplistic ideological viewpoint of how the economy works lack insight into the complexities of the economy and its business cycles.

     Just remember these statistics from my last Blog:

“Since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures. Democrats hold the edge though they occupied the Oval Office for 23 years since Kennedy’s inauguration, compared with 28 for the Republicans. In addition, over the past 50 years, Republican administrations oversaw the largest decline in wages as measured as a percentage of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

If you really care about data and facts (not just value judgments), then it should be very clear to you who to vote for during the 2014 and 2016 elections.”


1 Associated Press Writers:  Alan Fram, Jessica Gresko, and Connie Cass. “Government open again, Obama bemoans Damage”, October 17, 2013

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »