Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Newer Entries »

How Obama Wins Re-Election in 2012, Part 3

by Edward Posted: Monday, 4/23/2012

How Obama Gets Re-Elected In 2012, Part 3   <–  PDF version

In my first essay on this subject over a year ago (15 Apr 2011), I summarized the Electoral College situation as it related to President Obama’s re-election: that he was virtually guaranteed 227 electoral votes to the 35 virtually guaranteed to the Republican candidate.  Therefore, my claim was that Mr. Obama only needed to win a small number of states, having a total of 43 electoral votes, to obtain the required 270 needed for re-election.  I concluded by claiming that the arguments put forward by the Democrats in this election would focus on class warfare, entitlements, the power of unions, and the rights of illegal immigrants, with a little race baiting thrown in for good measure.  That analysis still seems to be correct.

I also mentioned then that the Republicans had a serious problem: it cannot unseat an incumbent official by running a mirror-image against him.  My point was, further explained in part 2 (4 Nov 2011) that the only Republican candidates who could get the nomination are the same ones with policies nearly indistinguishable from Mr. Obama’s.  I said at that time the only ones that would be accepted by the Republican Establishment were Mr. Cain, Governor Romney, Governor Perry, and Speaker Gingrich.  I now think I was wrong about Mr. Cain and I clearly underestimated Senator Santorum’s appeal.  But now that the Republican primary voters have selected The One Who Must Be Rejected, the tactics of the Democratic Party and its allies in conducting this re-election campaign become more obvious.

It is important to realize that Mr. Obama has two other big advantages besides the guaranteed 227 electoral votes.  First, he does not have to convince the public that he is the better candidate; he only has to avoid being perceived as the worse candidate.  The facts are that the policies Mr. Obama originated are disastrous, and the ones he continued from his predecessor are not too good either.   But (he can truthfully claim) all is not lost, hope is not dead, and there is plenty of opportunity for change; he can also falsely claim that it is vitally necessary to prevent a return to the Stone Age favored by Mr. Romney.

The second other advantage is that the mainstream media will now go into full election-year mode by adopting four fundamental rules of engagement.  The first is to never to permit any discussion of the difference between what Mr. Obama promised and what he delivered, or to allude to any policy failure regarding the federal deficit, national debt, unemployment, monetary inflation, regulation, the wars, foreign policies that aided Islamists, or race relations.  The second is that a Democratic operative will always have the last word on any subject.  The third is to emphasize that economic conditions show a slow gradual improvement and therefore it is best not to change administrations now.  The fourth is to ignore Mr. Romney unless he or his advocates say anything that violates any of the Ten Principles of Progressive Governance, in which case a panel of on-air experts/operatives shall be brought in to “prove” Mr. Romney wrong.  Those principles are:

1.  Only the federal government truly serves the people, which it can do only by ensuring that all resources are used wisely and allocated fairly.  Therefore, taxes on corporations and businesses must either be increased such that the federal government may use the revenue to provide benefits to the people, or businesses must be forced to provide those same benefits directly.  The issues: Did Mr. Romney expand the benefits offered to employees of the companies he took over in his career as a venture capitalist?  Is he seriously intent on repealing the best benefit ever given to the people (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) so that rich businessmen can evade their rightful obligations?

2.   The American ideal is based on government aid to the less fortunate.  Therefore, personal income taxes on the wealthy and middle class must be increased to some extent, especially on income that is derived from the labor of others (i.e., capital gains).  The issues: Is it right that income obtained by passive investing (a significant portion of Mr. Romney’s income), which produces nothing by itself, be taxed at a rate lower than that paid by working people, such as plumbers and electricians?  Why does Mr. Romney favor the rigged system by which persons of color have no opportunity to get rich (like Mr. Romney) by speculating in the Wall Street casinos?

3.  A just society does not allow the evils of inordinate wealth accumulated by the present generation to be propagated to the next: therefore, those who stand to inherit large amounts should be required to give back to society a portion of that which was obtained by their parents.  The issue: Is it fair that Mr. Romney’s children will never have to work a day in their lives?

4.  It is unjust for the wealthy to use tax shelters through which they can avoid contributing their fair share.  The issue: Why did Mr. Romney have business accounts in the Cayman Islands– was he planning to renounce his citizenship in order avoid all future tax obligations, thus taking his fabulous wealth elsewhere and leaving the patriots at home to foot the bill?

5.  The previous administration favored a private banking and capital allocation system in which the rich got richer but many people suffered because the federal government was unable to adequately monitor their corrupt practices.  The issues: If unregulated, disorganized, and chaotic capitalism worked well enough to benefit Mr. Romney and his associates, why has it not worked as well for everyone else?  Why does Mr. Romney continue to insist that free enterprise benefits all when so many continue to suffer?  It is the obstructionists like Mr. Romney that prevent the federal government from allocating capital and natural resources for the benefit of all.

6.  There is a great deal of extremist commentary on the airwaves and internet today; most of it pretends to espouse the ideals of an outmoded Constitution, but is nothing more than a veneer for racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and homophobia.  The issues: Mr. Romney’s willingness to accept endorsement or praise from any members of the irresponsible right-wing mob on talk radio, extremist cable TV, or the internet proves his racist tendencies (no doubt Mrs. Romney always has those nice white sheets so essential for his after-hours wizardry).  Does he actually believe that unrestricted spending by the corporate “super PACs” is essential to the political process?  Is it appropriate in this period of delicate race relations to criticize our first African-American President?

7.  The federal government has a duty to help the unions protect the defenseless working people from management predators.  The issue: The auto company bailouts, which Mr. Romney opposed, helped many union workers.  It is obvious that Mr. Romney intends to wage war on the working man, especially since he spent his entire career in management, completely out of touch with the working people.

8. America has always been a magnet for immigrants seeking greater freedom, but the isolationists among us desire to shut down the border and persecute innocent people who came here from Mexico over the last 30 years.  The issue: Mr. Romney’s plan for border security requires intentional violation of the human rights of the hard-working immigrants who have settled here and integrated into our society.

9.  It is clear that the federal deficit must be reduced in the long run, but any spending cuts must be restricted only to those items that can be proven to be wasteful or unnecessary.  The issue: Mr. Romney has endorsed the notion of spending cuts which would decimate the middle class and put it into poverty, not to mention furthering the desperation of the poor and the recent immigrants.

10.  A just society does not promote policies that will cause a global warming catastrophe.  The issue: Mr. Romney’s idea of energy independence is to first destroy all ofAmerica’s wilderness areas and then all civilization in order to benefit the oil companies by allowing them to drill anywhere they choose.

Tags:
Posted in elections, Uncategorized | No Comments »

How Obama Gets Re-Elected in 2012, Part 2

by Edward Posted: Saturday, 11/5/2011

How_Obama_Gets_Re-Elected_2012_Part_2  <==  PDF version

I wrote in Part 1 of this series back on 15 Apr 2011 that the Republicans have several fundamental problems in their quest to replace President Obama with one of their own.  Among those problems is a choice of a suitable candidate.  The words I used then were, “one cannot beat Mickey Mouse [Obama] by running Donald Duck against him”.

Does anyone dispute that President Obama is the political equivalent of Mr. Disney’s cute little rodent?   He has, like his predecessor President Bush, encouraged Congress to spend money the people do not have to “buy” things the people do not want.  He has, like Mr. Bush, sought to protect and excuse the conduct of the financial elites and the politicians whom they own by bailing out the one and congratulating the other.  He continued the war in Iraq for which he criticized Mr. Bush, but announced with great fanfare (as if it were his idea) a withdrawal of U. S.troops in accordance with an agreement negotiated by Mr. Bush.  He has kept Guantanamo open for business as usual, as Mr. Bush would have done.  He has continued a policy of democratic nation-building in places where the locals neither know nor care about democracy or nationhood, as Mr. Bush would have done.  He is absent on the issue of illegal immigration, as was Mr. Bush.  He has protected and expanded the worse-than-useless security state that gives only the illusion of safety, just as Mr. Bush would have done.  He ignores the Constitution if he can get a few federal-employee lawyers to concur with it, as did Mr. Bush.  He refuses to permit his administration to publish the true unemployment rate, as did Mr. Bush.  There are some new innovations.  He believes the “Arab Spring” will usher in harmony and prosperity in places where only tyranny and poverty are respected.  He encouraged Congress to enact a national health care program and collect taxes for it now, which are being spent on other things now, which will require greater taxes in 2014 when the full scam is implemented.  He whines about the wealthy not paying enough taxes, but never submits a proposal that would have them pay an additional amount that would matter.  He complains about some corporations not paying taxes, but declines to mention that one of them (General Electric) is his greatest supporter and has benefited directly from subsidies that he favors.  He likewise fails to point out that these corporations are simply obeying the tax laws, and that his Party in Congress is equally culpable with the Republicans for those tax rules.  He refuses to consider that bailouts, benefits, and wishful thinking have only marginally boosted the economy, and that more of the same will have approximately the same results. He believes that the de-industrialization of America is good, so long as the union bosses can find enough clerical workers to pay dues.

Mr. Obama’s failures are evident enough.  What about the Donald-Duck alternatives being offered by the Republicans?  I will consider here only the ones that the Republican Establishment will permit to actually gain the nomination.

Mr. Cain is leading the polls at present.  Let’s forget for a second the anonymous sexual harassment allegations until such time as the actual complaints are made public, and focus instead on his proposed policies.  He has advocated a 9-9-9 tax system, which would reduce the federal personal income tax and corporate income tax rates to a flat 9% while imposing a 9% federal sales tax.  He claims it is revenue-neutral.  Suppose it is; how will that solve the nation’s financial problems, with the deficit continuing to grow?  That would require greater tax revenue, less spending, or an expanding economy, but he has left this question unanswered.  Why would any regular person want the government to create a whole new category of taxation (the federal sales tax) without a guaranteed abolition of the income tax?  Mr. Cain is a successful businessman to be sure.  He also became the Chairman of the board of directors at the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City. The Chairman of such a board is a designated Federal Reserve Agent answerable to the Board of Governors.  I have great reservations about the prospect of a former Federal Reserve Agent sitting in the Oval Office.  Hasn’t the Federal Reserve done enough damage already?

Governor Romney is second in the current polls, as he has been for a very long time.  His great strength is that he is familiar with all the important issues, having been a staunch advocate for every side of all of them at one time or another.  He was instrumental in establishing a health care plan in Massachusetts; it was used as a template for Mr. Obama’s plan, but Mr. Romney now disowns the whole thing.  He has performed well in those joint press conferences (called “debates”) against the other candidates; he has ready answers; he declines to give specifics; he is the oiliest Republican since Mr. Nixon.  Yet he has continued to do well in the polls despite attempts to bring in fresh faces.  You can say what you want about Ann Coulter, but two things you cannot deny.  First, she is an outstanding writer; secondly, she has considerable influence among conservatives.  Ms. Coulter attempted to induce Governor Chris Christie to seek the Republican Presidential nomination.  Her logic was that Mr. Christie could get the nomination and beat Mr. Obama; otherwise, the nominee would be Mr. Romney who would lose.  A very odd sentiment from Ms. Coulter the conservative — if you research Mr. Christie’s policies, you will find that he is another Long Island liberal.  Presumably Ms. Coulter preferred the Long Island liberalism of Mr. Christie over the Long Island liberalism of Mr. Romney because the former would actually get a chance to implement it.  But Mr. Christie announced he would not run and simultaneously endorsed Mr. Romney.

I must admit I am thoroughly confused by Governor Perry.  He did poorly in those joint press conferences, which he readily admits.  However, in my opinion, a person who does poorly in the tit-for-tat of a press conference is not disqualified.  After all, the office of the President does not require the ability to make snap decisions and explain difficult issues, with footnotes, in less than 60 seconds.  Policy is what matters; like I said, I am confused here because I can’t figure out what Mr. Perry believes, if he believes anything.  He has stated that he will order every federal agency to review every measure passed since 2008 to determine if it negatively affects jobs: “those measures that kill jobs will be repealed”.  He fails to admit that the vast majority of the regulations that injure the economy were passed prior to 2008; some date to the 1920’s — no mention of those.  He also said he would call out the National Guard to secure the border with Mexico.  He fails to admit that as Governor of Texas he already has authority to call out the National Guard, not to mention the state militia and the Texas Rangers.  If that is his policy, maybe he should have implemented it sometime in the past ten years.  He has said he will lay out a legislative plan to balance the federal budget by 2020.  Why so soon?

Speaker Gingrich once called Senator Robert Dole “a tax collector for the welfare state”.  But Mr. Gingrich was Speaker of the House with far greater power than Mr. Dole, and we still have the welfare state.  Speaker Gingrich is the intellectual heavyweight in this division; certainly Mr. Obama will not be able to out-do him on facts, figures, logic, or history.  Mr. Gingrich has listed numerous legislative plans in his new “Contract” that differ greatly from Mr. Obama’s in regard to domestic policies; many are designed to reduce the power of the federal government and lower taxes.  Some of them are sensible ideas.  Unfortunately, the foreign policies of Mr. Gingrich are nearly indistinguishable from those of Mr. Obama: he would greatly increase the power of the United Nations and continue to sacrifice America’s sovereignty to unelected and unaccountable non-government interest groups.  He believes in the man-made global pressure-cooker hoax, and his policies to deal with those would serve to undermine America’s economic goals.  We should also keep in mind that very little of his famous “Contract with America” of 1994 ultimately went into effect, and because most of his policies require legislative action, he will have the same problem if elected.

Which leads me to the most important point about the Presidential election, which is: the President has less power than Congress.  If we the people want real change, it has to come from Congress, not the Executive branch.  If it were otherwise, we would be electing kings, guaranteed to be far worse than either Mr. Obama or his Republican challengers.

Tags: ,
Posted in elections | No Comments »

A Note on the Budget Impasse

by Edward Posted: Monday, 7/11/2011

A_Note_on_the_Budget_Impasse  <== PDF version

Most of us have heard about the big “budget debate” in Washington between the leaders of the two major political parties.  The Washington establishment and the media are telling us that it is necessary to achieve some kind of long-term budget agreement in the next few weeks or else the U. S. will default on its obligations by 2 Aug 2011.  Now of course, the government has a lot of money rolling in each month – more than enough to pay interest on the debt that is due each month.  So, defaulting on our $14.4 trillion debt is actually a matter of choice.  What the politicians want us to believe is that come 2 Aug they will be able to pay only part of their obligations and renege on the rest; i.e., they will have to “default” on something. But it will certainly not be interest payments on the debt (that would cause real economic problems), what they mean is that some interest groups, some corporate welfare queens, some individual welfare recipients, or some illegal aliens will not get all the free goodies they have been promised out of our pockets.

I for one don’t believe it, on the grounds that no one, not even two-bit party-hack politicians, could be stupid enough to delay resolving this issue until a few weeks before the Big Event.  If it is true that they knowingly and willfully delayed all this time, recognizing months in advance that such an event would be triggered by their inaction, the proper remedy is for them to resign in disgrace for dereliction of duty.  That can never happen.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner, as leaders of their respective parties, have been haggling (we are told) over a long-term “solution”.  At one point, it was to be a $4 trillion “solution”, involving spending cuts to the largest budget items (Social Security, Medicare, and defense) to be augmented by tax increases on the middle class and the wealthy.  Supposedly, Mr. Obama’s Democratic allies rejected any talk of reducing those entitlements, while Mr. Boehner’s Republican allies rejected any talk of tax increases; hence they are now struggling to come up with a “small” $2.1 trillion deal.  But, we should remember that no one in Washington, regardless of party, ever gets around to actually cutting spending.  If they cut a deal, the tax increases would go into effect immediately, whereas the spending cuts would be scheduled for ten years from now and would simply never happen; this is exactly what occurred during the tax increases of the Reagan and G. H. W. Bush eras.  It is even worse than that: when the “deficit hawk” Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress in 2000, the first thing they did, and continued to do, was to increase spending just as the Democrats had done.  I would be leery of any so-called “solution” according to the usual formulas.

In the end, the big-money, big-vote-getting interests obtain their desires through exemptions, exclusions, subsidies, outright gifts, and unfunded mandates on the states, while the average guy continues to lose ground or stay where he is.  That said, I may be fairly conservative, but I would not be opposed to a “provisional” tax increase to help deal with the debt.  “Provisional” in this context is understood to mean a tax increase devoted only to reducing the debt.  But, to guard against the political trickery of the past, I would remain in favor of a tax increase only under the following caveats:

a.  Revenue increases shall be imposed only by a payroll tax, which may be graduated and scaled for total income (i.e., the rich to pay more, the poor less); this eliminates loopholes to aid the politicians’ favorite friends.

b.  In year 1 of the budget deal, spending will be cut by “X” amount, without any increase in marginal tax rates.

c.  In year 2, of the budget deal, tax rates may be increased to approximate “X” from the year before.

d.  The same formula as above shall prevail for all succeeding years, that is, the amount of additional revenue in a given year shall not exceed the budget cuts of the past year, as compared to the year before that.

Only then can we be assured that the spending cuts are real; secondly, we will have a solid metric by which to evaluate the magnitude of the subsequent tax increase.  The politicians will complain that the additional revenue will come too late; that people will suffer in the initial cuts.  Poor babies; maybe they should have given that some consideration before they ran up our credit card to $14.3 trillion; just a thought.

Now that I’ve mentioned tax loopholes, I would also like this budget deal to address the complexity of the tax code, which exists only to benefit special interests and politicians’ favorite puppies.  Therefore, I require, as compensation of my taxes going up, a reduction in the volume of the tax code according to the following schedule:

a.  50% reduction in tax code volume within the first four years

b.  An additional 50% reduction (to 25% of current) in the next succeeding four years

c.   An additional reduction (to 12.5% of current) in the next succeeding four years.

In order to ensure Congress and the IRS comply with these restrictions, I require a provision by which all income and payroll tax withholding shall cease if Congress and the IRS refuses or is unable to meet the above reductions.

None of these ideas have any chance of passage, of course.  But it will be entertaining to see what our illustrious leaders foist on us this time.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in federal budget, national debt, Uncategorized | No Comments »

How Obama Gets Re-Elected in 2012

by Edward Posted: Sunday, 4/17/2011

How_Obama_Gets_Re-Elected_2012 <== PDF version

The Presidential election season is upon us, coinciding roughly with the day income taxes are due.  Many people are busy discussing the various candidates and their views, estimating who has the best chance to gain the Republican nomination, judging the quality of the various polls and the results, thereof, etc. etc.  So this is only the beginning; every day until the election in Nov 2012 we will be subjected to an ever-increasing patter from the professional influence peddlers and the media.  Certainly Mr. Obama will have no trouble being re-nominated by the Democrats.  The question is: who can the Republicans find that can beat Mr. Obama?  In my opinion, one cannot beat Mickey Mouse by running Donald Duck against him.  The Republicans are going to have look hard and come up with an actual non-cartoon candidate.  That would at least make it interesting.  But I offer up the following analysis, to show that no matter which person the Republicans nominate, Mr. Obama is nearly certain to be re-elected.

Presidents are elected by the Electoral College.  Each candidate or party has, in each state, a slate of electors bound to vote for his election as President if he wins the popular vote in that state.  In 48 of the 50 states and D.C., a candidate obtains all the electoral votes for that state, even if he wins the popular vote by only a small margin.  The exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, where the Electoral College votes may be split along Congressional district.  There are 538 total electoral votes, one for each House member, each Senate member, and three for the City of Washington D.C.  Since the Presidency is awarded to whoever gets a majority of electoral votes, 270 are required to be elected President.  Let’s have a look at how the election breaks down along when viewed along Electoral College lines.

There are some states in which the majority has voted for the Democratic candidate in the last five straight Presidential elections.  The demographic makeup of these states has remained fairly constant, and it reasonable to assume they will again vote for the Democratic candidate.  Those states are (with the electoral votes in parentheses): California (55); Connecticut (7); Delaware (3); District of Columbia (3); Hawaii (4); Illinois (21); Maine (4); Maryland (10); Massachusetts (12); Michigan (17); Minnesota (10); New Jersey (15); New York (31); Oregon (7); Rhode Island (4); Vermont (3); Washington (11); and Wisconsin (10); for a total of 227.

There are a some states that have likewise always voted for the Republican candidate in the last five elections: Alaska (3); Idaho (4); Mississippi (6); North Dakota (3); South Carolina (8); South Dakota (3); Utah (5); and Wyoming (3); for a total of 35.

The other states are “contested” in the sense that they are not guaranteed to tilt one way or the other.  Mr. Obama is virtually guaranteed 227 electoral votes no matter what his policies are or how they play out; he can win re-election if he obtains popular majorities in states having a total electoral count of 43.  That is a much different criteria, enabling a much simpler strategy, than the Republicans, who must obtain 235 votes in the “contested” states.  My guess is that the Democrats will choose to focus their efforts on the following states, based on trends from the past five elections: Colorado (9); Florida (27); Nevada (5); New Hampshire (4); New Mexico (5); Ohio (20); Pennsylvania (21); and West Virginia (5).  The main focus is likely to be on Florida: if the Democrats win there, Mr. Obama wins the election under any of the following combinations: a) Ohio alone; b) Pennsylvania alone; or c) Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.  This is quite convenient: he can choose either a western or an eastern strategy once Florida is secured.

On the other hand, if it goes poorly in Florida, he still can win with the three western states (Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico) plus: a) either Ohio or Pennsylvania; and b) either West Virginia or New Hampshire.

The remaining states, i.e., the ones that the Democrats can afford to regard as completely irrelevant in this election, are: Alabama (9); Arizona (10); Arkansas (6); Georgia (15); Indiana (11); Iowa (7); Kansas (6); Kentucky (8); Louisiana (9); Missouri (11); Montana (3); Nebraska (5); North Carolina (15); Oklahoma (7); Tennessee (11); Texas (34); and Virginia (13).

What strategy could Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party adopt to ensure that they win the states needed to obtain the remaining 43 electoral votes?  It will likely break down something like this:

a.  Florida: Scare the elderly by claiming that the Republicans are owned and operated by a wealthy cabal who would like to throw Granny out into the street so their developer friends can build condos for the rich; that they will eliminate Medicare and Social Security; and will take away all the other benefits that retired persons find useful.

b.  Nevada and Ohio: Rile up the unions and their mafia associates to intimidate or embarrass people into voting Democratic, claiming that the Republicans despise working people, and have policies that would drive every working family into poverty by giving everything to the wealthy.  It will not hurt to review all the things that the unions helped institute over the decades: paid vacations, safe working conditions, etc., and claim that all these will be terminated if the Republicans implement their policies.

c.   New Mexico: Bring out a large number of poor, disabled, or unemployed Latinos and attempt to demonstrate that the Republican policy on illegal immigration amounts to a violation of their human rights.

d.  Colorado and West Virginia: Co-opt the environmental faction in an attempt to portray the Republican as owned and operated by oil and coal industries, whose only goal is to destroy the earth for the money they can earn today.

e.  Pennsylvania:  Ridicule and ignore the people of the western part of the state, while showering the eastern part with large amounts of taxpayer money; possibly including the implementation of some method of increasing payments to welfare recipients in Philadelphia directly or indirectly — for, as goes the welfare faction in Philadelphia, so goes Pennsylvania.

He will not even need to play the “race card”, although it may occasionally prove useful as a defensive measure.  To summarize, it is difficult to see how Mr. Obama can lose in 2012, unless there is some truly disastrous event or trend that can be directly attributed to his policies.  As always, the mainstream media will never let that happen to a Democratic candidate. 

Tags: ,
Posted in elections | No Comments »
Newer Entries »