Shifting Sands -- Why Republicans Lost in 2012

This is in response to my Facebook friend's inquiry.  So bear with me if it seems overly sweeping -- it is my humble attempt to respond to her, and I thought it easier to post as a general blog than to post as a Facebook "status update".  

The Republicans do embrace all people -- no matter their race or gender.  They believe that all people have inherent value and have equal rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness.  They agree with the Declaration of Independence, in other words -- "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Republicans who deny God but are libertarian in belief, also believe in the human right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Why did the Republicans lose, then, if they are such a welcoming party, embracing such a broad view, and more specifically, why did they lose among minorities and women?  

Theories abound.  Some think they lost because Romney was too moderate; he did not stand up against Obama, for example, regarding the Benghazi disaster in which our own president stood by while our American ambassador was murdered.  He was too moderate, because although he stated he would repeal Obamacare, Romney did not explain why it was wrong – and how it would lead to the ultimate loss of freedom and to an economic disaster for Americans.  Some friends, conservative, but more pessimistic than I, chose not to vote because they felt Romney, as a moderate Republican, was not conservative enough, and they believed a Republican would do little different than a Democrat in office.  

Other theories are that the Democrats played victim politics – and scared women into believing that Republicans wanted to take away their health care and, particularly, their birth control and abortions, although Romney stood for none of these goals. Ad campaigns tended to play on this scare tactic theory that Republicans hate women.  Then there’s the mantra from the Democrats that Republicans are racists – people believed that too, maybe.  I certainly heard someone at the polls on election-day grumble that Republicans hate Hispanics. It’s ironic that the Democrats have claimed to be non-racist, given history, but the tag “racist” sticks, proof or no proof.  There were the ads that tried to show that Romney cared for nobody and actually killed people.  Those ads may have worked, at least on some people.  There were the claims that Romney did not provide enough specifics, heard from the Democrats, particularly from Obama.  I heard friends making that claim.  It was bizarre, considering that Obama had no plan and that Romney did have specific plans (and Ryan, for that matter, could not have provided anything more specific than he did on economic policy).  Perhaps Romney did lose because he did not provide enough specifics in other areas: schools, immigration, foreign policy.  Others think Romney lost because the Democrats ran a smarter campaign -- targeting individuals with the issues they deemed important -- whether that was abortion, gay rights, Sesame Street, or health care.  

Why do I think they lost?  All those theories played a part.  I have my own theory: the public school system has relentlessly educated our children (starting with our generation – and instituted by our parents – the Baby Boomers) that the United States of America is not special; that Americans are bullies; that Americans are racists; that America is a country full of wrong-headed bigots who victimized swaths of people.  That the United States of America founders and subsequent American citizens never followed God, and even if they did, that God is a myth – believed in by simpletons, not by serious-minded smart folks. Because of the indoctrination by government schools, many Americans today have no interest, understanding or appreciation for the underlying principles of our nation, nor do they see how or why we should preserve these principles.  They don’t know or they don’t agree on what freedom means – that freedom is meant to be the freedom to live your own life as you see fit – and that government is there to protect you, not to provide for you, and that government is inherently dangerous to individuals and so must be limited.  They believe freedom means the freedom to be provided for -- by the government.  They don't see that reliance on the government by definition erases their individual freedom.  

I went to school and I was immersed in that education.  I see it in the public schools today – where comprehensive American history is not taught – only the history of American victims.  If you believe you are a victim or that people you know are victims and that the United States of America is a country fraught with errors, governed by bigots, and that the government is there to serve you or to make up for wrongs it committed against you, not protect you and allow you to make your own choices, then you will vote for someone who represents you.  I found the election disturbing because it made clear that a large group of Americans now believe the latter, not the former, about our country.  

Of course there have always been competing views within our country about the purpose of our government, but in recent years, the country has shifted so that more and more people no longer believe in the original definition of freedom.  I do not and will not fear the future, but I see darkness for a country with diminishing individual freedoms.  Government is not known for relinquishing power once attained.  

Presidential Leadership: A Comparison

President Obama laments that he has been unable to accomplish his goals because of the "Republican Congress".  (President Obama seems to forget that he has a Democrat majority in the Senate) Does he have a legitimate argument?  Let's look at recent past Presidents.

When President Reagan was elected to his first term, he had a Republican Senate, but an overwhelming Democratic House led by Tip O'Neill, a strong ideologue for his party.  Yet President Reagan was able to push through his economic growth agenda that led to an unprecedented recovery from much worse economic circumstances than Obama inherited.  In addition, he famously worked with Tip O'Neill to pass social security reform.    At no time did anyone hear Ronald Reagan blame anyone for any failure.

When Bill Clinton was elected, like President Obama, he had Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress.  Also, like Obama, during the mid-term elections in 1996, the House went Republican, but unlike, Obama, the Senate also went Republican.  Bill Clinton had to work with Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House of Representatives - an ideologue, basically, a right-wing Tip O'Neill.  Bill Clinton most likely wasn't happy, but he nonetheless set out to work with Newt Gingrich and his colleagues and accomplished major welfare reform as well as spending cuts that led to a surplus.

George Bush had a Republican majorities in his first term and Democrat majorities in his second term.  He famously worked with Ted Kennedy to push through bipartisan education reform. He never complained that the Democrats blocked his economic agenda during his second term and attempts at reforming the federal mortgage system.

Now to the current President.  President Obama had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress when he came to office in 2009.  He worked with the Democrats to pass an $800 billion stimulus package that ended up costing over $300,000 for each job it supposedly created.  (Although according to Bob Woodward's book, he apparently did not take a leadership role.)  He is credited with pushing through Obamacare, although it might be better-named Pelosi care as he never proposed his own plan, but allowed Congress to come up with a plan.  He presided over TARP II which led to more bailouts including the government becoming an owner of the General Motors.   Obama had no trouble passing his agenda during the first two years and our ballooning debt and deficits are a testament to that fact..

Then the midterms came at the end of 2010 with voters soundly rejecting Obama's agenda through an election of an overwhelming majority of Republicans in the House.  President Obama's first foray into working with the new House was to state, "The Republicans can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back."   A leader doesn't lead by marginalizing an elected opposition.  A President leads by reaching out.  Yet there are many instances of Obama lashing out from the beginning.  Bob Woodward in his new book speaks about how Obama failed to lead during the debt deal negotiations.  During the negotiations with Boehner (an ideological midget compared to Gingrich, O'Neill and Kennedy), Boehner had agreed to revenue increases put forth by Obama, but Obama reneged on his offer and asked for more.  Boehner threw up his hands at the bad faith and Obama became enraged.  The debt talks failed.    Not only can Obama not reach out to Republicans, he cannot reach out to his own party in the Senate to get his budget passed.  Obama sent a budget which was defeated 97-0 by the Senate.  Moreover, his Democratic Senate has failed to pass any budget for over three years in contravention of the law.  Even one of his own Democrats said that Obama is alienating and arrogant.  Now, during the campaign we are hearing that its all the Republicans fault, he can't change Washington from the inside.  President Obama's lament is really an admission of failed leadership.   And he wants us to re-elect him?

So would Mitt Romney fare any better?  Consider that Mitt Romney was governor of a state whose legislature was 85% Democrat.  However, he managed to work with the Democrats to eliminate a billion dollar deficit, end with a surplus and a "rainy-day" fund of over 2 billion, lower unemployment to 4.6% and raise Massachusetts' credit rating.

He was called in to save a corrupt and debt laden Olympics in Salt Lake City.  The Olympics ended up being successful financially and otherwise. 

Obama has demonstrated that he is not a leader.  He has demonstrated that he cannot work with ideological opponents or even those who tend to agree with him.

Romney, on the other hand, has a history of working successfully with political opposition even when such opposition is overwhelming.  He has a history of problem solving, both in the private sector and in the public sector.  And unlike, Obama, he brings to the presidency executive experience.  I am confident that if he is elected President, you will not hear Romney blaming Democrats for their or his shortcomings.  You will see Romney working with Congress toward solutions to improve America's woeful economy and debt problems.

This is hilarious

The Great Communicator Speaks:

Obama: A genius for metaphor    

I wonder if any of the late night comedians will pick this up. Or maybe Good Morning America?   Hmmm.


Hat tip:  http://www.powerlineblog.com/

Sen. Sanders Assault on the Constitution

Sen. Sanders Assault on the Constitution

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…" In January 2010, The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission which held that the sweeping language of the freedom of speech section of the First Amendment required striking down a federal statute that prohibited any for profit or non-profit corporation and any union from using money to pay for "speech that is an ‘electioneering communication’ or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate." The Court held that such prohibition amounted to a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech, and noted that the Supreme Court had traditionally held that prohibitions against political speech must meet a "strict scrutiny" test if they were to pass constitutional muster. The outright ban on political speech, on the pain of criminal penalties, outlined in the statute under review, did not pass the strict scrutiny test.

 

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated:

"Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people…The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office. Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution".

　

The decision followed a long line of cases which have held that corporations have certain constitutional rights, including the right to free speech.

Indeed, it is imperative that corporations have protections under our constitution, for stripping corporations of their rights under the rule of law would strip away individuals’ rights as well. The constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders demonstrates the danger to our constitutional democracy of taking away rights from corporations or other private entities.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, outraged by the Citizens United decision to protect free speech rights of certain entities, has proposed a constitutional amendment that not only takes away corporations and other "private entities" free speech rights, but all other constitutional rights as well.

Section one of the proposed Sanders Amendment states:

"The rights protected by the United States Constitution are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States or any foreign state."

Sanders’ amendment, then, not only applies to corporations, but to "private entities" established for business purposes or to promote business interests. The dictionary definition of business is, among other things, "an occupation, profession or trade". "Private entities" would include sole proprietorships, cooperatives, associations, and partnerships. Credit unions, auto repair shops, food coops, farms, realtors, accounting firms, street vendors, and home day care operators would all be covered by this amendment. A "private entity" that "promotes business interests" would include Northeast Kingdom Chamber of Commerce, groups like St. Johnsbury Rotary Club and St. Johnsbury Business and Professional Women’s Club, and trade organizations like Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility.

The Sanders’ Amendment extinguishes the rule of law for anyone engaged in an occupation, profession or trade by declaring that all business entities and those promoting business have no rights whatsoever under the U.S. Constitution.

Here are some of the constitutional protections that would be lost under the Sanders Amendment:

The constitution’s First Amendment right of free speech would not apply to any business entity. Any business entities from the local Chamber of Commerce to the professional organizations to the Northeast Organic Farming Association could be muzzled by government officials.

The First Amendment right to assembly would not apply to business entities. Business and trade conventions could be prohibited under the law. Organizations like the local retail association or Rotary Club could be banned from meeting.

Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits bills of attainder--laws that target certain individuals--and ex post facto laws criminalizing conduct lawful when committed. That section would not apply to business entities. Congress, state legislatures and local select boards could pass laws targeting any individual business they chose, and criminalize conduct of a business after the fact.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution prohibits states from impairing contracts. This protection would no longer be afforded to business entities. State legislatures could void any business contract, giving favors to its business friends and punishing those companies which were out of favor with the politicians.

Business entities would not be entitled to Constitutional due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if the Sanders Amendment was added to the constitution. Business entities could have their property confiscated and their contracts voided, and they would have no legal recourse. Indeed, the Sanders Amendment would arguably deny business entities and those promoting business the right to access to courts, if a federal or state legislature so chose.

Constitutional equal protection of the laws would not apply to business entities. If a government official did not like a local realtor or book store, he could shut the business down for no reason; or a legislature could declare only certain favored business entities could do business in their state. There would be no recourse.

The far-reaching language of the Sanders Amendment would abrogate the rule of law for businesses of any type or size in this country. Its unlimited scope would encourage local, state and federal governments to wield the power it provides to them. The expansive scope of the amendment would preclude any narrowing interpretation by the courts.

If the Sanders Amendment passed, we would have a fundamentally different country where people who engage in business would be at the mercy of politicians who could give favors or take away privileges with impunity.

Private entities must enjoy constitutional rights if the rule of law enshrined in our constitution is to have any meaning.

Medicine: There Should be an App for That.

The problem with health care is the total disconnect between the service or procedure and the consumer.  With a family of eight, although everyone is apparently healthy overall, our bills tell a different story.

We have various run-ins with doctors all year.  One "minor" day surgery procedure -- which entailed a total of two hours in and out, a snip here, a stitch there, a bit of anesthesia -- cost us a cool ten thousand dollars.  Yes, that's right.  It makes me yearn for the old days (not really) when we could have just gone in and done the snipping and stitching ourselves.  But seriously, before the procedure, being the optimists that we are (or were), we figured this procedure would cost maybe two thousand dollars.  Seemed like a good imaginary price.  But of course, we found out later, we were wrong.  Totally wrong.  We did call before the procedure to find out how much it would all cost, and we were told that it would take two to three weeks to get us an estimate.  (That should have been the tip-off).

Then there was the thirty-minute MRI that cost us five thousand dollars.  Ten years ago, the exact same procedure using the exact same machine (I recognized it) had cost five hundred dollars.  When we called afterwards to find out why the procedure had increased ten times in price in ten years, we got not even an attempt to explain the huge difference in price.

Now today I have another "minor" procedure to attend to.  So, being the savvy consumer that I am, I called to inquire about price.  I was shuffled off by phone to the appropriate department, and when I reached the person (thankful she was actually there), she told me that it would take her three days to work up an "estimate".  I asked her whether this wasn't a pretty run-of-the-mill typical procedure, and shouldn't they have an "estimate" already?  (I would think that after three days they could actually give me a cool, hard price, after all that time and work).  Not the least bit amused, she explained that she would have to refer the question to various appropriate departments, and then repeated her answer that it would take them three days to work up that estimate.  Clearly, I wasn't getting anywhere.  I tried again -- well, shouldn't someone have some ballpark idea?  No, becoming tired of me and my apparent lack of understanding, she repeated the same answer.  (I might have detected a sigh too).  Then she added that most people who are concerned about price call well in advance.

As I hung up, resigned to my fate, I couldn't help but think, shouldn't we all be concerned about price?  Is there any other arena of life in which we are not concerned about price?  I mean, I worry about the price of diapers, ice cream, dinner out, dance lessons, soccer cleats, Christmas.  We have a budget for these things.  Most people do have budgets, I think.  Or at least they have a defined income within which they must live.  I can't think of any other industry in which people, including those who work in their field, are totally in the dark about price.

Even if he doesn't know exactly how much is owed, perhaps, at least a person knows what his monthly house payment is or what his car payment is, if he has one.  We are concerned about big prices and little prices.  I was just out Christmas shopping and my shopping buddy decided to wait to buy some gifts until she could be sure she could get the best possible price.

Now, I just read, there's an app that can tell you, right at the store, whether you're getting the best deal on that giant set of paper towels, or whether you should drive next door to save a couple dollars -- maybe even five.  It can tell you whether you're getting the best deal on the Pharaoh Lego set for your darling cutie-pie.

Just recently a friend face-booked all of us on her great grocery deals at Shaw's -- with pictures and everything!  Just imagine if every week we went into the grocery store, loaded up on groceries for the week, and then on checking out, were told that the store would work on it and send us a bill in the next week or so.  Imagine buying a house and signing all those papers (there's an endless amount of paperwork at the doctor's office too), all with no idea how much the whole thing is going to cost.  Even attorneys have hourly rates and specific document fees or flat-rate fees, of which they inform their clients before they begin representation.

So, as I head off into the great hazy unknown for my minor procedure, be concerned for me, and wish me good luck--on the price.

Obamacare nightmare

This is yet another example of why government run health care will be a nightmare.  The government picks on small corporations who don't have the wherewithall to fight Washington, and big corporate firms  hire lobbyists to make sweetheart deals with the government.  The result:  big government/big corporate monopolies which  mean less freedom, higher costs, and government/private company corruption. 

(From the Opinion Journal Newletter --of the Wall Street Journal)

Sebelius Sends a Message

The Obama administration promised that the Affordable Care Act would protect the public from "unreasonable" premium increases, and now our guardians at Health and Human Services are finally bringing one of those scofflaws to heel. Perhaps the first HHS target would be, say, WellPoint, the giant for-profit corporation that was President Obama's bête noire during the health-care debate?

Nope. HHS has smaller fish to fry. In the first federal rate review case, announced yesterday, the department is targeting . . . Everence Insurance Co., which is run by the Mennonite Church and covers 4,846 people in rural Pennsylvania. The carrier is raising its small-business rates there by 11.58% on average next year, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that her agency's enforcement action "sends a message to insurers around the country that the days of unchecked and unfair doubt-digit rate increases are over."

It won't, and they aren't. For the past three years Everence's claims have exceeded its premiums, meaning the company has been operating at a loss. Its technical "underwriting gain/loss" measure for this book of business is currently minus-41%, so for every dollar of revenue it receives it spends $1.41. This company is not exactly the paragon of corporate greed that the likes of Ms. Sebelius so often invoke.

HHS's vague rule of thumb is that any premium increase over 10% is probably "unreasonable," though not unless the agency says it is. Currently HHS doesn't have the regulatory powers to revoke such increases, but the program is a prelude to such price controls on private insurance. Ms. Sebelius and HHS are keeping a registry of offenders who will then be handicapped when selling their products once the rest of ObamaCare comes on line in 2014.

What the Everence case study really shows is that the main factor driving premiums is the underlying cost of medical care, not insurer profits or malfeasance. As for that supposed scourge, why couldn't HHS find a more unsympathetic villain for one of its signature programs than a small Mennonite health plan that no one has ever heard of and is hanging on for dear life?

One reason why a 9% national sales tax is a good idea

Many conservatives have questioned the portion of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan that calls for a 9% sales tax.  To be sure, there is a danger that a new type of tax can be subject to abuse.  But as Cain says, his proposed tax system is so simple that the people can monitor when Congress decides to raise taxes.  Now because there are so many hidden taxes and tax loopholes, we cannot discern when are taxes are being raised.

But here is why I think a 9% sales tax is a good idea:  As an attorney who has represented thousands of people over the last 32 years,  I know that there are many people who do not report all of their income.  There is a vast underground economy in this country, if my experience is any guide.  The practice is so common that the courts do not even comment on it when the issue is brought up at trial.  

I am sympathetic with people who are loathe to pay taxes, but for those who do not report income, there are others--namely wage earners--who have to take up that slack by paying higher taxes.  It is not fair to those who do report all of their income, or who are forced to report all of their income because they are W-2 employees. 

A 9% sales tax is a simple way to require those who live on unreported income to pay some federal tax. 

Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress tried to fix this problem by forcing business owners to file 1099's on most purchases, resulting in a bookkeeping and paperwork nightmare.  Public outcry forced the government to rescind that requirement.  Similarly, more IRS auditing of individual taxpayers might force more reporting of cash income, but that would require far more IRS agents and more intrusion into our lives.  And an IRS audit is expensive for both the government and individual.

So, while a national sales tax may be distasteful to many, it accomplishes one goal in a simple, non-intrusive way:  it  taxes people who do not report all of their income, without any cumbersome or intrusive mechanisms to force people to report their unreported income.