Richard's Common Sense: February 2012

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

The radical conservative right and common sense: Rick Santorum

Rich Santorum, republican candidate for the parties presidential nominee, has been much in the news the last few days.

Part 1: Separation of church and state from ABC's This Week on Feb. 26, 2012.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That speech has been read, as you know, by millions of Americans. Its themes were echoed in part by Mitt Romney in the last campaign. Why did it make you throw up?
SANTORUM: Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, "I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute." I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.

This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate. Go on and read the speech. I will have nothing to do with faith. I won't consult with people of faith. It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960. And I went down to Houston, Texas 50 years almost to the day, and gave a speech and talked about how important it is for everybody to feel welcome in the public square. People of faith, people of no faith, and be able to bring their ideas, to bring their passions into the public square and have it out. James Madison—

Not even Newt Gingrich agrees with this bit of nonsense saying according to the AP

Gingrich and Santorum, each a Catholic seeking the GOP nomination, view Kennedy's words differently. Santorum says he felt sick after reading Kennedy's 1960 speech and believes it advocated absolute separation of church and state.

Gingrich calls it a "remarkable speech." He told Fox News Channel on Tuesday that Kennedy was reassuring voters that he wouldn't obey any foreign religious leader. Gingrich said Kennedy was declaring "that his first duty as president would be to do the job of president, and I think that's correct."

You can read the speech for yourself here and decide for yourself. In this case Common Sense and Mr. Gingrich agree, the speech goes to the duty of the president not the participation of people of faith in government. Perhaps Mr Santorum had allowed his pursuit of the radical religious right to overcome common sense and truth.

Part 2: President Obama and college.

"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college,"Santorum said. "What a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard everyday and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that (tries) to indoctrinate them."

The problem here is that President Obama simply didn't say this. In fact what he's said repeatedly is a) those who want to go to college should be able to afford to, and b) high school graduates should be encouraged to go to college. In case there's any doubt here's what he said on Feb 27th:

The issue received such attention that Obama on Feb. 27 addressed the issue obliquely, telling the National Governors Association that "the jobs of the future are increasingly going to those with more than a high school degree. And I have to make a point here. When I speak about higher education, we’re not just talking about a four-year degree. We’re talking about somebody going to a community college and getting trained for that manufacturing job that now is requiring somebody walking through the door, handling a million-dollar piece of equipment. And they can’t go in there unless they’ve got some basic training beyond what they received in high school. We all want Americans getting those jobs of the future. So we’re going to have to make sure that they’re getting the education that they need."

It should be noted that Mr Santorum has an undergraduate degree from Pennsylvania State University, an MBA from the University of Pittsburgh, and a law degree from the Dickinson School of Law. His wife, Karen, has a number of college degrees and is both an attorney and nurse.

Clearly Mr Santorum believes in education for himself, his wife, and presumably his children. Why then does he grossly misrepresent Obama's views? Could it be a completely crass attempt to appeal to blue collar Michigan voters who used to be able to get a good job making autos, never mind that those jobs are increasingly scarce? Perhaps Mr Santorum has allowed his desire to win in Michigan to trump the simple reality that good jobs in the future will increasingly require more than a high school education.

Part 3: College kills faith.

STEPHANOPOULOS: All he said was he wants, quote, "every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training." In your interview with Glenn Beck this week, you seemed to go further. You said I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because they are indoctrination mills. What did that mean?
SANTORUM: Well, of course. I mean, you look at the colleges and universities, George. This is not – this is not something that's new for most Americans, is how liberal our colleges and universities are and how many children in fact are – look, I've gone through it. I went through it at Penn State. You talk to most kids who go to college who are conservatives, and you are singled out, you are ridiculed, you are – I can tell you personally, I know that, you know, we – I went through a process where I was docked for my conservative views. This is sort of a regular routine (ph). You know the statistic that at least I was familiar with from a few years ago -- I don't know if it still holds true but I suspect it may even be worse – that 62 percent of kids who enter college with some sort of faith commitment leave without it.

Turns out it's just not true according to a report published last year in The Review of Religious Research and based on a 1998 study. According to the study:

The Effects of Education on Americans’ Religious Practices, Beliefs, and Affiliations, 2011:While education has a positive effect on switching religious affiliations, particularly to mainline denominations and “other” religious traditions, it is unrelated to religious disaffiliation. Education also has a positive effect on religious participation, emphasizing the importance of religion, and supporting the rights of religious authorities to influence people’s votes.

Summary

So what do these recent events mean? What do they say about the radical religious right? About Mr. Santorum?

Clearly reality and facts simply do not support Mr. Santorum's views. To the degree that these views reflect conservative religious views, those views are not based on reality or facts.

Common Sense believes that when any group ignores reality, ignores facts, or distorts to the degree these events exhibit they loose any legitimacy. They loose any claim on a place in reasoned political discourse. To this degree, they are their own worst enemy.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Radical right wing nonsense: only 49% of Americans pay taxes

Common Sense is something of a news junkie and makes it a point to check a variety of news sources on both the left and right. Today I listened to Fox News Cavuto's diatribe "Everyone needs skin in the game." This piece of absurd theater is based on a "Heritage Foundation Chart of the Week: Nearly Half of All Americans Don't Pay Income Taxes."

This chart represents that some 49.5% of Americans don't pay taxes saying:

Another eye-popping number was the percentage of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, which now accounts for nearly half of the U.S. population. Meanwhile, most of that population receives generous federal benefits.

“One of the most worrying trends in the Index is the coinciding growth in the non-taxpaying public,” wrote Heritage authors Bill Beach and Patrick Tyrrell. “The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.”

Common Sense wondered, is this really true? So lets check. The data source according to the chart is IRS publication 1304, Table 1.4. The link provides access to a number of spreadsheets containing the data. For 1009 it shows in the relevant entry:

So the IRS reports that roughly 140.5 million tax returns were filed in 2009. According to the US Census Bureau the resident population of the US including armed forces overseas in 2009 was 307 million. When you do the math you get 45.7% of all Americans filed tax returns in 2009. Close enough to reasonably match the Heritage Foundation number.

But does this justify the assertion that only 49% of Americans paid taxes?

Distortion #1: Many tax returns are joint representing two individuals. In fact if the Heritage Foundation had troubled themselves to look at Table 1.3 for 2009 they would have found that 53,580,158 returns were joint! These returns represent an additional 53.6 million Americans represented by filings. So 63% of Americans are represented by tax returns, ie. they pay taxes. Still low but not 49% as represented by the Heritage Foundation.

Distortion #2: According to the Statistical Abstracts of the United States Table 7 in 2009 there were 58.2 million Americans over the age of 65. Now if you are over 65 you need only file a tax return if you make more than $10,000(individual filer) or $21,300 (joint filer). According to the Administration on Aging Profile of Older Americans only 37.9 million Americans over the age of 65 reported any income in 2010. Of these 19.6% reported incomes below $10,000 and didn't need to file. So 41.9 million Americans did not need to file tax returns (the actual number is somewhat higher since significant numbers of 65+ Americans would be eligible to file joint returns and subject to the $21,300 limit). Add this conservative number to the 140.5 million returns actually filed and 53.6 million of which were joint gives 236 million equivalent returns, some 76.9% of the US population.

Distortion #3: According to the Statistical Abstracts of the United States Table 7 in 2009 there were 74.5 million Americans under the age of 18. An individual younger than 65 making less than $9500 isn't required to file a tax return. If the Heritage Foundation had consulted Table 1.7 for 2009 they would find that there were 1.8 million filers under the age of 18. Thus there were some 72.7 million Americans under 18 not required to file a return. Add this to the 140.5 million returns actually filed, 53.6 million of which were joint, and 41,9 million Americans with no income or income below $10,000 gives 308 million equivalent returns! That's slightly more than 100% of the US population (the discrepancy results from non-US citizens who must file and estimates contained in the census data)!

What then of the Heritage Foundation's chart and Cavuto's diatribe?

Common Sense wonders, does the Heritage Foundation and Mr. Cavuto believe that Americans with yearly incomes below $10,000 should pay taxes? Do they believe that individuals with incomes below the poverty line, in 2009 $10,830 for individuals and $14,570 for couples, should pay taxes?

The chart is clearly utterly untrue as it fails to account for Americans that are not required to file tax returns based on entirely reasonable provisions in the tax code and Americans that file joint returns. It follows that the Heritage Foundation analysts are either stunningly inept (Common Sense doesn't think this is true), that they believe that Americans with incomes below the poverty line should pay taxes (a regrettable possibility), or that they are so blinded by conservative fervor that they released a chart that is so distorted that it is little more than a lie.

As to Cavuto's nonsense, Common Sense would hope that he or someone on his staff would exercise a measure of common sense before spouting such nonsense.

This kind of distortion is one of the roots of the United States current political gridlock. Gross distortions do not advance civil discourse. They do not admit to reason or reasonable actions. That's just common sense.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

What does a congressman's vote cost: Scott Brown

Looking at the data on Maplight (data on campaign contributions by company/industry organized by congressman and vote) got me wondering - What does a congressman's vote cost? Maplight provides data on individual congressmen and votes correlated with campaign contributions made shortly before or after the vote. Separately I've been interested in the Senate race between Scott Brown (R-Ma) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma). Here's an analysis of Mr. Brown's votes:

Votes	439
Vote follows opinion of contributor	342
% matching contributor	77.90%
Total $ matching contributor	$373,428
$/matching contributor	$1,092

While it is not true that voting consistent with your contributor's opinion is corrupt on its face it is none the less alarming when a senator ostensibly elected to represent the interest of the electorate in his senate district votes almost 78% of the time following the wishes of campaign contributors.

Mr. Brown is not alone in this behavior. Here's an analysis of Joe Liberman (I-Ct):

Votes	361
Vote follows opinion of contributor	329
% matching contributor	91.14%
Total matching contributor $	$410,877
$/matching contributor	$1,249

And here's Jeanne Shaheen (D-Nh):

Votes	35
Match contributor position	22
% match contributor position	62.86%
Total $ match contributor position	$25,050
$/match contributor position	$1,139

A couple of things seem apparent. While the effect campaign contributions have on senators votes, those contributions clearly DO effect votes. Congress has clearly been bought. Surprisingly, the cost for a vote is rather low, just a bit more than $1000 on average! Just a little money seems to go a long way. This kind of corruption is independent of political party. While Common Sense didn't look at all congressmen voting behavior was completely consistent among the congressmen analyzed.

If Congress is to represent the electorate it is clearly necessary to get special interest money out of politics. That's just common sense.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

AP Source: Obama Seeks 28 Percent Corp. Tax Rate - ABC News

AP Source: Obama Seeks 28 Percent Corp. Tax Rate - ABC News:

By JIM KUHNHENN Associated PressWASHINGTON February 22, 2012 (AP)

President Barack Obama is proposing to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and wants an even lower effective rate for manufacturers ... In turn, corporations would have to give up dozens of loopholes and subsidies that they now enjoy. Corporations with overseas operations would also face a minimum tax on their foreign earnings. The corporate tax plan dovetails with Obama's call for raising taxes on millionaires and maintaining current rates on individuals making $200,000 or less.

Common Sense thinks this makes, well, common sense. US corporate tax rates are to high compared to other industrialized nations, though it should be noted that almost no corporations actually have tax rates anywhere near 35% because of many loopholes, subsidies, and tax breaks. Thus cutting tax breaks makes sense, particularly for big oil (see Wingnuts, entertainment, and the media). Taxing foreign earnings might make it more attractive for US firms to focus on US jobs perhaps doing something about the US jobless rate. Asking the wealthy to pay their fair share is just common sense particularly in light of what happens to societies with high income disparities. In short, the proposal has much to recommend it and Common Sense thinks it should become law.

Sadly, it's an election year and the country is encumbered with a radical do nothing Congress. But one can always hope that faced with an election and a 9% favorablity rating Congress might actually get serious about doing what is good for the nation.

Money, Congress, Corruption

The fora.tv presentation on money, Congress, and corruption got Common Sense wondering, what's the relationship between Congressional salaries and campaign contributions? So here are the facts:

Number of Congressional representatives: 535
Congressional salary: $174,000. Total benefits include insurance, retirement, and other perks that significantly increase actual equivalent compensation.
Total direct salary cost of congress: $93,090,000/year
Total House/Senate cost (actual FY 2011): $2,266,000,000
Campaign contributions by interest groups (7/09 - 6/11 reported only): $813,402,892

So in two years Congress makes about $180 million and accepts $813 million, 4.37 times their direct compensation! Now a campaign contribution is not the same as money in your pocket but given Congressional propensity for re-election Common Sense is not surprised that Congress is all to willing to put special interest ahead of the people's interest. After all special interest are worth over 4 times what the voters are worth. Clearly Congress is not beholding to their employers, the voters. Perhaps its time for public funding of elections. That's just common sense.

Friday, February 17, 2012

FORA.tv - How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It

FORA.tv - How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It:

Common Sense thinks this is well worth your time if you care about good government.

Birth control and religious freedom part 2

Birth control and religious freedom continues in the news. Common Sense offers the following from the recent Public Religious Research Institution survey:

So the simple fact is that with rare exception a majority, often a significant majority of Americans agree with President Obama.

But your Congress, you know the one with a 10% approval rating, lead by wing nuts on the right, doesn't feel the need to agree. Case in point Senator Blunt's amendment to a bill principally focused on highway construction aid would allow employers and insurers to limit specific health care coverage, that's any coverage whatsoever including contraception based on religious or moral objections!

But wait, there's more,

Two female Democrats walked out of a House oversight committee hearing on the contraceptive coverage rule Thursday morning, accusing Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) of manipulating committee rules to block female witnesses from testifying.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72971.html#ixzz1menoZClY

Common Sense thinks that Bill Moyers has it right when he writes "Freedom of and Freedom From" religion. Believe what you will. Within reason practice what you will. Do not, however, presume to impose your beliefs on everyone else. Common Sense thinks that Congress should reflect the will of the people, the 98% of women who use contraception at some time in their life, the 67% of Catholic women who agree that insurance should cover contraception services, and not a minority of ultra conservative religious zealots who would impose their beliefs of the rest of society.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Marriage and silly arguments

Common Sense is sometimes astonished that this rather silly argument continues. Put aside for the moment various religious notions and consider the question:

What is the governments interest in marriage?

Common Sense believes that that question should be at the heart of the issue of marriage and law. The continuing argument about gay marriage is thus silly as it rooted not in some reasonable government purpose but in particular religious beliefs.

Governments interest in marriage, or more properly a legal relationship between several parties, a civil union, is rather limited. It includes principally the following:

Tax related issues - there's a separate tax schedule for couples and a child deduction. These are provisions of the tax code having nothing to do with gender.
Property rights - should the union dissolve, the parties have property rights in joint property. This is a common law provision that can be overridden by pre-union agreements.
Inheritance issues - absent a will, spouses are presumptive inheritors. This is a common law convention that can be easily overridden by a will.
Medical proxy - absent a medical proxy document, spouses are presumptive proxies. Another common law convention that can be overridden.
Spousal insurance - a spouse is preemptively insured under a workers medical insurance. This is a contract matter derived from the contract provisions of the insurance agreement.

Note that the issue of gender does NOT occur in any of these interest! Interestingly, neither does the issue of number of spouses, at least not fundamentally!

Common Sense thinks that the gay marriage controversy is really about the definition of the word marriage and religious notions. Common Sense thinks that government ought to get out of the marriage business and simply provide, as is done in a number of European countries, a civil registry that conveys defined legal rights to the union's parties. Religion need not, and in Common Sense's view should not, enter into government's involvement in unions between two, or for that matter more, parties. That's just common sense.

An argument for social justice

Common Sense has a cousin with a decidedly off center sense of humor. From time to time he sends interesting and humorous emails around. Now, before getting upset, take a moment to think about if/why this might be funny or perhaps sad.

You're a sick senior citizen and the government says there is no nursing home available for you. So what do you do?

Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot four Politicians.

Of course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get three meals a day, a roof over your head, central heating, air conditioning and all the health care you need!

Need new teeth? No problem. Need glasses? That's great. Need a new hip, knees, kidney, lungs or heart? They're all covered.

As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you as often as they do now.

And who will be paying for all of this? It's the same government that just told you that they cannot afford for you to go into a home.

Plus, and because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income taxes anymore.
Is this a great country or what?

Friday, February 10, 2012

Radical Politics and Government

One might think that there isn't much connection between the Keystone Pipeline, Birth Control Insurance coverage, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau controversies. One would be wrong.

In each of these cases Congress passed a law and the Executive branch implemented it. But some in Congress, particularly the radical right, didn't like the execution. They thought that a minority in Congress (recall that the laws were passed by a majority) elected by a portion (recall that congressmen represent districts in individual states not the entire country) should exercise both legislative and executive authority in government.

Our Constitution explicitly provides for separation of powers. It explicitly provides for a legislative branch composed of representatives of relatively small segments of the country. In principle these representatives are to work together compromising to pass laws to address the needs of the whole country. Those laws, in turn, are to be implemented by the President elected by the whole country to head the Executive branch.

Congresses and the President are often at odds, particularly recently as some in Congress seek to impose their will on the entire government. It's time that Congress with a 9% to 10% approval rating understand that the country is beyond fed up with their unwillingness to compromise and effectively address the countries real needs. It's time that Mr Boehner and his radical colleagues in the House come to grips with the notion that insurance coverage for birth control is about, well, insurance coverage for birth control. The Catholic hierarchy and bishops continue to be free to hold a religious belief inconsistent with the vast majority of Catholic women. However, they are not free to impose that belief on their employees in businesses that are not essentially religious in nature. It's time that Mr McConnell and his radical colleagues in the Senate come to grips with the reality that the Consumer Protection Agency law was passed by Congress and it is patently unreasonable for a handful of Senators to block the appointment of a clearly qualified head because they don't like the details of a law that they do not have the votes to change. It's time that radical Republican elements in Congress understand that there are existing laws governing approval of projects such as the Keystone pipeline designed to protect the environment. No amount of money from big oil should change that.

The President's approval rating today is 53%. Congress's is 10%. Notwithstanding all the vitriol from the Republican nomination campaigns, it is radical "my way or the highway" politics that underlies the public's profound dissatisfaction with government. Common Sense thinks it's time to replace Congress. That's just common sense.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Birth Control and Religious Freedom

There is much ado now about the recent Department of Health and Human Services decision to require employers that provide health insurance to include birth control coverage. Controversy arises because the new rule applies to religiously affiliated institutions such as hospitals, universities, etc. The current rule includes an exception for religious institutions proper.

Those that oppose the rule cite religious freedom arguing that requiring religiously affiliated institutions (not churches proper) to provide birth control coverage (not birth control itself) it is a violation of their religious rights and beliefs and violates the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

It is worth noting what the Federal Constitution actually says. Herewith the entire text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Surprisingly, the Federal Constitution actually provides a rather limited set of religious rights. Fortunately, over the years various courts have materially extended those rights to provide an extensive set of religious rights. Even so, and notwithstanding the free exercise language of the First Amendment, religious rights are not absolute. Polygamy is illegal even though it is a belief in several contemporary religions. Churches are exempt from some but not all taxes and labor laws. Churches are bound by drug laws. While our laws provide for many religious freedoms they do not allow absolute religious freedom.

Now comes the matter of birth control as an element of health insurance. Is it reasonable, even under the protection of the First Amendment, for a religiously affiliated institution such as a university or hospital to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance policy?

Common Sense says no for several reasons. First, such institutions are not inherently religious in their operation since their principal purpose is other than religious practice. Simply put, they are not churches. Second, such institutions routinely employ people who do not subscribe to their religious beliefs. Moreover, the law already broadly prohibits employment discrimination based on religion! Thus an institution claiming a religious exemption to the provision of health insurance coverage for birth control contains significant elements of belief imposition on citizens that do not share those beliefs. Finally, notwithstanding insurance coverage, those who do not believe in birth control remain entirely free to forego birth control services.

Common Sense recognizes that an argument might be made that requiring a religiously affiliated organization to pay for birth control coverage is a violation of the practice of their religious beliefs. But, as pointed out previously, some abridgments are in fact allowed.

Common Sense notes, for Catholics, the principal source of the current controversy, birth control in the form of abstinence is in fact permissible. This birth control is not inherently wrong and the issue is about the technical means of birth control Moreover, a significant majority of Catholics already practice non-sanctioned birth control. Thus any issue is not between Catholics and DHHS but between the Catholic hierarchy and DHHS.

Common Sense believes that government at all levels should with very rare exception not get into religious beliefs. Just as importantly, religious organizations should not get into government. Mixing religion and politics is a highly toxic brew that almost invariably poisons democracy and freedom. That's just common sense.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Philosophy of Gridlock

Full Show: How Do Conservatives and Liberals See the World? | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com:

How do Conservatives and Liberals See the World? from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

Common Sense is not a big fan of Bill Moyers but his provocative and thoughtful interview with Jonathan Haidt is well worth the effort. It sheds considerable light on some of the reasons Congress has become hopelessly dysfunctional. Be warned though, you'll actually have to put aside your biases and think.

Of some note, Mr. Haidt offers two suggestions for how to change our broken Congress. The first is to make demonetization, attributing evil motives, of our opponents socially unacceptable. In this political season of Obama bad, Romney Obama light thus bad, Gingrich evil, etc. this would certainly be an improvement hopefully allowing ideas to displace name calling. The second is to eliminate the corruption that has lead to a bought and paid for Congress. Efforts to get big, particularly big corporate money, out of government should be vigorously supported. Common Sense thinks these are good steps forward.

Here is the Ted talk from Mr. Haidt.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Foxconn, Apple, Microsoft, and American Manufacturing Jobs

CNN had a report on Foxconn, US Jobs, and Apple and Microsoft. Briefly the report notes that Foxconn, a major supplier for Apple and Microsoft, has very poor working conditions. Apple and Microsoft, as one would expect, released statements that trivialized the report. Of course, it's easy enough to release corporate statements. Undoing facts is a much more difficult proposition.

It's easy for companies to ship jobs to low cost Asian suppliers is the only criteria is cost. But is that the only criteria a company should have? The short answer common sense answer is no it's not. Corporations are creations of society licensed by government and given certain extraordinary rights in law. They are not a law unto themselves or created from on high. Consequently, corporations have responsibilities as well as rights. There was a time in the United States when corporate social responsibility was much more common. Perhaps it's time we, through our government, require more from our corporations.

There is another reason to avoid the trap of low cost as the only criteria. By manufacturing in China Apple creates jobs in China at wages that do not support sales in China. Apple damages the US middle class the principal driver of consumption and economic growth. Apple destroys the very market it depends on for sales! While offshoring jobs may work short term, it guarantees long term market failure.

Common Sense wonders should US consumers and businesses continue to do business with companies that have suppliers with near slavery working conditions? The short answer is no we shouldn't. It's time to stop buying Apple and Microsoft products and turn to products made by suppliers with reasonable working conditions that pay living wages. Made in America is a common sense idea if you would like to see the return of the American middle class, improved economic growth, and jobs.

Related articles

Saturday, February 4, 2012

National debt and lies by BOTH Democrats and Republicans

FactCheck.org : Dueling Debt Deceptions:

In this year's Republican primary farce there is a more or less constant drumbeat around Obama and the national debt. FactCheck.org, a site that Common Sense thinks is well worth subscribing to published a factual and very informative article. Here's the gist of their analysis:

What interesting about this is that both Republicans and Democrats have so distorted the facts as to rise to outright lying!

Republicans would have us believe that Obama is responsible for the worst increase in the national debt. He's not! The Republican sainted Ronald Reagan actually increased the national debt by almost 5 times as a percentage as Obama albeit on a dramatically lower base. GW Bush who's policies largely brought us the current economic crisis increased the national debt by a larger dollar amount and a larger percentage (again on a much smaller base).

Democrat's hands are almost as dirty on this issue. Nancy Pelosi has circulated a 35% increase in the national debt under Obama based on some dated data. But that's not true either. Mr Obama has increased the National Debt almost as much as Mr Bush.

In defense of Mr Obama, he inherited Mr Bush's collapsed economy and financial crisis, and a do nothing Republican House that steadfastly refuses to recognize that to address an out of control unbalance budget it is necessary to both cut spending and raise taxes. That's just common sense.

Common sense and federal pay

Pay freeze bill comes up for a vote - The Washington Post:
FactCheck.org : CBO Offers Its Two Cents on Federal Pay:
The direct cost of congress:

While Common Sense is often critical of the House Republicans this is one proposal that makes a good deal of common sense. Government, all of government, should face the same economic constraints as the rest of society. This measure helps and Common Sense thinks that the Senate should pass the measure and send it to the president.

That said, there is more that congress should do to cut its own excessive spending. As mentioned last year, the cost of congress itself has risen much more rapidly than the consumer price index. Common Sense thinks congress should reduce its own salaries and spending to closely follow the CPI. That's just common sense.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Republican Primary: Politics and Farce

Common Sense took a bit of a break while the Republican primary has been providing no end of entertainment. On the off chance that anyone in the United States has missed the republican primary farce here's a brief synopsis: My opponent is bad; I'm good; Obama is bad; the Democrats are responsible for all the countries ills; the Republicans can fix all the countries ills. That farce is pretty much it for political dialog.

On a positive note the Republican field has shrunk. The Tea Party queen is gone. Likewise, the pizza king. John Huntsman, who arguably had some qualifications, could hardly draw a crowd and has quit. The tall Texan afflicted with hoof in mouth disease and unable to remember the three, er five, government agencies he'd eliminate finally gave up.

With the cast shrunk one would think that the farce would suffer. Not so. We still have Ron Paul, who continues to deliver some interesting and some wacko ideas. While he has no real prospect of being nominated he continues on. Staunch conservative, Fox news commentator, and darling of religious conservatives Rick Santorum has discovered that there is some truth in the old adage about nice guys and last. We are left with front runners Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney to demonstrate that he who has the most money gets to be the nominee. By that measure it will certainly be Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee.

Common Sense thinks that this is no way for a representative democracy to go about the process of selecting nominees for the presidency. There are certainly much better qualified Republicans that former House Speaker Gingrich who thinks that we are all foolish enough to believe the fantasy that he was retained by Freddie Mac and paid 1.6 million as a historian not a lobbyist. Of course that's not the least of his baggage, but hey we've all got short memories. Alternatively, we have former governor Mitt Romney who wants to be president so bad that he believed in health care reform in Massachusetts but now that he's a candidate and has to answer to the radical right doesn't believe in it for the USA.

At root of this farce is a profoundly flawed two party system where radical elements and big money drive politics. Common Sense thinks that there needs to be a better way. There needs to be a third party that represents the center and common sense.