elections

by

Why Democrats Will Lose the House and Senate


Ever since 1932 when Franklin D. Roosevelt took on Herbert Hoover for the Presidency, first in the mind of voters has been economics, with the exception of 1944, a war year. Roosevelt’s campaign built on the failures of the Hoover administrations failures in the banking community, something Hoover, trained as an engineer, had little clue on a cure to the nation’s ills. In most elections the cry of “it’s the economy stupid!” has taken center stage. This election cycle is no different!

For about two months following the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Democrats made hay. But since then, starting in early August, inflation and supply chain shortages have been front and center in the national consciousness. Democrats have stubbornly stuck to their abortion issue.

The year between presidential elections, the party not in power has historically made gains and frequently taken control of the house and senate. That, all by itself, should have put the Democrat Party on alert. But add to it, inflation and the declining purchasing power of the dollar, Americans, as history shows, will vote with their pocketbooks!

Nancy Pelosi has a compelling long-term outlook for our nation’s future. But that, unfortunately, is not how the American public at large votes. Democrats needed to keep such issues among elected officials and then educate the American public in non-national voting years, the importance of such issues. But even more, and along those lines, Democrats have shown little action in showing America why Republicans have no better chance of changing the economic climate than do they. They have not shown that what is being experienced in the US is in fact a global issue in economics. By simply making Americans look beyond America’s borders would at least give Americans pause to reconsider political campaign claims.

The Democrat’s war cry should have been “What is the Republican plan to change our economic ills?” Republicans do not have a plan, just a war cry. Leading Democrats needed to admit that they, any more than Republicans, can do precious little to cure what is actually a global issue. About 23.5% of Americans have a college degree, however, most of them have no education in economics. In a country where education should be of primary concern, few politicians, from any party, take the time to actually educate their electorate. I suspect that is because to do so would cause that electorate to actually question their political claims.

Democrats resistance towards addressing the top 5 issues on Americans’ mind, none being abortion, will not only lead to their losing both the house and senate, but in my estimation, the Senate will break 53 – 47 in the Senate and about 235 – 200 in the house, both in favor of Republicans.

by

Time to Change or Eliminate the Electoral College


The Electoral College is an anachronism which dearly needs to be eliminated. The Electoral College was created to give more power to the smaller less populous states in our nation’s early years. It was a concession given because a state such as Delaware feared that a larger state such as Pennsylvania might take advantage of its size and essential rule over the smaller state. But it was still a compromise to bring peace and agreement to the then Federalist form of government. You must remember that we started at 13 individual republics who via the Constitution were united in to a singular republic with a strong central government but still allowing states certain powers of anonymity.
But as we have grown to 50 states and nearly 300 million people, the original algorithm to provide equality is now having the opposite effect. The reason is simple: state political parties pick their electors but the prevailing party always ends up with all the electors. For example, Massachusetts has 9 U.S. Representatives and 2 U.S. Senators giving it 11 electors. As Massachusetts is a strongly blue state, the entire representation will be Democrat and the electors will vote accordingly. But Massachusetts has a rather conservation portion of the state, Western Massachusetts. It is not difficult to have that political district vote Republican but their votes will count for nothing.
Texas is a good example of the opposite situation. Texas could easily vote 55% to 45% favoring the Republican candidate. Texas has a population of about 28 million people. That means the 12 million people who voted Democratic will have not voice in the presidential outcome. The same is true of California which typically votes Democrat but which has very large portions of the state which vote Republican.
The point is, if you are going to keep the Electoral College then it must be modified to accommodate that portion of a state’s population which does not vote with the majority political party. By attaching electors who represent the majority view of their political district, the Electoral College will become much more effective and fair.
The other thing to do is to eliminate the electoral college completely and have Presidents elected directly by the people which ultimately is the most fair solution. The impact of this with regard to previous elections is that at least 5 people who held the office of President but lost the popular vote would not have made it into office. To allow the minority vote to have purchase over the majority is an injustice and certainly something which keeps so many people away from the polls as they believe that their vote really does not count, and sadly, that may be the exact case.

by

Obama Has Disappointed Me But Romney Scares Me


Most people, when they think of Massachusetts, would categorize it as a liberal bastion.  In one sense they are correct as the state house is dominated by Democrat senators and representatives.  But in another, they would be wrong.  For the past two years the state has had a Republican U.S. Senator, and over the past 20 plus years it has boasted more Republican governors than Democrat, Weld, Romney and Celucci among others.  The residents of Massachusetts are more centrist than most of the nation would believe, and I feel they prefer balance far more than one-sidedness.

I remember when Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts.  The state’s Democrat Party brought into question his legal residence, saying he actually lived in Vermont while maintaining property here in Massachusetts.  But through a legal technicality, the elections board was forced to allow his residency as meeting the standard.  It always bothers me when someone gets by on a legal technicality.  It makes me wonder about their ability to be entirely honest and forthright.  It makes me question their integrity.  Romney did an all right job as governor, not spectacular and not bad as his Republican predecessor Paul Celucci had done.  But it was obvious that he was only interested in placing himself of a national forum as he was a one-term governor who did not try to serve a second term.  Such action makes me question his commitment to the state he served as governor.

When Barak Obama came into office he made many promises, more than any politician should, and certainly more than even he knew he could keep.  Washington politics, being what it is, seldom allows any president to “rule the roost.”  FDR came the close to being able to do that and then Reagan pretty much had his way.  And so when Obama took office he said he was taking a page from FDR’s presidency when it came to helping the economy to recover.  Except for the government’s largess, his recovery program failed to come close to FDR’s vision.  FDR started named government programs, most famous being the FRA (Federal Recovery Act).  Others, the civil conservation corps (CCC) later declared unconstitutional, the Tennessee Valley Act, the Rural Electrification Act, and other programs put a name on his program and gave the general public something to look towards to measure success.  All the programs, even the CCC, were hugely successful.

FDR’s success came largely because he kept the Federal Government in charge of its investments with the states acting as expediters but not overseers.  Obama did the opposite.  He meted out the money to all the states, with certain provisions attached, but then mostly gave up federal government oversight.  The results were mixed at best.  Obama would have been better served, as FDR did, by saying a certain amount of money will go towards rebuilding America’s highways and roads, possibly naming it the Infrastructure Recovery Act, and then putting heavy requirements upon states as to how they used those dollars.  His focus on the use of the money should have been seeing that as much of the $780 billion went towards labor intensive work as possible.   Inner city revitalization would have been another opportunity, although this seems to have been missed entirely.  To be sure, America’s “Rust Belt” is no better off today than it was 4 years ago.

It is my belief that lack of federal oversight allowed too much of “Recovery Act” dollars to end up in the pockets of well-placed and highly influential individuals who did little to help America recover from its worst recession since the Eisenhower administration.  To his credit, Eisenhower did his part in putting America to work with his vision of the Interstate Highway system that he fathered.

What scares me the most about Mitt Romney are his very conservative religious views along with those of his running mate.  Let me be clear, when it comes to abortion, I am even more conservative than Romney as I do not believe in it regardless of the situation and have felt so since I was a teenager.  But, I also recognize that abortion is an issue of conscience and I have no right to  insert my beliefs as being superior to any other person’s beliefs.  And that is why I believe in the absolute right of each individual, in the case each woman, to make her own decision of conscience.  If I can influence her towards not having an abortion, great, otherwise I have no right to dictate to her what she should do.  This to me is purely a First Amendment issue, the part that refers to religion, and nothing more.

I do not like politics in the extreme, right or left.  I fear Romney is all about doing the bidding of the far right as that is where much of his campaign funding comes from.

American politics today, most unfortunately, seem to be like a scene from The Wizard of Oz.  We should all be wondering who the man behind the curtain is.  We have the man out front, Obama and Romney, but we must know who is pulling the strings behind the curtain.  Who is it exactly that most influences these men and what is their agenda?  More importantly, does their agenda align with the desires of 80% of the American public?  I fear the answer to this last question is a resounding “no!”  That is not just conservative politics,  but liberal as well.

I think it the job of every American voter to ask the candidates one simple but tough question.  Whenever one of them states that something is true, that their particular way of doing things is best, or any other boast, ask them to show definitive proof of their claim.  Ask for details, facts, and deny them elusive or vague rhetoric.

by

Can Mr. Smith Return to Washington?


In the 1939 movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” Jimmy Stewart played an honest man who went to Washington as a newly elected senator from his state.  Smith (Stewart) went to Washington full of idealism and energy only to encounter monied interests who were about to plunder the state for their own selfish ends.  While entertaining, the movie was a commentary on how well-connected wealthy interests were able to sway the votes of congress to do their bidding.  This was nothing new, even then, but it seems today we are faced with a crisis of the same sort.

In today’s Boston Globe (August 3, 2012), there is a story about the “Super-PACs” and their power.  To my surprise, and disgust, it was revealed that a majority of the funding of these PACs comes from a mere 10 people.  No, that unfortunately is not a typo on my part, the number is 10.  It goes on to say that about 98% of all funding of these PACs comes from just over 1000 individuals.  This should be abhorrent to any thinking individual.

It is said that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it, and so it has come to pass.  In the late 19th and early 20th century, the PACs of that era, then known as “trusts” combined to set prices, levy high taxes on imports, and restrict the amount of government regulation upon their industry.  Americans, finally fed up with this behavior, passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act, the minimum wage law, and child-labor laws.  That era, known as the Populist Era, passed quickly, by around 1915, and America quickly reverted to some of its old ways.  The result was the great stock market crash of 1929.  This time, however, it was the financial interests who had leveraged Congress to allow them carte blanch in their affairs.  Because of the nation’s crisis, FDR was able to enact a host of laws that both allowed free enterprise to flourish but had the government keep a watchful eye on exactly how business went about doing so.

But once Ronald Reagan was elected to office, he set about reversing many of the regulations, weakening oversight, and assuring large business that the government would no longer be “meddling” in their affairs.

This led to the rise of special interest groups in Washington who enticed members of congress to acquiesce to their desires.  But that helped bring about campaign finance reform which, briefly, worked.  But Americans are both smart and industrious, and it was not long before monied interests found all the loopholes in those laws and, of course, found a way to circumvent the law.  They will tell you, correctly, that they are acting entirely within the law.  But of course, they are entirely out of line with the “spirit” of the law.  The most egregious of these is the present-day “attack ad.”  Both conservative and liberal groups address only their party’s platform in either supporting their candidate or attacking the opposition.  They do not mention who they are supporting so such ads are not viewed, or counted, as contributions to the election of any particular candidate.  But the result, of course, is the same.

In the movie, Mr. Smith discovers that the power behind the vote is not the senator who has the vote, but the man who finances the senator.  This, unfortunately, is still going on in Washington, probably more so now than at any time in our history.  And if it is not stopped, it will spell the death of our vaunted political system.  The power of the ballot will cease to exist in the individual American, but will reside in the hands of the few who hold sway over powerful interests who do business in Washington.

The solution, in part, is a very simple one; cap the amount any person, any corporation, any organization can give to any political cause in any one year to $5000.   A PAC would simply be unable to accept any gift larger than $5000 from any single source during a calendar year.

But we as Americans are responsible for holding our elected officials to a high standard.  We must insist upon transparency of their actions.  We should know who in power is whispering in their ears.  We should demand of them the highest standard of ethical behavior.  It should not be corporate America that elects our officials, as I fear happens only too often today, but the individual voter.  We should have the knowledge that those running for office have not allowed facts to be spun so heavily as to defy good logic, a fairness of presentation, and the simple truth.  Next time a politician declares he is for or against something, look for the man behind the curtain.  Look for the secret agenda, and ask yourself if it is indeed in the best interest of those affected, and not just to line the pockets of those who are well-connected and wealthy.

Want to know how much the super-PACs take in and who they endorse?  Follow this link

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

 

by

Are Our Political Parties Killing Our Country?


The short answer to that question is “yes” and “no.”  Party politics in our country is historically rife with both questionable conduct and criminal conduct.  In the case of the latter, I am referring to Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts Republican being viciously attacked by Representative Preston Brooks, a South Carolina Democrat.  Brooks entered the chamber and beat Sumner mercilessly with his cane in December 1855 because of Sumner’s stance on the Kansas-Nebraska Act, “Free-Soilers” vs. Pro-slavery.  After his election, Andrew Jackson’s wife was openly referred to as a whore by opposition press because she was a divorced woman.  Political parties are not nearly so blatant today as these two examples but what they lack in being blatant they make up for, and then some, in subtle and not so subtle statements.

The Republican party is labeled by Democrats as the party of “meanness” and racism.  Republicans paint Democrats as the party of big government and entitlement.  But are these charges true, even a little bit?  Yes but for both parties.  Both are racist, both are for big government, both over-spend, both promote entitlements, and both are entirely motivate towards their own political expedience and very little towards the public good.

Let me start with the national debt.  Both sides say it needs to be reduced now although they of course differ in how that should happen.  A leading economist, who I believe has a somewhat conservative leaning, though not a lot, said the national debt is virtually meaningless.  He pointed out there are two huge debts that must be dealt with and that you cannot, in fact, deal with both at the same time.  The second debt, that no one is talking about, is private debt.  That debt that you and I hold.  He said that debt is far more important than public debt because it has a far greater effect on spending and our economy than the public debt.  He stated that the public debt can be carried forward for quite some time while the private debt is reduced.  He suggested a slow reduction of the public debt while the private debt is dealt with.

Now, as to big government, since 1933, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt first took office, the size of our government has been increased by each and every administration from then on.  And during that time both major political parties have been complicit in its growth.  The only question is, has it needed to grow?  Of course it has.  As public programs are added to government there is the necessity of administration over those programs.  Prior to World War 2 there was no Veterans Administration, now there is.  With the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the Nuclear Regulatory Administration was formed.   In the mid-1950s NASA was formed when Russia entered space.  And that is how it has gone.  Without exception, the formation of these agencies has required the blessing of Congress.  Those Congresses have been led by one or the other party.  But since 1933 only one agency that I have been able to identify has ever been disbanded.  That was the CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and that was only because it was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court after a Republican challenge to its existence.

What I am saying is that both parties are equally guilty, if there truly is guilt, in our government being as big as it is.  That brings to question what the role of government is.  By definition, “the administration  and control of public policy in a political unit . . . [the] exercise of authority in a political unit . . . the agency . . . [that] exercises authority and performs the required duties.” (Webster’s Dictionary, Riverside Publishing, 1988, p. 541).  Simply put, we need agencies to assist us in living in our defined society.  What both parties are trying to sell us is that we need to reduce the Federal Budget without reducing that actual size of its agencies except under the threat of diminished budgets.  That is unreasonable.  The first to take the hit, which I find particularly offensive, is the Dept. of Defense.  Right now the government is giving the appearance of being responsible with its latest incantation of the Base Closure and Realignment Committee.  That is 100% unnecessary, or at the very least, of a much lower priority in that domain. A military no longer engaged in a war will naturally need fewer dollars to continue.  Its demand for armaments will naturally reduce.  If anything, our military is already too small.  The Department of Defense has too long been an easy target.  That has got to end!

The next place politician looks to reduce the budget is entitlements, social security,  medicare, welfare, and other programs.  It would be far more expedient, and reasonable, if, with the exception of social security, these programs and their administration were turned over to the individual states to include their complete funding.  I think the entire Department of Housing and Urban Developement could be greatly reduced, along with Health and Human Services, were they turned over to the various states for funding.  The exceptions from those departments would be the regulatory portion that must be administered by the Federal Government, and, those portions that necessarily cross state lines as provided by the 14th Amendment.

We Americans, all of us, are allowing of minds to be manipulated by political think tanks and behind the scenes operatives.  Two such operatives are James Carville, Democrats, and Carl Rove, Republicans, have been allowed to wield too much power over us by spinning their messages without regard for the truth.  In recent years I was offended by Republican operatives putting into question John Kerry’s awards in Vietnam.  People who get silver stars are vetted extremely well prior to the award and to ever claim anyone received such an award without good reason puts all awards into questions.  But I found equally offensive the Democrats contending that George W. Bush somehow dodged military service by joining the Texas Air National Guard.  I know for fact that there were national guard members who served in Vietnam.  Bush did not dodge a thing, and in fact was honoring a commitment many others of his monetary level avoided.  In both cases politics tried to portray these individuals as being something less than honorable, and their actions as being highly questionable.  Also in each case, it was the desire of those behind the attacks to manipulate our feelings even though their statements were entirely without merit.  But we all have been complicit in these horrible allegations by not calling down those of our own political bent.  As a Democrat I defended Bush’s service when it was called into question.  As a veteran I look at all other veterans as brothers in arms and I never allow their political preference to make a difference in that feeling.

What I am saying in all that is, we as Americans have got to take back our political parties.  We as individuals no longer have any control what-so-ever over them.  Both political parties now only pay homage to the Super-PACs that fund them.  What each major party needs to do is to make a statement that all political statements not made by a candidate or their authorized committee is without merit, that we should ignore any statements made by such groups.  I do not want large environmental PACs telling me that drilling in Northern Alaska will kill indigenous life when in fact government can work out contracts that will allow for proper care nor do I want big finance PACs telling me that federal oversight of Wall Street at a greater level is unnecessary when all evidence says otherwise.  I believe before anyone should yell how they want government out of their lives, they should be yelling they want the power of PACs over our government reduced to something next to zero.

In the past election cycle I voted against all incumbents, and where there was no opposition, I wrote in “none of the above.”  I am so tired of the party I have generally supported, Democrats, coming off with all its self-righteousness.  I am equally tired of Republicans claiming they know what “Americans want” and being the patriotic party.  I have seen no proof recently that either political party has any clue what most Americans want.  I believe they are so out of touch with the average American that even a detailed account being given them as required reading would not allow them to see the light.  They would each likely dismiss out-of-hand what they were being shown as somehow being wrong.  To me, it looks like all 535 senators and representatives are some of the most clueless bastards to have ever walked the halls of Congress.  Congress has forgotten that it represents people, all the people who elected them.  It is not to consider the desire of corporations, PACs, foreign delegations, foreign corporations, or any other entity that cannot cast a vote.  Each and every one of them takes an oath of office to which they swear to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution of the United States, and by extension, to the people who it is supposed to protect.

I ask any who read this to take the time to challenge any and all statements made by individuals who are running for office and any group that makes statements that purport to support a particular political agenda.  We must start thinking for ourselves or we will find ourselves victim to our own negligence.