Dr. Bob's Pros and Cons

One thing that almost everyone agrees upon is that America has too much debt and that we must begin to pay some of it down or eventually we will strain our economy to the breaking point.  Depending on whom you ask, you might get some different numbers but here is some information I found by surfing the web.  First, American has an economy of about $14 trillion.  The total national debt is somewhere around $12 trillion.  A trillion of anything is a number so large it is practically impossible to grasp.  Personally, I have difficulty getting a mental handle on even a billion dollars.  Fourteen trillion is 14,000 billion. 

To hear some people talk about it, one might think that most of America’s debt is owned by foreign countries (most would mention China).  This is not true, not even close.  China owns about $900 billion (not even one trillion) of American securities.  Japan owns a little less than $800 billion.  The vast majority of America’s debt is owned by Americans.  The American public owns just a little under $8 trillion in American securities.  All of the figures I have given here can be verified easily.  Simply type “national debt” into google and run through the thousands of hits you will get. 

Nevertheless, most people agree (myself included) that we do need to begin to pay down some of the massive debt we have accumulated in the last decade or so.  Having taken one freshman level economics course in college, I could not begin to give advice on how to accomplish this daunting task.  However, I read and article, by editor Fareed Zakaria, in March 8th issue of Newsweek, that offered an interesting solution to the problem.  Zakaria suggests three steps that he says would put American on the road to paying down some of the debt. 

First, Zakaria argues, we should adopt a national sales tax.  He notes that more than 100 countries have some form of a national sales tax.  He suggests that the tax be set at 18% and that income tax be dropped a little to compensate somewhat.  This would bring in hundreds of billions into the treasury each year.  I would suggest that the tax be graduated, with a higher percent (perhaps 25%) on luxury products and lower rate on less expensive products.  This would shift the burden a bit more toward the rich, who can afford to pay a bit more. 

Second, Zakaria says, we should end the massive subsidies for home ownership, health-care and agriculture.  Interest deduction for home ownership costs the government billions yearly and encourages the massive accumulation of personal debt that is at the heart of our current economic problems.  Agriculture subsidies go mostly to large agribusinesses and, Zakaria says, distorts the agriculture market egregiously.  I would agree that we should put a stop to them.

Zakaria’s final suggestion is to make sensible adjustment to entitlements.  Most important, he says, is to fix benefits to raises in income not wages, as they are now.  This is a technical matter, which I don’t fully understand, but Zakaria says would save the government billions. 

Some people recoil at the notion of raising any taxes at all.  However, we have all shared in the benefits that government borrowing has brought.  Now the bill is coming due.  We cannot pay down the debt without some sacrifice from everyone.  Wealthy people in particular need to be made to pay their share.  The wealthy have benefitted most from this great country.  It is time for them to pay their share.  In the past decade, the wealthy have received two massive tax cuts (I know the Bush tax cuts when to all tax payers, but the great majority of the cuts served the wealthy), pushed by a Republican Congress and a Republican President, using reconciliation rules, over the objections of Democrats.  The bill is long overdue for the wealthy.

American voters will have to do their share as well. We must hold our legislators to fiscal responsibility even when it means that our community would not receive some benefit that we might otherwise get.  American voters tend to forgive our own legislators when they vote for some benefit that serves our own community, even at the expense of tax-payers across the nation.  As long as that sort of attitude reigns on Capitol Hill, debt reduction will be difficult. 

If we do nothing, someday our debt might overwhelm our economy, but there are solutions.  The point here is that we cannot pay off our debt without a little pain for us all.  The solutions suggested here are not the only ones out there, and they may not even be the best ones, but I believe we need to do something.  I’m for a national discussion of our debt and how to deal with it, followed by some action on real solutions.        

A couple of days ago, someone (I don’t recall who) wrote that President Obama had not kept one single promise he made as a candidate for the presidency.  I was pretty sure that statement was not accurate, but I thought before I make a comment, it would be best to check it out.  A web site Politifact.com keeps track of campaign promises made and kept or broken by candidates.  This site also track statements made by political figures and rates them as true, partially true, mostly false, false, and “pants-on-fire” false.  Here’s the web site if you are interested.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

I think it is fair to say that we all would prefer that politician only make campaign promises that they intend to keep and believe they can keep.  However, it is certain, no politician has ever kept every promise she or he has made in a campaign.  If you hold a politician to that standard, it would be unrealistic.  So, let’s take a look at how President Obama has done in keeping his campaign promises. 

Politifact has tracked 500 campaign promises made by candidate Obama.  Their tally shows that, in his first year in office, Obama has broken 16 campaign promises, kept 96, partially kept (compromised) 33, has 84 stalled (not broken but not going anywhere), and 272 in the works (being worked on or in a bill before congress).   For only one year in office, that seems to me to be a not-too-bad record. 

If you are interested, you can go to the web site and take a look at every promise made by candidate Obama, but I will offer here a summary of some promises I thought were most important and that I personally hoped he would keep.  First the “broken promises:

Candidate Obama promised to end the income tax for seniors making less than $50,000.  So far, nothing has been done to keep this promise. 

Candidate Obama said, “We will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. “  The administration has encouraged federal agencies to bid contracts, but has done nothing to require that it be done. 

Candidate Obama said, "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."  This was an excellent promise that I wanted him to keep.  However, the President has signed several bills without waiting the five days he promised. 

Candidate Barack Obama said that he is "committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994."  So far, President Obama has been unable to convince the leaders of Congress (Democrat or Republican) to hold down the number and cost of earmarks.  In fairness, Congress makes its own rules, the President cannot force Congress to do anything.  Nevertheless, this is a campaign promise, on which no progress has been made.

I have listed here four of the 16 promises that politifact says Obama has broken.  These are the ones that are particularly disappointing to me.  Now I will list a few of the 96 campaign promises that politifact says the President has kept.  I have selected a couple that I think are most important. 

In February of 2009, President Obama signed into law an expansion of the eligibility of the SCHIP program that provides medical care to children.  I thought his expansion was a good idea when it was first introduced, but President Bush had vetoed the expansion twice during his second term.  President  Obama promised to support the expansion and early in his presidency, he did so. 

Candidate Obama promised that on his first day in office he would direct military leaders to begin to end the war in Iraq.  On January 21, 2009 (Obama’s first day in office), the President met with military leaders and gave that order.  Along this same line, Obama also promised that there would be no permanent military base in Iraq, he has given that order, as well. 

Candidate Obama promised to strengthen our forces in Afghanistan.  This is being done at this moment.  Some liberals have opposed beefing up our Afghanistan effort.  I think it is the right move.   However, I personally think our main focus should be more toward putting al Qaeda out of business and getting bin Laden (if he is still alive), rather than propping up the current government.  Nevertheless, this is a promise kept.

Candidate Obama said he would make military aid to Pakistan conditional on the Pakistanis doing more to disrupt the terrorist bases in Pakistan.  As president, Obama has followed through with that promise.  Furthermore, doing so seems to be paying off.  Pakistan recently has started to make things much more uncomfortable for al Qaeda and the Taliban living inside Pakistan. 

There are 91 other promises kept listed on the politifact web site.  Among them are the promise to improve American relations with other nations and to establish more strict regulations on financial institution that issue credit cards.  Both of these have been kept.   

I do not know how Obama’s first year record of promises kept compares to other presidents in their first year.  For me personally, I wish that politicians would keep every campaign promise they make.  It is disappointing that Obama has failed to do everything he promised to do.  Nevertheless, it does seem to me that, in fairness, one would have to say that Obama has done at least as well as presidents that preceded him in keeping promises he has made.  Clearly, it is inaccurate to say that Obama has not kept a single campaign promise, he made.    

President Obama said it clearly, yesterday.  He did not exactly say “Read my lips,” but his message was clear.  We’ve talked enough.  It is time for some action.  He wants health-care legislation on his desk and he wants it soon.  Republicans have had their chance to join the majority of Americans who want to see our broken health-care delivery system fixed.  Personally, I could not agree more.  It is time for some action.  Democrats tried bipartisanship and Republicans slammed the door.  So, as the President said, “Let’s finish the job.”

Here’s the Democrats plan.  The House of Representatives will pass the Senate’s version of health-care reform.  That Senate bill was passed with 60 votes under normal rules.  Reconciliation was not used.  Once the House passes the Senate’s version, the bill goes to the President for his signature.  It will not have to go back to the Senate for a vote.  At the same time, but under a separate bill, the House of Representatives will pass a set of changes to the health care reform bill that will make the Senate version of the bill a little more palatable to the House.  This separate bill of changes will then go to the senate where the reconciliation process will be used get is past Republican opposition.   It is important to understand that the reconciliation strategy will not be used to pass the base health-care legislation.  The Senate through normal rules has already passed it, so if the House passes that version it does not need to be voted on again by the senate. 

Since there has been a lot of talk, along with wailing and gnashing of teeth, by Republicans, about the use of reconciliation, let me say a few words about it.  First, reconciliation rules have been used 22 times in the Senate.  Sixteen of those 22 were used by a Republican majority.  A number of Republicans, most recently Senator Orin Hatch, have argued that reconciliation should not be used for “substantive legislation.”  According to Washington Post writer, E.J. Donnie, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts which increased our deficit by about $1.7 trillion were both passed under reconciliation rules.  Could it be argued that it is a bit of political hypocrisy for Republicans to cry foul when the Democrats wish to use it now?  I would say a resounding “Yes!” in answer to that question.

To me, the most hypocritical thing about this whole issue is Republicans using reconciliation to pass legislation that provided massive tax cuts, the vast majority of which went to wealthy Americans, while screaming bloody murder when Democrats want to use the procedure to help middle class and poor Americans.  

Donnie goes on to note that some Republicans like to quote Senators Robert Byrd and Kent Conrad (both Democrats), saying that they oppose using reconciliation on health-care reform.  However, Democrats have not proposed using it on the main health-care reform bill.  They will use it only on a separate bill which will improve the main legislation.

Republicans argue that Democrats will pay at the polls if they pass health-care reform.  I think they are wrong.  Many Americans are a bit dubious about the version of health-care reform that is right now being considered.  However, I think they are more upset with the political wrangling, argument, and invective that the debate produced.  Once the bill is passed and middle class American, along with small business owners, see that the bill makes their lives and business better, they will not be so negative.  Politically, Democrats are betting on that and Republicans are betting against it. I think Democrats are going to win this one.    

So, for me personally, I’m four-square behind the President on this issue.  We have an opportunity to make America a better nation.  Universal health care is a long overdue and a massive improvement for the American middle class.  We stand this moment right on the verge of making that improvement.  “Let’s finish the job. “  

I was surfing the WEB the other day and I stumbled on a site with some interesting information on health-care reform.  The site describes a study conducted by the Center for American Progress.  The lead researcher is David M. Cutler, an economics professor in Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.  Here’s the Web Site, if you’re interested:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/healthreformjobs.html

Cutler’s research shows that doing health-care reform will create from 2.5 to 4 million jobs over the next ten years.  It show that there will be jobs created in every state, at a rate nationwide rate of 250,000 to 400,000 per year. 

The argument supporting the conclusion is that providing health insurance to workers is a deterrent to hiring.  Health care costs became so high for some industries that they found it necessary to curtail hiring, expansion, and even research for product development.  The American auto industry is one vivid example of that problem.  If health care reform does as it is designed to do, it will keep the rising cost of health care under control and allow industries to expand, which means more jobs created.  I noticed that Nancy Pelosi made this point at the health-care summit, but I did not know where she got her data.  Although Pelosi did not state it directly, her source was probably the Cutler study. 

Washing Post writer, Charles Lane, has made the point that even 4 million jobs, over 10 years, is not very much, given that the U.S. workforce is somewhere around 150 million. Nevertheless, this study illustrates still another reason for passing health care reform. 

As I see it, the reasons for health-care reform are as follows:

Health care reform will insure millions of people who don’t currently have adequate health care.  I know this is an old argument but I have yet to hear someone counter it.  In a nation as affluent as the United States, it is literally unconscionable that people get sick and sometimes even die of illnesses that could be cured if people had adequate health care. 

In addition, those uninsured people, when they get seriously ill, end up at a hospital emergency room (the absolutely most expensive health care) where they, often too late, receive treatment and you and I pay for it.  We pay for it in our taxes, our health-insurance premiums, and in the hospital bill when we get ill.  The money for that most expensive care is subtracted from our economy and we all bear the expense.  It seems reasonable to argue that even if health-care reform increased taxes a little (I point out the administration says it won’t), it would be a saving for us in the long run. 

At the summit, Republican Senator Tom Coburn noted (agreed to by all there) that 1 of every 3 dollars that you and I (or our insurance company) spend on health care is wasted.  A third of our health-care expenses do not go to making people healthier.  The health-care reform is designed to reduce that waste and thereby help keep costs under control.  We know that the cost of health care has risen by around 150 percent over the past decade or so, and we know that health-care costs will continue to rise perhaps even more dramatically in the next decade.  I point to the almost 40 percent increase in some health-insurance premiums, recently imposed by some health-insurance companies. 

Health-care reform is designed to reduce the deficit by billions over the next 10 years.  Now, I’m aware, as are most readers of this blog, that a number of economic factors will have to play out favorably for this debt reduction to happen.  However, my argument is that even if the health-care reform was deficit neutral (that is did not reduce the deficit but did not increase it much) it would be a savings for us all in the long run.  Given the status quo, Medicare and Medicade (two extremely expensive entitlements) costs are going to continue to rise dramatically.  This will place an added pressure on the government to borrow money to pay for it and surely will increase the deficit.  Tax payers today and future generations will bear the cost.

Finally, as I stated above, health-care reform should result in some moderate job creation.   

There have been a lot of negatives stated, but most of them have been discounted by reasonable argument.  For example, some have argued that health-care reform will result in a complete government takeover of health care.  We know that is not so, in the legislation as written by the senate.  I know that there will be an increased government influence in our health care, but it will not constitute a government takeover.  There will be no government official between patients and their physicians.  That is clear in the legislation and it is unfair to argue otherwise. 

Some have argued that given the state of our economy, we cannot afford to do health-care reform.  I think it is clear that we cannot afford not to do health-care reform. 

Now, given these points of advantage, I’m hard pressed to see substantial disadvantages of health-care reform as passed by the U.S. Senate.  Nevertheless, I’m encouraging anyone who wants to state some disadvantage of doing health-care reform to respond to this blog.  All I ask is that you state your disadvantage with some logic and evidence, as I have tried to do her.

According to the Washington Post writer, Dan Blatz, the health-care debate is an argument over both “substance and politics.”  The substance comes down to one basic philosophical difference.  While both Republicans and Democrats say they want to fix the nation’s broken health-care delivery system, they differ strongly on how it should be done.  Democrats believe that it will take more government involvement to fix the problem of rising health-care costs and unequal access.  Republicans, on the other hand, say that market competition is the best cure for what ails American health-care delivery.  For Democrats universal health-care coverage has been a priority over the last 60 or 70 years.  Republicans have never made universal coverage a priority.

With respect to politics, both sides also see a difference.  Republicans read their polls and see an overall opposition to the Democrats proposals.  So, Republicans see no urgent need to change the system at all.  Democrats read their polls and see strong public support for many of their proposals.  For Democrats passing health-care reform is a must.  Failure is not an option. 

If forced to do so, Democrats are prepared to go forward using the parliamentary strategy of reconciliation to push the legislation through the Senate.  If they do this, Blatz says, Democrats take the risk of looking like they are trying to jamming a bill through in the face of public opposition.  Democrats, however, think that in the end, the public won’t care much about parliamentary techniques.  What the public wants, Democrats believe, is results.  If health-care reform is passed and is shown to work, the public won’t care that much about how it gets passed. 

In his weekly radio address, President Obama said that the Thursday health-care summit showed many areas of agreement between Republicans and Democrats, but he acknowledged some deep philosophical differences.  The President noted that no final bill could contain “…everything  that everyone wants.”  Obama when on, “I said at the end of Thursday’s summit that I am eager and willing to move forward with the members of both parties … but I also believe that we cannot lose this opportunity to meet this challenge.”  Obama added: “It is time for us to come together.  It is time for us to act.  It is time for those of us in Washington to live up to our responsibilities to the American people and future generations.  So, let’s get this done.” 

In the Republican response, Senator Tom Coburn, a physician, said that at the summit “…the two sides listened to one another…” but gave no sign of compromise.  “I’m concerned,” Coburn said, “that the majority in congress is still not listening to the American people on the subject of health-care reform.” 

In the end, the success of Obama’s presidency depends on two things.  First, can the administration pull the nation out of the recession fast enough?  Second, can Democrats convince people that their prescription for fixing health care is the one America needs. 

The health-care debate, at times, has seemed petty (death panels, government take overs, etc.) but in the end, it is a major test of Obama’s leadership and that of the Democrat Party.  Therefore, if a bipartisan compromise cannot be reached, it seems to me perfectly appropriate for Democrats to go forward with their plans in whatever manner they need and let issue be settled by the American people, in the November election.

I watched all seven hours of the so-called health-care summit.  It was a lot more interesting than Oprah.  Actually, it was quite a show, with legislators from both parties trying to be on their best behavior.  There was a fair amount of posturing from both sides, but through it all there was a real discussion of areas where the sides agree and reasonable airing of their disagreements.   In the following paragraphs, I will discuss some of the agreements and disagreements as I heard them discussed.  

There was an agreement that any health-care reform bill would have to contain some market reforms, some regulation of the health-insurance companies.  The disagreements seem to be over just how much regulation is acceptable.  Both sides agreed that insurance companies will must be required to insure people with pre-existing conditions and that insurance companies may not place a cap on life time benefits.   In other words, insurance companies should not be permitted to cut people off when they get sick. 

There was an agreement that small business and some individuals should be permitted to purchase insurance through an exchange that will allow them to look across state lines for the best deal on health insurance.  The point of disagreement on this issue is over whether or not there should be some minimum regulation on the insurance companies in the exchange.  Democrats think that some minimum regulation is necessary, Republicans prefer no regulation. 

There was agreement that some form of medical malpractice reform would be a good idea.  Again, there was a little disagreement over what form a tort reform bill might take, but both sides seems to agree that such a bill might be acceptable. 

Both sides seemed to agree that reducing the cost of health care was a major objective on any health-care reform package.  They seemed to agree that reducing the duplicating of medical laboratory procedures, encouraging preventative measures, and finding ways of squeezing waste from the system were good things.  Both sides agree on the figure that a third of the dollars spent on health care goes to things that do not make people more healthy and that that such waste was way too high.  There were a number of things suggested and agreed upon that might help reduce that waste.

Both sides also agreed that some of the special deals offered to certain Democrat Senators in order to pass the Senate’s version of health-care reform were a bad idea and should be eliminated.   

The main difference came in the argument from Republicans that the current bill passed by both Houses of Congress be scrapped and the process begin again.  President Obama said that was unlikely to happen, but did hold out the opportunity for Republicans to join with Democrats to make the current bill better.  The President noted that many of the things that Republicans want are already built into the bill that the Senate passed.

Another difference is in the number of people not covered by health insurance today that would be covered by the respective plans.  The Democrats plan (the one passed by the Senate) would cover about 30 million people who right now do not have insurance.  The plan suggested by Republicans would cover about three million uninsured.  To Democrats that low number is unacceptable. 

Hosting this meeting was a long overdue attempt at leadership by President Obama and I think it might have done some good.  I don’t know what will happen next, but here is what I think (my opinion) President Obama will do.  The President will wait a few days to give Republicans an opportunity to think over their options.  Then he will offer some adjustment to the Senate plan to include some more Republican ideas.  If that gets enough Republican votes to pass the senate the House of Representative will be encouraged to pass the Senate’s revised version.  If Republicans refuse to go along, then Democrats will try to pass the bill through the reconciliation process.  Failing that, Democrats will try to pass a smaller health reform bill. 

It is important to understand this:  Democrats must have a health-care reform bill.  Note the Kaiser Foundation survey that found that a majority of Americans would be angry or disappointed if health-care reform was not passed.  That is very important.  Democrats were elected, in a big part, because they promised health-care reform.  Most Americans want it (in some form) and Democrats must provide it or they will lose big time at the polls, and Obama will almost surely be a one-term president.  My point here is that Republicans can join and help make health-care reform better or they can obstruct and watch Democrats provide what people want.

The reconciliation process was discussed at the summit, with Republicans urging Democrats not to attempt to use it.  President Obama said that Democrats would use whatever parliamentary measures they needed to move health-care reform forward.

I took a look at reconciliation as it has been used in the Senate.  It is a parliamentary rule in our Senate that allows some measures to be passed without the necessity of getting the 60 votes usually required to stop debate.  The reconciliation rule, established in 1974, is used by the majority in the Senate to overcome a filibuster from the minority.  Reconciliation was designed to deal with budget issues and is rarely used, but has been used by both parties to pass non budget issues.  According to the research I have done, the reconciliation rule has been used 22 times since it was established, 16 times by Republicans and 6 times by Democrats. 

Before looking at this rule, I did not realize how often this reconciliation process has been used and that it has been used much more often by Republicans than Democrats.  It is amazing what you can learn with a little research.         

I can remember as a 7th grader, getting into an argument with one of my friends about who could swim the length of the city pool faster.  We argued about it for a while and then my friend said, “come on its time to put up or shut up,” and started for the pool.  I won’t tell you the outcome of the race.  It is too embarrassing for me.  Suffice it to say, that we both put up and I had to shut up. 

 

Now the same provision can be applied to the Republican Party, with respect to health-care reform.  Republican have said that they want to do health-care reform “right.”  They have argued that Democrats have cut them out of the negotiation process and have refused to include their ideas in the plans that Democrats have put forward. 

 

Well now it is time for the Republicans to put up or shut up.  President Obama has posted his revised health-care reform plan on the web.  You can find it easy.  Go to WhiteHouse. Gov.  The plan is only 11 pages long.  It should satisfy those who worry about the number of pages, too much paper and all that.  And even the most reading challenged Congressperson should be able to read it before voting on it.  All the sweetheart deals that were given to some, less than ethical, Democrat Senators have been eliminated.  Obama’s plan includes a number of Republican ideas.  It does not include everything they want, but a number of provisions are the ones Republicans have called for.  The Republican originated provision in Obama’s plan are indicated on the web site.  

 

The President and a number of Congressional Representative will meet soon for an attempt to work out a plan that can be acceptable to both Republicans and Democrats.  So, now it is time for Republicans to put up or shut up.  They either come to the meeting ready to negotiate in good faith, or shut up and watch Democrats pass their version through the reconciliation process.  (reconciliation is a way to get things through the Senate, with just a majority vote)

 

I’ve heard some Republicans say they think the President is trying to trap them by coming to this meeting with a plan.  The President has said his plan is only a starting point for negotiation, but has challenged Republicans to come up with their own plan (put up or shut up).  If the meeting is a trap, it is a trap of Republican making.  They challenged the president to open the negotiation to Republicans.  The President put up.  Republicans pushed to have the meeting televised.  The President put up.  Personally, I think it would be better if the negotiation was done in private, but Republicans insisted that it be on television.   So, if they get trapped (which I don’t think they will), it will be a classic case of Republicans being hoist by their own petard. 

 

I really do hope both sides come to the meeting with the intention of negotiating in good faith.  I do not want Democrats to employ the reconciliation process, because it would set, what I believe is, a bad precedent for the Senate.  However, if it comes to a choice of using reconciliation or not passing health-care reform, Democrats would have no choice.  Remember, people elected them to pass health-care reform (Reform was a major part of the Democrat campaign).  It would be malpractice for Democrats not to pass health-care reform by any means required.   

 

Democrats are going to pass health-care reform one way or another.  So, Republicans might as well put up (get involved in the negotiations) or shut up (sit tight and watch it happen).  I personally hope Republican choose the former.     

This month, President Obama noted the one year anniversary of his signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (better known as the Stimulus bill) into law.  Before the President signed it, some people said it would not work.  That refrain has been repeated over and over, with more than a little rancor, in the year since the Recovery Bill became law.  So, it is time for a little less heat and a bit more light on the subject.   The following list contains a set of those stubborn things called facts.  You may want to write them down. 

On the day the President signed the Recovery Act, our economy was shrinking at a 6% yearly rate.  We had not seen the economy in such a headlong plunge for decades.  One year later, our economy is growing at about a 6% yearly rate.  The turnaround is primarily due to the stimulus act. 

On the day the President signed the Recovery Act, home foreclosures were at a record level and housing prices had plummeted by over 30%.  Today home foreclosures have come down to a more normal level and people are beginning to get back some of the equity on their homes that had been lost. 

On the day the President signed the Recovery Act, Americans had collectively lost $10 trillion in pension, stock values, and other retirement plans.  Today those retirement plans and stock plans have begun to recover.  Today the stock market is rising.

On the day the President signed the Recovery Act, America was losing 750,000 jobs each month.  Unemployment continued to rise to over 10 percent.  Today unemployment has started to come down, now around 9.7 percent.  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that the Recovery Act has saved or created about 1.5 million jobs.  The White House says around 2 million, but the CBO is probably a more objective source of information.  

The Recovery Act provided almost every family in the nation with a tax cut.  I have heard President Obama described as a tax and spend Democrat.  If you’re one who have so described him, here’s a challenge for you.  Name one tax (except on cigarettes) that President Obama has presided over since he took office.  The reason you cannot name one, is because there are none.   In truth, the only action Obama has taking on taxes in his first year in office is to lower taxes.   I wonder how many people actually knew that.

Here is just some of what the Recovery Act has done for Indiana.

As of the end of January 2010, Indiana has received about $6.5 billion in stimulus funds.  Some of this is promised but not yet delivered. 

As of the end of December 2009, over 470,000 Hoosiers have received expanded unemployment benefits. 

As of the end of January 2010, Indiana has received $1.3 billion specifically for transportation, energy, and other shovel ready projects. 

The data and facts I have cited here are all verifiable.  You can find confirmation in news articles, on the White House web site, and in television news reports.  Many have said that Obama’s first year in office has been a failure.  Truth be told, there have been some mistakes and setbacks, but if you wish to dwell on the negative things, it is fair to look at the successes, as well.  The biggest success is the economy.   

When Obama took office our economy was rushing headlong toward a bottomless pit.  Today, while we are still in recovery mode, things are looking a great deal better.  Economists say we are now out of the recession.  We have experienced two successive quarters of economic growth.  The economy will continue to grow through this year and the next.  We can look forward to a significant drop in unemployment through 2010 and a full recovery by the end of Obama’s first term.          

President Obama has a new hymn he and the Democrats have recently started singing.  “Bipartisanship!”  Actually, it is not all that new.  John McCain and Barack Obama both made bipartisan cooperation the center of their campaigns for the presidency.  Before them Bill Clinton preached bipartisanship and George H. Bush said he was a “uniter not a divider” but he turned out to be the decider.  Prominent Congressional leaders from Newt Gingrich to John Boehner have sung the praises of bipartisanship as an inherent good thing. 

Is bipartisanship a good thing?  To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what you mean by “bipartisanship.”  If bipartisanship means solving problems (which is what it means to me) it is a good thing.  If “bipartisanship” means that members of political parties set their fundamental political values aside, it is not a good thing.  The best ideas and solutions to problems come after a free-wheeling debate, in which everyone has the opportunity to express their view and listen to others’ views.  But, in government, dogmatically holding to a partisan position and stubbornly refusing to compromise leads to a deadlock in which problems remain and the nation suffers.  I believe Americans want their representatives to work out solutions to their problems.  They don’t want their representative to stick so unbendingly to their ideological beliefs that they bring government to a halt.  So, let’s have a vigorous debate.  Let’s encourage our representatives to express their views, offer constructive ideas, and then let’s insist that they get to work reaching a solution that will solve America’s very real problems. 

That there is very little problem-solving in Congress is not the fault of one political party or the other.  Somehow, both parties have developed a culture of gotcha politics, where winning a political point and stopping the other side is more important than solving a problem.  Moderates in congress feel that their voices are no longer heard.  One prominent Senator announced he would quit at the end of his term, because in his words “Congress is dysfunctional.”  Who started it?  Who threw the first stone is not important.  We the voters need to insist that our representatives get over it and get to work solving problems.  Solutions are possible.  We can provide health care for all Americans.  We can get the economy back on track.  We can begin to reduce unemployment.   We can do all of this and more, if we only make our focus problem-solving instead of political advantage. 

A year ago, Democrats swept into office with what seemed like a mandate.  They had gained the good will of millions of Americans and a strong majority in both houses of Congress, as well as the presidency.   They behaved as if they could do anything they wanted and did not need Republicans.  Their intentions were good but their strategy was flawed.  Republicans responded in kind.  They, as a party, decided to do anything they could to stop anything the Democrats tried to do.  Between the two parties, they managed to bring government to more or less a standstill.  A pox on both their houses! 

Now, Democrats seem to have learned a hard lesson.  President Obama, starting with his State of the Union speech, has reached out a hand to Republicans.  He met with a group of Republican legislators and will meet later this month with legislators from both parties.  I’m hopeful that Republicans will accept the challenge, begin to dismantle the culture of gotcha, and start doing the work for which we pay them.         

Senator Evan Bayh said he would not seek a third term as U.S. Senator from Indiana.  His departure from the 2010 campaign makes Indiana’s second senate seat an open race and puts the puts the democrat majority in the Senate in jeopardy (although that is still a long shot).  Bayh cited the lack of bipartisanship as his reason for quitting.  He said: “There’s too much partisanship and not enough progress – too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem solving.”  He added, “Even in a time of enormous challenge, the people’s business is not being done.”

 

Byah is right on the nose in his assessment of the mood in Washington.  He’s correctly angry at both parties.  The mood and attitudes have become increasingly more divisive over the years since the time of the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation.  Now, acrimony has reached a point where it is almost impossible for our legislators to get anything at all done. 

 

Republican Chairperson, Michael Steele, hailed Byah’s announcement as a victory for Republicans, but it may not be a victory for the people of Indiana.  The problem with Byah’s decision, for people who want their government to start solving problems, is that it takes one more moderate out of the Senate and leaves open the opportunity for the election of a partisan ideologue in his place.  Some say Byah quit because he “saw the handwriting on the wall.”  He was afraid he could not get reelected given the current political climate.  Perhaps so, but I really don’t think that is the case.  Byah is popular in Indiana, reported to have a $16 million war chest ready for the coming campaign, and polls show him 20 points ahead of any Republican challenger.   It seems unlikely that he would be afraid of the coming political campaign. 

 

Byah’s decision hit Democrats hard, but comes in the midst of the strongest anti-incumbent mood we have had in this nation for a long time.  It is this anti-incumbent mood that fueled the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts and the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia.  I don’t know how long this public mood will last, but right now the American people’s dissatisfaction with their government is at an all-time high.  Here’s some data to support this conclusion.  A recent poll found that only 31 percent of respondents thought that Congress should be reelected.  Thirty one percent is the lowest percentage ever recorded in response to that question.  Fifty one percent say that their own congressperson should be reelected.  This again is the lowest percentage every recorded.  When Democrats and Republicans were asked which party deserved to be reelected, both gave their own party only a 41 percent approval rate.  All this data suggests if the election were held right now, incumbents of all parties should be worried. 

 

The partisan fighting that seems to have choked out any willingness to solve the nations very real problems is a real danger to this nation.  Some think we may spend ourselves into oblivion, inadvertently trigger a nuclear war, or find ourselves the victims of another 9-11 style terrorist attack.  These are very real problems.  Legislators of both parties should be spending their time trying to find solutions, instead of trying to win partisan political points. 

 

We send our legislators to Washington to be problem solvers and we should insist that they do just that.  Our responsibility is to watch what they do, send them our views and back up what we want with our vote at the polls.  I will be the first to say that both parties have been guilty of the ideological infighting that we have seen increase over the years.  When Democrats took over both Houses of Congress in 2008, they basically said, “we got elected so we can do what we want.”  Republicans responded by refusing to negotiate at all.  The result has been gridlock.  At this moment, however, I see Democrats reaching out to Republicans, trying to find some ways to solve problems.  I don’t see Republicans responding in kind.  It will be interesting to see which party really wants to govern and problem solve.       

As we begin a new year, (an election year), Democrats have initiated a new strategy.  It is clear they need one.  Things have not gone very well (the understatement of the year) for Democrats over President Obama’s first year in office.  Republicans seem to have the initiative and while they have not offered much in the way of constructive solutions, they have been able to thwart most of the Democrat’s agenda.  So a new strategy is required and Democrats have one.  According to an article in the Washington Post, Democrats will emphasize bipartisanship as we move toward the 2010 midterm elections.   

This strategy began with President Obama’s reach out to Republicans in his State of the Union Speech, last month, then continued with the president’s appearance in a televised give-and-take debate with House Republicans earlier in February.  Soon Obama will meet with Republican and Democrat leaders to debate health-care issues.  The whole idea of this strategy is to demonstrate to voters that Republicans too have a responsibility to govern, even though they are in the minority.   As the Post article said, the object here, according to a White House official, is to “force progress” at a time when polls show that the public wants to see bipartisan cooperation.   

In the near future, the Democrat leadership will offer a number of bills popular with the public and designed to incorporate some Republican priorities.   Republican will have an opportunity to support the bills or explain to their constituents why the government is stalled.  If Republicans support these issues, good, things will start getting done.  If Republican continue their strategy of obstructing everything Obama tries to do, the failure of government, and the public’s animosity, will fall directly on Republicans.  This will be an opportunity for Republicans to show they really want to govern, rather than simply obstruct.

The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts was surely a wake-up call for Democrats, but it should have been a wake-up call for Republicans, as well.  The public does not like what either party has been doing and wants to see a change.  A recent Washington Post-ABC poll showed that a clear majority of Americans are much dissatisfied with the way the federal government is doing its business.  A majority of these American (6 out of 10 respondents) blame Republicans for the problems.  They say, according to the poll, that Republicans are not doing enough, on important issues, to compromise with the President. 

Forcing votes on in issues popular with the public (a jobs bill and measures to rein in excesses by major financial institutions, for example) is a strategy that worked for Democrats in 2006 and in 2008.  This strategy help Democrats take over the federal government for the first time in about 16 years.  It is likely to work in the run up to the midterm elections.  Republicans can either support democrats or be seen even more so as the party of NO, and as the party unwilling to help solve some of our problems. 

   

February 25th is the day President Obama will hold a health-care “summit meeting” with congressional leaders of both parties.  The purpose of the meeting, Obama told Katie Couric, is to get Republican ideas on how to lower health-care costs, allow people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance, and cover at least 30 million uninsured citizens.  When the President made this announcement, Republican leaders immediately said (paraphrasing here) that they were glad the President was willing to start at ground zero and renegotiate health-care reform.  The White House quickly clarified the President’s intention, which is not to renegotiate health-care reform from the start, but to get Republican ideas on how to improve what has been passed. 

Will this summit do any good?  I hope so.  It will depend on both parties negotiating in good faith.  Democrats will have to concede a few points and Republicans will have to back off from their demand to get 100 percent of what they want in the bill.  Both parties need to change.  Democrats have been much too high-handed in pushing their bills through congress and Republicans, who perceive that they are winning the political battle, have in the past seen no need to give even a little.

Here’s what I think Democrats might do to encourage some Republican cooperation.  They should come to the table ready to offer two concessions to Republicans: medical malpractice reform and an open exchange where individuals can shop for insurance coverage nationwide.  Tort reform should be easy.  Republicans like it, insurance companies like it, and health providers like it.  Only lawyers don’t like it.  We all have to make some sacrifices.  Too bad, lawyers.   A nationwide insurance market is a really good idea, as long as it comes with firm rules that do not allow some companies to lower the coverage of their insurance to a point where it does serve people effectively. 

Would these concessions get Republican support for health-care reform?  Certainly not en masse support, but it might pick off a few Republicans, perhaps, enough to get a revised bill through the Senate.  If this summit fails to start the parties toward some agreement, Republicans lose, Democrats lose, and most important, the American people lose.    

Given the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, corporations, unions and other special interests will now be permitted unrestrained access (through campaign contributions) to our elected representatives.  Many Republicans lauded the Court’s decision as a victory for free speech.  It was, in fact, a blow against free speech.  In this decision, the Supreme Court of the United States actually made a decision to restrict free speech, to those who have the money to pay for it.  The decision is the Court's shame and a blow against American democracy.  The U.S. Constitution does not treat corporations as people (The original constitution does not treat corporations at all, although some later amendments do) and there is no corporate right to free speech.

Republicans who support this decision are denying over a century of their history.  The idea of limiting political contributions from corporations, was first brought to national attention, early in the 20th century, by Republican luminary Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the influence of monetary contributions on legislators as improper and even criminal.  Then the Tillman Act of 1907 imposed a limit on corporate contributions.  In the 1930, Republicans Robert Taft and Fred Hartley extended the Tillman Act to include unions. In the 1970s, following the Watergate scandal, Republicans joined with Democrats to strengthen the Federal Election Campaign Act, which among other things, further restricted corporate contributions to political candidates. Finally, Republican Senator, John McCain, along with Democrat Senator, Russ Feingold, led the fight to limit the soft money contributions to political parties and candidates. 

Today’s Republican leadership, and some Democrats as well, seem to have forgotten this history and appears to be willing to side with money and against and against the interests of every-day Americans.  Ex Republican U.S. Senator Warren Rudman, writing in the Washington Post, says that Republicans supporting this ruling is “…beyond my comprehension.” 

A couple of days ago, writing on this same subject I suggested that Congress, while it cannot limit contributions from all corporations,  could blunt the worst effects of the Supreme Court’s decision by passing a law that forbids political contributions from corporations that do business with the U.S. government.  There is a precedent for such legislation and it would probably hold up in court.  Warren Rudman suggests another remedy, which congress can pass.

Right now in Congress there is a bill (H.R. 1826 and S. 752) called the Fair Elections Now Act.  It would allow federal candidates to choose to run for office without accepting contributions from corporations, big money bundlers or donations from lobbyists.  If passed, the bill would free candidates from the pressure of constant fundraising and allow them to focus on doing what their constituents want and the nation needs.  The bill is complex and I won’t try to explain all the intricate details here.  Anyone who wants to know more can find it easily by entering “Fair Elections Now Act” into any internet search engine. 

Basically, the bill would allow federal candidates, after obtaining a relatively small number of contributions from the residents of their district, to receive public funding for their campaigns.  The public money for these candidates would be raised by a fee on large-scale government contracts, thus, making the act fully paid for (deficit neutral).  By following these two suggestions, Congress can blunt most of the negative impact of the Supreme Court’s very injudicious decision and help protect the free

The Tea Party movement seems to be making a lot of news lately.  After, campaigning for Scott Brown in the Massachusetts and helping him win Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat, Tea Partiers are feeling their political muscle.  In order to learn a bit more about this movement, I went to their web site and watched a well crafted video that told about the movement.  The video exclaimed that Tea Party members are fed up with government that does not listen to them and, they say, disregards the constitution.  They claim they are against arrogance and corruption.

My first reaction is that I don’t know anybody that is not against arrogance and corruption.  And there’s plenty of both in today’s, and past, governments.  I thought I would gladly support an organization that expressed such values.  Tea Party members interviewed say they want to take back the government.  Here, again, is a laudable goal.  As long as they want to take back the government for all 300 million Americans, I would enthusiastically march with that organization.  People of all stripes, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, want a government that is not arrogant, follows the constitution, shuns corruption, and listens to the people.

I looked around a bit more on the internet (I thought perhaps a view that did not come directly from the Tea Party itself might help me understand the movement a bit better.) I found a number of rather disturbing pictures.  Some pictures showed Tea Partiers holding signs that depicted President Obama in racist terms (for example Obama in native jungle dress or with his face painted white).  One pictured Obama in a NAZI uniform.  On the Tea Party web site, you can hear the words (from a song being sung) “We’ll put a boot in you’re a-ss.”  That sounds a bit arrogant to me.  

I’m still trying to learn more about the Tea Party, but what I have learned so far is enlightening.  I will offer this tentative (stress tentative) analysis from what I have learned so far.  It seems to me that the Tea Party is only against arrogance from others.  Tea Party members seem to have little problem with arrogance in themselves.  I listened to several interviews with Tea Party members, by CNN and FOX.  These interviewees spoke of taking, but not one said a word about democratic values, debate, discussion or negotiation.  The Tea Party seems to be a racist, ultra-right-wing group that wants to hijack the government for its own agenda and shout down any one that disagrees.

I truly do hope that this is not the case, because I think America could benefit from a grass-roots movement the tries to bring government closer to the people it governs.  Perhaps the disturbing pictures the we see and the arrogant rhetoric we hear represents the view of only a few and not the entire movement.  But, I did not hear anyone in the movement criticizing those pictures or the rhetoric.  What we need is a movement that desires to take back the government for all Americans, not just a few.         

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!  That, rightly so, will be the focus of the Obama administration in the second year of his administration.  Creating jobs has been a problem for the administration, with unemployment holding at around 10 percent.  Most analysts say unemployment is at the root of the displeasure with the Democratic Party that has risen over the past several months. 

President Obama has sent, or will shortly send, a jobs bill to congress.  The bill includes support for continuing and generating new infrastructure jobs, Tax credit to businesses for hiring new workers, $30 billion of repaid TARP funds to support bank loans to small businesses, and the elimination of the capital gains tax for small business investment. 

All of the main provisions of the Democrats’ jobs bill, except the diverted use of TARP funds, are right out of the Republican play book.  These are provisions that have been proposed by Republicans over the last year.  Now, however, that these things are proposed by a Democratic president, Republicans, in their zeal to oppose everything Obama, seem to be withholding their support.  

Doing this is, no doubt, good political strategy, by Republicans.  If unemployment stays around 10 percent through the summer, Republicans will do well in the midterm elections.  Clearly, observations indicate that this is the Republican strategy.  Republicans, it seems, are willing to sacrifice jobless Americans in order to make political gains.  It that is their policy, it is cold indeed. 

However, Democrats still have a substantial majority, so they should be able to get the jobs bill passed.  But, is it enough?  Some Democrats argue that the current bill lacks the punch to really make a serious dent in unemployment.  I read recently in the Washington Post that some Democrats are proposing a new New Deal.  In the 1930s when unemployment stubbornly refused to come down, the Roosevelt Administration put 3 million people to work repairing roads, airports, military bases and schools.  Roosevelt did this despite the criticism of growing deficit and government, the same criticism the Obama Administration faces today.  Then New Dealers prevailed, bringing America out of the Great Depression and securing the votes of millions of Americans for years to come. 

Personally, I’m not sure that the drastic action of a modern-day new deal is necessary right now.  I think a bigger jobs bill might do the trick.   However, if new-deal like action was necessary, I doubt the Obama Administration has the courage to actually push it through.  All we can do is hope that a few tax cuts to businesses will do the trick.  If not, the people of the nation. not to mention Democrats, are in for a long cold spell. 

Friday, January 29th, President Obama met with House or Representatives Republicans at their policy retreat.  Republicans to their credit invited him and the President seemed happy to accept.  It was a 90 minute spirited but respectful and civil debate.  A number of substantive issues that divide Republicans and Democrats were raised.  I don’t recall ever seeing anything like this happening, for sure not on live television.  There were no mean-spirited comments that we hear daily from both parties and from their advocates. 

Whether this will be the beginning of a new tone in Washington or just another minor political event remains to be seen.  This event could be the moment when the tensions between the parties begin to ease or it might be just a brief respite in the animosity and ugliness that has all but crippled our government. 

The news media began immediately (as they are wont to do) trying to establish a winner and a loser from this encounter.  I think, however, that there were no losers in the affair.  The winners were both parties and the American people.  Republicans discovered that the President had actually read some of the proposals they have sent to him and that he could talk about what was in them.  They learned some of the problems he has with their proposals.  Nevertheless, the President acknowledged that Republicans have some good ideas and that he was ready to work with them.  He pressed Republicans for or five times on the issue of bipartisanship. 

Obama also pressed them on negotiating in good faith.  He told them that they cannot come to the negotiating table with proposals, saying “We want 100 percent of these or we’re done.”  He listed off, as an example, a number of republican health-care proposals that have been included in the two health-care reform bills passed by the House and Senate.  He also said that in the negotiation process he is willing to consider medical malpractice reform and the idea of insurance companies selling policies across state lines.    

I don’t think the meeting changed many attitudes and it is unlikely that any change will come of this in the short term.  But if the climate of that meeting spreads just a little, we might see, over time, a reduction of slash and burn politics in which both parties have engaged.  The most important thing right now is to continue the dialogue.  That’s a must.  The first step in getting beyond dialogue is to keep talking.  The President and House Republicans have taken the first step.  Now let’s see if something can happen in the Senate.      

I watched President Obama’s State of the Union Speech Wednesday evening, all 70 plus minutes of it.  I’m told it is the second longest State of the union speech in history.  Bill Clinton has the record, 89 minutes.  Lengthy as it was, the speech was well crafted, very well delivered and set exactly the right tone.  The speech was eloquent, as Obama’s speeches usually are.  He cracked a joke or two and he came off in a very likable manner, when he looked loving at his wife, calling her “hon” (probably the first time anyone has said that in a State of the Union Speech). 

Here’s some of the things Obama said.  He admitted some mistakes: “Our administration has had some setbacks --- some of them deserved.”  But he moved quickly to outline the accomplishment of his first year in office.  The speech covered national security, health-care, education, and bipartisanship but the first and primary focus was on the economy. 

Obama made a number of proposals for the economy.  He urged Congress to pass a jobs bill that is now before the Senate.  He proposes using $30 billion that the super banks have repaid from TARP funds to underwrite loan from local banks to small businesses.  He proposed eliminating the capital gains taxes on all small business investment.  Republicans liked that on.  He encouraged the Senate to pass tough financial restrictions on Wall Street investments and on banks.  Republicans did not like that one.  He said he would impose a freeze on discretionary spending starting in 2011.  Republicans did not seem to like that one either, but I don’t know why. 

The president urged Democrats not to give up on their basic values, but at the same time he reached out to Republicans, offering them a chance to meet and work with him to get something done for American.  Democrats in the House Chamber applauded, but the silence on the Republican side was palpable, suggesting that Republicans intend to continue their plan of obstruction.

This was a good speech, but the shelf life of State of the Union speeches is no more than a few days.  If the speech is to be a success, the President will have to follow up on the ideas he offered.  He will have to convince wavering Democrats to hold the line on some of his proposals.  Health-care reform is one of them.  Democrats cannot go into the fall elections without having passed some form of health-care reform.  He will have to convince some Republicans to work with him and actually solve some problems.  Independent voters, who helped push Obama and Democrats into office last election, want some action.  They want congress to stop the ugly rhetoric and obstruction, then get to work solving the nation’s problems.  Third, his proposals must bring unemployment down. 

What we learned from this speech, is what we already knew.  Obama, is an excellent speaker, with some pretty good speech writers.  Now, it is the administration’s task to find a way to govern as well as the do speeches.       

A Supreme Court ruling last week, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, for all practical purposes has ended limits on corporate and union spending on political campaigns.  Conservatives see the decision as a win for free speech.  For liberals, it is another blow to democracy and more proof of corporate rule over America. But the Supreme Court campaign finance decision also means that in the 2010 election the mudslinging will be blow the roof off.  In fact, this ruling is a really bad stroke for ordinary Americans.  It means that our influence on our legislators will become even smaller than it has been.  This decision takes us back a century to a time when corporate influence over politics was at its zenith, and it undermines a number of laws enacted over years to help strengthen the influence ordinary people have on their legislators and curb corruption in government. 

Consider for a moment, the message from the special senatorial election last week in Massachusetts.  The results showed that the voters in Massachusetts were upset by a government that they perceive is not listening to them and is not responsive to what they want from government.  The decision in Citizens United will further widen the gap between government and the people it is supposed to serve.  It gives a green light to corporate and union special interests to turn their massive financial resources loose on our political system. 

Under this ruling, for example, oil companies are free to “take out” members of congress who don’t toe the line on energy policy.  For another example, major pharmaceutical firms can now directly endorse or oppose candidates (by name) that will support  (or oppose) their agenda for  keeping the cost of pharmaceuticals higher than any other place in the world.  This is the sort of quid-pro-quo political corruption that the supreme court recognizes as free speech.  Even foreign-owned companies, with a U.S. subsidiary, are now free to underwrite the political candidate of their choice.  Some people have been concerned with Chinese influence on American politics in the past.  Well, wait until the next election.  You ain’t seen nothing yet!!!

This is a dangerous time for American democracy.  The Supreme Court ruling is what it is and we cannot change it, at least not now.  Nevertheless, we must not simply stand by helplessly and watch corporate influence (already too high) threaten to further undermine our democratic process.  Congress has some recourse if it wishes to use it. Here’s one possible solution advocated by law professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayers of Harvard University.   

Ackerman and Ayers argue that “while congress cannot issue a broad ban on all corporations, it can prohibit corporations that do business with the federal government from endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office.”  This can be done they say with an extension to the federal contractor’s regulations already on the books.  Federal contractors are already not permitted to “directly or indirectly make any contribution of money or other things of value” to “any political party, committee or candidate.”  The provision, as suggested here, would prevent a major corporation or union from launching a media campaign for a candidate that supports its agenda, (thereby, giving that candidate something of value) but it would not prevent a special interest from using its money in opposing a specific candidate.  So the law, Ackerman and Ayers say, will need to be carefully worded if it is to be effective. 

There may be other legal avenues that Congress can explore, but if we value a people’s democracy, congress must take some action soon.  The corporate finance laws, laws enacted over a century ago, have been a bulwark of our democracy.  We should give notice to the conservative Roberts court that Americans intend to fight all the way to preserve that bulwark.   

On Wednesday, President Obama will deliver his first State of the Union speech.  It will give us a clue about what he plans to do in response to the drubbing Democrats got in Massachusetts.  We got a hint from his campaign style speech at a town-hall meeting in Ohio last week.  It seems Obama is about to become a populist, in a way that he has not been before.  Here’s why:  In 2008 Obama carried middle-class white voters in Massachusetts 57 to 42 percent.  On election day, Scott Brown carried those same voters 62 to 37 percent over Democrat Coakley.  Exit polls show that people are angry over massive bailouts, big executive bonuses and what they see as excessive financial deficits.  In his Ohio speech, Obama said, “We don’t need big government.  We need smart government that works and interacts with the private sector to create opportunity for ordinary people.”  He touted his proposals to restrict banking practices, which he said would protect the public from having to “foot the bill” for bankers’ “dumb mistakes.”  He portrayed himself as a fighter standing against special interests with respect to issues like home foreclosures, deceptive credit practices, equal pay for women, student loans, and health care.  He said he was fighting for people and that he was looking forward to more fights in the future. 

This populist rhetoric, sounding a bit like Hillary Clinton or even John McCain, might benefit Obama, if he can expose what he sees as Republican hypocrisy when Republicans benefit from popular anger at the bankers while at the same time opposing new bank regulations.  The President needs to show people that his government will do more for them, than for bankers and automobile companies. 

To make this strategy work, the administration will have to deliver some real progress on jobs and on health care.  Obama will have to show people that big government can also be effective government.  This is certainly no easy task, because President Obama is not a natural populist.  He seems to like the argument more than the actual battle.  He has been seen as too much of a nice guy, who wants to get along with everyone.  He has not been perceived as a fighter willing to slug it out with his opponents.  He has is not been perceived as a strong leader, who will not be easily pushed around.  In this, Obama might learn from his predecessor.  George W. Bush was never seen as smooth as Barack Obama, but no one doubted that President Bush was a fighter. 

This is not to say that Obama is not a fighter, but if he has that side of himself, he needs to show it more than we have seen it.  He will have to take on Washington special interests, by doing more than promising to deal with the deficit.  People need to see some progress, even a small one.  He will have to separate himself from Congress.  In the effort to get health-care reform passed, Obama has linked closely with the Democrats in Congress and the only thing that has lower popularity than a skunk at a summer picnic is Congress.  He’ll have to work with members of Congress, but he does not have to be seen as liking them too much. 

I don’t know exactly what we will see and hear in Obama’s State of the Union speech, but I hope we will see a more feisty Obama.  The State of the Union is not the place for a campaign style speech, like the one we saw in Ohio, so I’m sure we won’t see that sort of speech.  But, this is the time for him to begin to assert his leadership and to show the American people he is willing to fight for them.        

Republican, Scott Brown, won the Massachusetts special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat long held by Teddy Kennedy.   A Republican had not filled that seat for more than 30 years.  So, some observers are saying this is the death knell for the Democrats in the midterm elections.  I do think Brown’s victory is a wakeup call, but not to Democrats alone.  The result of this election is a wakeup call for our government, regardless of the party in power at the time. 

Brown won 64 percent of independent voters and that was the wave that swept him to the victory.  That is just about the same percentage of independents who swept Barack Obama to victory in Massachusetts in the last presidential election.  It seems clear that Massachusetts independents were unhappy with the Republicans, and now after a year of Democrats, they are very unhappy with Democrats.  CNN’s Jack Cafferty offered this allusion.  He said it was like passengers on the Titanic running from one side of the ship to the other, in an attempt to right the ship, as it listed prior to sinking.  Government itself, many people think, is broken.  People are not upset with Democrats or Republicans per se. They are upset with government in general that they think is unresponsive to their needs and is not listening to their complaints.  They are upset with high deficits, too much spending, unemployment, and other things.  They are mad as h_ll and, at least in Massachusetts, they’re not going to take it anymore. 

So, if Massachusetts is a wakeup call, it is for Republicans as well.  How long will it take, and is it possible, to get a government that people think will help them solve problems, rather than make them worse?  But, even as I write this, I wonder just how a government can be responsive to the desires of 300 million people.  No matter what government does, somebody won’t like it.  I’ll just take health-care reform as an illustration of the problems that government (any government) faces. 

Most independents (indeed most Americans) wanted health-care reform.  However, independents became upset with the drawn out, rancorous process of pounding out the legislation.  It took too long and generated too much animosity.  If most people still want health-care reform (and I believe they do, although they don’t want what the Democrats have ginned up), then how does government respond to that need?  And if say 52 or 53 percent of people want health-care reform, that leaves 47 or 48 percent that does not want it.  How does government respond to that need?   The same is true about almost every national issue.  Government is caught between a rock and a hard place. 

The only way for a large democratic government to work is for government to listen to people and respond to their needs, then honestly show why it cannot respond to everyone’s wishes and needs.  (This is something that does not happen very often, actually never.)  Second, we need a people who understand that a government cannot be all things to all people.  Some people won’t get everything they want from government.  Third, (and this I don’t think we’re ever going to get), we need legislators that will try to represents their constituents, but who have the courage to do the right thing even if it does not represent the need and desires of their constituents. 

I think the voters of Massachusetts have the right idea.  If they elected someone and that person is not responsive, not listening to them, they elect someone else on the next election.  If voters keep doing this over and over, eventually we’ll get government that listens and is responsive.  That’s my sincere wish, but frankly, I don’t think it is going to happen.  In the average election, 97% (or higher) incumbents get re-elected and I suspect that will be the case again.