Several pieces worth reading and considering — UPDATED

Over the past year, I’ve repeatedly said that we need a strong two-party system and that the GOP’s current incarnation isn’t helpful to the democratic system of give-and-take.  I’ve wondered why the party seems to lack adult participation.  I recommend several recent pieces for your consideration.

First, a Tom Friedman op-ed piece that’s nearly a month old.  Friedman has been on the “green” bandwagon  for some time, and I’m finally getting into his most recent book Hot Flat and Crowded in which he follows up on the thesis that our global economy, assisted by communications technology, is flattening the world and offering opportunities to provide services and reach customers regardless of where the parties to the transaction are located.  In order to survive this sea-change, we need to recognize both its threats to the status quo and the opportunities it presents.  His latest work makes the case that China is doing a better job than the US is in preparing for a world that will necessarily rely more heavily on alternative forms of energy.  In this op-ed piece, he points to the autocratic nature of the Chinese political system to force the necessary changes and in a similar vein bemoans the stagnation of the US political environment, even though it is effectively, at the moment, also a single-party system.

Then, today Neil Gabler penned an op-ed piece in the L.A. Times that may shed additional light on the same debate.  Gabler compares our current political climate to fundamentalist religion, in which negotiation and compromise have given way to a doctrinaire certainty that there is only one correct solution and that any disagreement is tantamount to heresy.  While I’m not totally objective, I do think that the Dems have shown more willingness to compromise and to negotiate than have the Repubs — the health care debate being the most current example.  Many Democrats actually prefer a single-payer system — Medicare for everyone — as the optimal solution.   But that was taken off the table even before the debate and the compromising began.  Indeed, the compromises have been driven by the need to have a solution that can obtain the 60 votes necessary to end a certain GOP filibuster.  Meanwhile, despite what Sen. McConnell claims, there have been few efforts on the part of the GOP to do more than obstruct.

Much has been made of the influence on and even control of the GOP by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and others, including the right-wing bloggers.  Since last November, several conservative voices have tried to criticize Limbaugh, only to be taken to task by the base to the point where they’ve had to beg for his forgiveness.  David Brooks, who I’ve long considered one of the more sane voices coming from the right is the latest to try to marginalize the likes of Limbaugh and Beck and their corrosive effect on the way we do politics these days.  And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently opined that the “birthers” are crazy, and that Beck is not so much a Republican as he is a cynic.

Could it be that there is a growing recognition among the pragmatists in the GOP that the party is becoming even less appealing to the independent center, around whom elections turn?  Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is one of those pragmatic Republicans who dares to ignore the pressure from the GOP leadership and use reason and the genuine needs and wishes of her constituents in determining how to cast her vote.  She recognizes that while Maine has two GOP senators, the state does have voters of both parties and that ideological purity isn’t always in the best interest of her constituents, let alone of the nation at large.  Ideological purity is corrosive, regardless of which party’s ideology is at issue.  And John McCain, rather than retreating into political oblivion after his defeat last November is, according to sources at Politico, seeking to find pragmatic and moderate Republicans to re-invigorate the party.  Unfortunately, if Gabler’s view is correct, his efforts will be in vain.

[UPDATE: Paul Krugman’s op-ed piece in Monday’s New York Times sums it up a bit differently, but in a manner entirely appropriate given the reaction on the right to Chicago’s failed Olympics bid. Given Krugman’s assessment and Glaber’s, it is clear that what needs to be done by people on all sides of the political spectrum who seek a more honest and rational discussion of issues.  The radical right needs to be isolated from the discussion.  They will not change.  That segment has been present in American politics for many decades.  But like a recalcitrant child, they need to be marginalized, not given additional power by virtue of attention.  Sure, we must be aware of them, especially when the level of violent rhetoric rises.  But awareness does not necessarily equate to attention.  The media loves conflict, thus the attention they receive from the likes of Rupert Murdock.  He sees them as a cash cow.  As soon as the ratings decline, they will be out on their collective ear, not because their masters have changed their stripes, but because, as David Brooks put it, they are no longer raking in the cash.  Beck’s decline in sponsors served only to raise his ratings, and allow Fox to charge more to his other sponsors, making the whole episode a financial wash.]

Yes, I am liberal in my political views, and proudly so.  After all, liberalism has brought many of the advances and achievements that have made America great — the abolition of slavery, the Civil Rights movement, women’s suffrage, public education.  Government, for all of its ills and faults, can be made to work for the benefit of the people.  Capitalism can be a powerful creative force, but even Adam Smith understood that it cannot be allowed to succumb to greed.  But more than simply a liberal, I am an American.  I want the country to succeed.  And that means that even when I disagree totally with a  President’s policies, I want him to do right by the country.  I want him to succeed in making our country better.  I not only accept the theory of an opposition but support its creation and benefit.  But in order to be a loyal opposition, it must be willing to propose as well as to oppose.  I fear that the United States body politic has become so focused on the “me” that it is losing sight of the “we” that made us what we are.

Read Full Post »

Obstruction is all they know

Let there be no more question about the raucus town hall attendees.  Their astroturf inciters have spoken.  They are opposed to any reform of our health care system, despite the consequences.  Yes, there are people with legitimate concerns.  And they deserve to have their concerns addressed.  But shouting out and drowning out legitimate debate is not democracy.  It’s mob rule.  And that is unamerican.

Whatever lies they can spread to further their cause is legitimate in their minds.  Bipartisan efforts to reimburse doctors when their patients ask for consultations on end-of-life issues become “death panels.”

Forget that insurance companies are currently rationing care.  Forget that Medicare and Medicaid are single-payer systems, and that few seniors would willingly give up that benefit.  Forget that the VA system is true socialized medicine.  No, all that gets lost in the noise.  The astroturf-led protesters continue to demand no public option.

A letter writer in my local paper proves just how crazy some of the opposition is.  He is convinced that when Americans fall ill on foreign vacations and receive good care, it’s not representative of what the country’s citizens receive but is only to ensure that we continue to spend our vacation dollars in their countries.  The same letter-writer claims that Natasha Richardson’s death following her skiing accident was representative of the dire consequences of a government-run health care system. Never mind that her death can be directly attributed to the fact that she initially refused treatment over the recommendation of the ski patrol and the providers who examined her.  Their minds are made up.  Don’t confuse them by proffering facts.

Despite all this, the GOP leadership remains tepid at best in trying to turn down the heat and return to a civil discussion of the issues.  Instead by their relative silence, they are complicit.  They obviously support the protesters, whose main goal is to obstruct the will of the majority of the American people.  Poll after poll shows that the people want reform.  And while they have questions and concerns about the shape reform should take, when presented with honest information, they are in general supportive of the reform efforts wending their way through Congress.

Without reform, costs will continue to escalate.  Imagine having to pay 40 or even 50% of your income in health care costs.  Yet that is where we are headed if we continue on the current path.  The conventional wisdom was that we should plan on 30% of our income for housing.  Yet, that percentage has crept up.  Imagine what your budget would look like if you had only 20-30% of your income for food, clothing, savings, entertainment and all other expenses combined…  That’s what we can look forward to.  Is that what we want?  Consider the effect that will have both on our standard of living and on our overall health.  How many more millions of people will have no choice but to forego insurance coverage?

Our health care system is drowning.  We have critical shortages of primary care doctors (who make less money than do specialists) and of nurses.  Our supply of nurse educators is particularly dire.  Poor communication between providers leads to unnecessary additional medicals tests and missed diagnoses.  We waste almost half of the money we currently spend on healthcare.  We spend more per person and our outcomes are worse than in other western countries.  If we could cut the waste, which the health care reform packages currently under consideration all address, we could easily pay for insuring the millions of Americans who currently lack coverage.  All it would take is the political will to buck the special interests.

Read Full Post »

And yet another bites the dust

It is getting to the point where one wonders just who the Republicans can offer up as a candidate in 2012.  Bobby Jindal’s disastrous “Kenneth the Page” performance in delivering the GOP rebuttal to President Obama’s “state of the union as I see it” speech shortly after his inauguration was the first domino.  Then, in the past few weeks three more potential candidates have seen their political futures self-destruct.  Sen. John Ensign (erstwhile “Promise Keeper”) admitted to a sleazy affair.  He was followed shortly by Mark Sanford’s rambling, stream-of-consciousness confession to having gotten involved with his Argentinian soul mate.  And then, yesterday, Sarah Palin again demonstrated the importance of having a prepared text when making a major announcement.

Commentators on both sides of the aisle weighed in trying to figure out just what Palin had served up with her latest helping of word salad.  Was she quitting because she couldn’t take the heat of the national media?  Or does she have a more lucrative gig in the works?  After all, she already has a book deal.  She can command far more money giving speeches or perhaps as a Fox “News” commentator than she can ever make in the notoriously corrupt arena of Alaska politics.  And she does reportedly have about half a million dollars in legal bills defending against a plethora of ethics charges.  Or was it a clever ploy to begin her presidential campaign?  Or was it a matter of “passing the ball” to her Lt. Governor because of a rumored impending criminal investigation?  Or is Palin simply representative of a significant segment of the GOP (and perhaps of the population at large) that doesn’t think the rules apply to them?  All of that remains to be seen.  It certainly wasn’t clear from her “news conference” which was charitably described as being sparsely attended.  If she hoped that by making her announcement on the Friday preceding a national holiday weekend, it would be buried as a news story, she clearly blew it.  Everyone knows that you make those announcements late in the afternoon, not at 10:00 a.m.

Despite claims to the contrary by her conservative faithful, Palin simply isn’t made of presidential timber.  One needs a real resume, and quitting mid-stream during her first term as governor just doesn’t cut it.  That leaves her tenure as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska, as her sole claim to fame — that and Tina Fey’s spot-on impression of her performance as John McCain’s running mate.   Politics is a full-contact sport.  If you don’t believe that, just watch any meeting of Britain’s House of Commons, or the occasional brawl that breaks out during a session of the South Korean parliament.  And as Harry Truman so famously observed, “If you can’t stand the heat, well, stay out of the kitchen.”  You need a thick skin to be a successful politician, and Sarah Palin’s skin is thinner than most.  She is legendary for turning on anyone who criticizes her or who stands in her way.

Her behavior during the fall campaign demonstrated that she can be erratic.  That tendency was openly discussed by people inside the McCain campaign both before the election and since — people who would normally be expected to be among her most ardent supporters.  And her rallies indicated that she appeals to a minority of Americans who can only be described as racist bigots.  There is no room on the national stage for someone whose claim to fame is to appeal to the most despicable elements of American society.  If that is the segment of the Republican Party that represents her most avid supporters, then the total demise of the current incarnation of the GOP cannot come quickly enough.

UPDATE 7/6:  Anyone who questions whether there is a definite racist element in the Republican Party would do well to read this, only the latest in a series of similar instances going back to the campaign.  I wrote about them at the time, but they have continued.

Read Full Post »

Another one bites the dust

So, Gov. Sanford wasn’t hiking the trail after all.  And it’s unlikely that he spent the past days driving along the coast of Argentina.  He may well have been trying to clear his head, but it doesn’t appear that the “bruising legislative session” was the only thing troubling him.

I’m not going to criticize his affair.  That is a private matter.  And it’s up to him and his family to determine the ultimate outcome.  It’s likely to scuttle any hopes of running for President in 2012.  But it’s the ongoing hypocrisy of the Republican Party touting themselves as the party that upholds family values that I object to most.  Earlier this month, another family values champion, Nevada’s Senator John Ensign, admitted to an affair.  They are simply the latest among their ilk to have to admit that they have failed to live up to the standards they attempt to impose on the rest of us.  It makes their hypocrisy and cynicism all the more odious when they have the gall to make such a huge stink when Democrats have feet of clay. Let us not forget that Mark Sanford was among the most vocal critics of President Clinton when his affair became public, as was the thrice-married Newt Gingrich, who was himself carrying on an affair as he called for the resignation and impeachment of the president.

The interesting thing about the whole family values deal is that those who preach the loudest seem to have the hardest time living up to their own standards.  It’s curious that those who preach the importance of family values have, as a group, the highest divorce rates, the highest teen pregnancy rates. And that’s only the sexual escapades.  Let us not forget the outright graft of Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Jack Abramof, Bob Ney and others.

The Republican Party has become a laughing stock, an embarrassment to the entire country as well as to its history.  Minorities are leaving it in droves — thanks largely to the racist comments of Gingrich and others in response to the nomination of Sonia Sotamajor as a Supreme Court justice.  The racism of the Republican base was on full display during the campaign.  How it can possibly recover enough to be a viable political party again is a mystery.  We need to have at least two vibrant political parties in this country.  But today’s GOP is neither vibrant nor viable.  One can only hope that saner, more pragmatic conservatives will come together to form a new party, leaving what’s left of the GOP to complete its death spiral and vanish from the American political scene.  Finally, true to form, Fox News incorrectly (but intentionally?) identifies Sanford as a Democrat.  If this were the first time Fox did that, it might be explained away as an error, but it has happened repeatedly when one of their own strays.  Unfortunately, those who depend solely upon Fox for their “news” probably won’t catch the error.  Their viewers don’t seem to have an over-abundance of smarts.  They’ve totally bought into the “fair and balanced” meme as well as the “liberal media” one.  Sigh.  Someone just needs to stick a fork in the Republican Party.  They’re done.

Read Full Post »

So, liking Dijon mustard makes me an elitist. Hmmm…

They say confession is good for the soul.  So here’s mine.  I also prefer Dijon mustard to the yellow kind.  I guess that makes me an elitist.  And, horror or horrors, if yellow mustard is the only kind available, I’ll do without — even on a hotdog.

This whole “controversy” about President Obama’s ordering spicy or Dijon mustard on his burger the other day is absolutely absurd.  Talk about trying to make something out of nothing!  The whole “rebranding” of French fries in the Congressional lunch room was idiotic enough.  But since Dijon mustard is made by Kraft — the very same folks who make yellow mustard and Velveeta (which in my opinion doesn’t even qualify as a food stuff and is suitable only for fish bait) — the claim that it’s somehow not Amurikun is pure nonsense.

Once again, the conservative talking heads are demonstrating that they’ve been abducted by aliens and had their brains sucked out.  It started with Sean Hannity and has spread like a virus to Laura Ingraham and into the right wingnut bloggosphere.  Can we please talk about something important?  Please???

Discussing and critiquing President Obama’s policies is one thing.  It’s part of what keeps democracy alive.  Donning tin foil hats and obsessing on something as trivial as the kind of mustard he likes is infantile.  And it’s part of why the Republican Party’s support is vanishing into irrelevance.

Read Full Post »

Abstract theory or reality?

Today is teen pregnancy prevention day.  Bristol Palin is advocating against teen pregnancy.  She is in a position to do so with some credibility given that she’s living with its consequences.  But, the sponsoring organization, Candies Foundation, advocates for abstinence as the means to reducing teen pregnancy.  While abstinence may well be a worthy goal, it certainly didn’t work out so well for young Ms. Palin and her former boyfriend.

And therein lies a key aspect to much of what seems to guide the thinking of conservatives.  They espouse theories that sound great in the abstract but fail when put to the test in the real world.  Consider their ideas that all markets are inherently efficient; that judges, especially Supreme Court justices, decide cases solely on the basis of law without regard to their own life experiences or biases; that abstinence, however worthy an ideal, is effective as the sole means of regulating teen sexual behavior, or a host of other issues. It is the same magical thinking that characterized the neocon notion that an invading and occupying army would be greeted with flowers or the idea that nearly drowning a person, up to six times a day, will result in accurate “intelligence.”

This morning, Bristol was on television saying that abstinence is realistic, regardless of what she herself did.  This, following her previous interview saying that abstinence was simply not realistic.  So, which is it?  I suspect that if she were pressed in a non-confrontational manner, with neither her mother’s disapproval or the potential loss of sponsorship from Candies on the line, she might well say that while abstinence is the ideal, it’s difficult to follow, given the reality of teen hormones.  Statistics bear her out.  The teen pregnancy rate, which had been declining, has risen again now that abstinence-only sex education has become popular.  Facts, once again, trump theory.  In the real world, facts are gathered to prove or disprove theories.

How much better it would be if we could once again taught teens that abstinence is indeed a worthy goal until one is in a stable relationship and sufficiently mature to provide for a child, but that in the event that they choose otherwise–whether with intent or in the heat of passion–they protect themselves against an unplanned pregnancy.

While Palin was on GMA, in her public role as abstinence advocate, her former fiance appeared on the CBS Early Show.  Echoing that abstinence is a good idea, Johnston is far more realistic in his approach, saying that information about and access to birth control are also necessary in reducing teen pregnancies.

Could it be that Bristol lives in the conservative world of theory while Levi understands reality as well?

This dichotomy of thinking extends to the sponsor of Ms. Palin’s advocacy.  Candies fails to see or acknowlege the irony in sponsoring teen abstinence while their ads contain sexually-charged images that convey the opposite of abstinence.

Candies ad

Teens are faced with a host of contradictory messages regarding sexuality.  Is it any wonder that, when combined with raging hormones and first love,  abstinence doesn’t work very well?

Read Full Post »

Arlen Specter is a symptom of a much larger problem

Sen. Arlen Specter has switched parties. Yes, that presumably brings the Senate one closer to having the magic 60 votes and a filibuster-proof majority.  That awaits only the seating of Al Franken.  The assumption that 58 Democratic Senators plus two Independents who caucus with them will always stick together to vote for cloture misses an important aspect of the Democratic Party.   It is not monolithic.

The response from remaining members of the Republican Party is emblematic of the party’s inherent problem.  Some have taken a “good riddance” approach.  Russ Limbaugh suggests that Sen. McCain should also consider leaving.  Michael Steele has pronounced Specter’s decision as a self-serving one that simply reflects the political realities in Pennsylvania — a bruising and probably futile primary fight against a hard-core conservative opponent, someone even to the right of former Senator Rick Santorum.  While that may be true, it misses an important fact.  During the 2008 election cycle, several hundred thousand Pennsylvania Republicans had already left the party, leaving the remaining Keystone State Republicans even more conservative than before and Democrats with a 1.2 million registration advantage.  Pennsylvania has been described as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with Alabama in between.  Other wags have nicknamed the south and central parts of the state Pennsyltucky.  That may be an exaggeration, but let’s not forget the spectacle of some of its faithful at McCain-Palin rallies.  It’s hard to imagine anyone to the right of Rick Santorum, but that is clearly the direction the party is moving.

The two remaining GOP Senators from the northeast — Collins and Snowe of Maine — now find themselves in an increasingly isolated position.  Sen. Snowe describes Specter’s move as “devastating” for the GOP.  There is no room in today’s Republican Party for moderates.

And therein lies the other aspect to Specter’s switch — and one that will almost certainly be ignored by the party faithful.  Specter isn’t the first person to decide that the party no longer represents their ideals, their values, their view of America and the role of government.  Arlen Spector is one of millions of former Republicans who have come to believe that the Republican party left them, giving them no choice but to leave.  Only 21% of the nation’s electorate identify themselves as Republicans.   You can’t win national elections, or even most state-wide elections, representing only 21% of voters.

During last year’s campaign, many voices representing the more moderate portions of the GOP decried the tone of some of the McCain-Palin rallies.  Republican stalwarts — at least stalwarts of what many of us remember as the Republican Party — publically endorsed Sen. Obama’s candidacy.  And many of those who did worried aloud at the prospect of the Republican Party moving ever more to the right, and thus into a position that would result in it becoming irrelevant.

Today’s Republican Party is anti-tax, anti-government, anti-choice, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-public education, anti-diversity, anti-dissent.  It defends torture, defends pre-emptive war, defends corruption at the highest levels of government.  It wraps itself in the flag and the Bible, all the while espousing positions that are both anti-American and anti-Christian.  It continues to alienate thinking conservatives.  Should it continue down that path, its extinction is as inevitable as the Whigs and the No-Nothings.   It’s only a matter of time.

Read Full Post »

The drift towards irrelevancy

This morning I came across an article on Politico that’s worth reading.  Seems that despite their drubbing in the last two general elections, the Republican party continues to drift to the right.  Meanwhile, the majority of the electorate is moving the other direction.  While the country as a whole, county by county, is actually a shade of purple, the election results show a definite trend toward Democratic victories — except across the Bible belt.

The more I watch the antics of the Republican Party — the obvious lack of real leadership, the floundering on coming up with anything that remotely resembles constructive alternatives on key issues, the hypocrisy, the more I realize that they, or at least the GOP base, are driven solely by ideology, not by reality.  Facts rarely seem to get in the way.

Some months ago, the cartoon Non Sequitor summed it up.  Two cave men were having a discussion, one standing safely in the cave, the other outside in the rain.  The conversation went like this:

“Um, why you stand in rain?”
“It not raining.”
“Yes it is.”
“No it not.”

“Huh? Water fall from sky… That rain.”
“That your opinion.”

At this point, the first caveman sticks his hand outside, and raindrops can be seen falling into his hand.

“Not opinion. Fact. See raindrops?”
“Don’t need to look.  Already know it not rain.”

“If it not rain, then why you wet and me dry”

The dry cave man waits for a response.

“Define ‘wet’…”
“Owww, brain hurt.”

The caption at the bottom reads, “The Invention of Ideology.”

To be sure, ideologues exist on both sides of the political spectrum.  But when ideology over-rides reality, and ignorance of the facts is celebrated rather than incorporated into one’s world view, how can either party hope to establish a viable political coalition?  The intellectual conservatives — people like David Brooks, George Will (his recent diatribe against jeans aside), Christopher Buckley and others —  have been conspicuously silent as the Republican Party kowtows to the likes of Russ Limbaugh and the theocrats.

The Politico piece points out that social issues still influence the GOP base — abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration.  They remain political litmus tests.  Yet, the first two are driven by religious conviction, the third largely by fear.  The other issue upon which the GOP base seems galvanized is that of taxation — or more properly anti-taxation.  There is the perception that all taxes are bad, save perhaps for spending on defense (and possibly including local policing and border enforcement).

The base may be fired up, but where do they go, particularly if they are increasingly out of touch with the majority of Americans? Unless something occurs to energize the rational elements of the Republican Party, it appears that it will become increasingly held captive by its anti-intellectual, religious base, combined with a distinctly anti-government strain that threatens to erupt into violence.  A more effective path into oblivion and ignominy is hard to imagine.

And that would be a shame.  America needs a vibrant multi-party system.  A permanent majority, of any party, is a prescription for corruption and abuse of power.

Read Full Post »

Another GOP canard

The other day we were treated to Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) going all ballistic about how SecDef Robert Gates, and by extension President Obama, were “gutting” the military.  That piece of hyperbole is to be expected from the far right, who rarely let facts get in the way of their sound bytes.

Just in case you’ve been seduced by the GOP canard that Democrats “always” cut defense, let me share a few facts about Gates’ proposal.  First, and perhaps most important, it represents a $12 billion INCREASE in the defense budget.  Yes, some programs were cut — most noteably the F-22 and Airborne Laser (ABL), along with the grossly over budget presidential chopper fleet.  But even there the far right is mis-stating the facts.  The Gates proposal simply continues the Bush Administration’s decision not to purchase additional F-22.  And the ABL decision reflects the fact that the program represents new, unproven technology — and that the R&D effort needs to be completed before a fleet is purchased.

And the Gates proposal includes more money for the troops — for the kind of equipment they really need to fight our current wars, and for their care after they return from combat.  And it includes funding for additional troops, so that perhaps third, fourth and even fifth combat tours won’t be needed.  That’s the kind of support our troops need, and the kind that was lacking, particularly under Rumsfeld’s leadership of the Dept. of Defense.

If you’ll remember, during the campaign, Obama promised to look at each and every defense system individually and to make funding decisions based on reason not politics.  If you haven’t watched the documentary “Why We Fight,” I strongly recommend that you rent it.  The take-away point is that the defense contractors have made sure that for each program, they spread the work done by suppliers to as many states as possible to ensure continued political support.  The political howling with regard to Gates’ proposal has begun.  Sen. Lieberman made an impassioned plea for the ABL program, despite the fact that he’s recommending procuring a fleet of planes (and their expensive lasers) for a technology that hasn’t yet been proven effective.  Similarly, Rep. Buck McKeon praised the ability of the F-22 to survive missions that would only be flown against a foe with advanced fighter jets — i.e., a system that was designed to serve a Cold War purpose.  What McKeon fails to mention is that the ongoing F-22 test and modification program occurs in his district.  He also fails to mention that the Gates proposal includes additional F-35 joint-strike planes and represents a net gain to his district.

Sen. McCain was partially correct when he tried to put the President on the spot about the new presidential chopper fleet.  The program is vastly over-budget.  But that is only part of the story.  The program suffered from what in the industry is called “requirements creep.”   After the contract was awarded, the customer decided that additional equipment was needed on the craft.  The additional weight of the equipment meant design changes.  The revised design was a significantly larger vehicle.  The time and effort in revising the design, the additional size, and the additional testing all contributed to increased costs.

It will be both interesting and vitally important for We the People to educate ourselves on the state of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex (as that was Eisenhower’s inital prefered term).

My conservative readers may choose to dismiss this as just more liberal thinking, but let me share a few additional facts about my own history.  I come from a family with extensive connections to the defense industry —  as civilians working directly for the military, as career military personnel, as veterans, and as civilians working to design and test military aerospace systems.  Thus, I have and continue to benefit directly from the defense industry.  My spouse has a long career in aerospace, in programs that were at one time or are still classified.  Yet, Gates’ proposal has wide support among that community.  One recently-retired colleague sent an email yesterday commenting that actually reading Gates’ proposal led to a far more positive opinion than simply listening to the talking heads.

Read Full Post »

Principle of obstruction

Congressional Republicans like to think that they are standing on principle when opposing President Obama at every opportunity.  But, if that is the case, they are out of step with the majority of Americans.  It is little wonder that their approval rating continues to sink.

It wasn’t surprising that no House Republicans voted in favor of the president’s budget.  But to try to spin the vote as “bipartisan rejection,” as Sen. Mitch McConnell did, because two House Democrats also voted against it is laughable.  I suppose they need to try to find some element of relevance, but they’re not doing themselves any favors in how they’re going about it.  More Republicans voted against their own budget alternative than Democrats who voted against the president’s.  I wonder how they spun that one, since it was a more resoundingly bipartisan rejection.  Sen. McConnell’s assessment? … crickets.

Equally cynical and transparent are the attempts to delay votes on key appointments.  We know that the Senate operates under a series of rules that to most outsiders seem archane, and there are a number of words and terminology not familiar to the average American. Any Senator can put a hold on a nomination for any reason.   While the definition doesn’t add much to the discussion, in essence a hold is a delaying tactic that is short of a filibuster.  Sometimes holds are used as the Senator seeks answers to additional questions from the nominee.  Other times they are used to extract concessions from the Executive Branch.  And sometimes they are simply used as delaying tactics to embarrass both the nominee and the White House and create a chilling effect on some future policy direction.

It seems reasonable to assume that ideological differences is the underlying reason for the holds placed on most of these nominees.  When the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, they demanded that Democrats accede to an “up or down vote.”  Have they suddenly had a change of heart?  Or were their demands then intended to forestall the possibility of a filibuster by Democrats?

Filibusters are an accepted tactic used by the minority party to delay action.  Initially, it was intended to be used to ensure that minority views be heard — to prevent the tyranny of the majority.  Over the years, filibuster and even the threat of filibuster (in the form of a cloture motion requiring 60 votes) has become a tool by which the minority can obstruct the will of the majority — to institute a form of tyranny by the minority. The graph below shows the increasing use of cloture — note particularly the huge spike that began in 2006, as Democrats gained seats in both houses of Congress.  Is it any wonder that Congress manages to get less and less done — or that its approval rating has diminished over the same period!

Senate cloture votes 1947 - 2008 (Source: Wikipedia)

The seating of Al Franken, who won the Minnesota Senatorial seat previously held by Republican Norm Coleman would bring the Democrats within a single vote of being “filibuster-proof.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is simply the most vocal of a number of Republicans working hard to prevent Franken’s seating, even if that means denying the people of Minnesota their constitutionally required two Senators.  Similarly, now that Ted Stevens’ conviction has been thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct, Sarah Palin and others are calling for duly elected Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) to resign his seat so that there can be a special election — in which Stevens would presumably run and possibly win. This is particularly ironic in that Attorney General Holder’s decision does not claim that Stevens was innocent, merely that the actions of the Bush Justice Department were so egregious that the conviction itself was tainted.  The actions of  Republicans vis a vis the Senatorial elections in Minnesota and Alaska and the recent special House election in New York (which is currently tied with thousands of absentee ballots remaining to be counted but where the GOP is already crying foul) would indicate that Republicans don’t have much faith in elections or in the electorate.

Given the GOP actions since they lost control of Congress in 2006, one must ask whether the principle they stand on is the Principle of Obstruction.

Read Full Post »