David Gregory played the May 1st tape to Senator Rubio in reference to his last visit and his answer with regard to being a potential vice-presidential choice of Governor Romney. In that May 1st interview, Mr. Rubio said that he had no desire to be the vice president, but his answer differed today. It wasn't a reversal, but you can tell he's in the running and is interested. He said that he wouldn't discuss anymore at this point, and while that would strike someone as a reversal of thinking, we this answer along with all his other answers of the issues as non-committal, even vague in some places, as if he's triangulating his answers so that they don't fall outside of Governor Romney's positions. Politico's Jonathan Martin used the term 'cautious.' The problem with this is that Mr. Romney himself is yet to fully explain his positions on key issues, such as immigration.
This week the Supreme Court will rule on two major cases, one being the constitutionality of the Arizona immigration law and the other on the Affordable Health Care act. On the former, Senator Rubio said that the Arizona law is constitutional, meaning that law enforcement has the right to demand proof of citizenship if the person is stopped and suspected of wrong-doing. While he thinks this is good for Arizona, he also said that he didn't think it was right for Florida. One of his reasons that he thought it was necessary in Arizona because it's a security matter and then laid the blame at the feet of the federal government for not enforcing the laws.
The Senator's answers are confusing at best. By saying it's right for Arizona, but not Florida, seems to indicate that he's for state solutions, but then he blames the federal government for failure on immigration. But what is the Obama Administration's failure? Mr. Rubio stated that the legal system of immigration is broken so how can we improve the situation for illegal immigrants? The problem with the Arizona law is that it opens up a situation in which law enforcement can demand citizenship proof from anyone - citizen or not - on the spot, and if you can not prove it, you could be detained. We think that most Americans would have a serious problem with someone asking to see 'your papers.' This plays into the general premise that Republican lawmakers are creating legislation that isn't big government, but resembles big brother.
And what of the Dream Act? Mr. Rubio is against it because he says it's 'too broad,' but like Romney, then has no answer as to what to do with the illegal immigrants that are already in this country. Neither politician has offered a solid alternative to the Dream Act to address the ultimate status of these people. Self-deportation, as Mr. Romney has suggested, is not an adequate solution. The core problem, right now, for Republicans is that immigration policy requires temperance and that's something that the core of the party won't bend on. It's a hardline stance that makes it so difficult for Senator Rubio, or Governor Romney who is trying to tact back to the middle on this, to answer honestly. Because of the build up of hardline rhetoric on the side of the Republicans, coming down off of that position for any conservative politician is not viable, hence there can be no compromise.
Mr. Rubio is, in fact, working on a comprehensive immigration bill, but it isn't ready yet. Keeping this in mind and considering his statement today when he said that if he doesn't have every answer to every question on the bill, it's loses credibility, and we respect that kind of thinking. However, in advance of said bill, there are two flags that we'd like to raise. One, the bill needs to be detailed. Unlike Congressman Paul Ryan's budget bill, it must contain specifics. It's why we don't agree with Mr. Ryan's plan - there aren't any specifics. For example, he said that his plan would close loopholes in the tax code, but he doesn't specify which ones. Secondly, and this speaks to the Republicans' tendency to fall into lock-step, the bill should have more than one name attached to it, hence opening it to wider debate. Paul Ryan constructed a budget bill and all Republicans are for it, all of it. Then there will be the Rubio Immigration Bill, and all Republicans will be for all of that. No bill is perfect through and through but by denying openmindedness to amendends, Republicans would have you think differently.
The second decision coming this week, possibly tomorrow, from the Supreme Court is on the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act, specifically the individual mandate. First, just set aside what we know, and that is that Republicans are against the act and Democrats are for it. The debate was highly contentious to say the least, but the bill was passed... by Democrats, and they feel it should be the law. If the roles were reversed, Republicans understandably, justifiably would feel the same way. The problem here is that the Supreme Court is about to make law. Some would say 'no' that's not the case, but the perception is clearly there and in today's media world perception often supplants fact.
During today's panel, the possibility was raised that the Court could strike down the individual mandate, but uphold other parts of the law. They could do that, but that's called legislating. If the court strikes down the individual mandate, they are striking down the law, the entire law and that's how it should be. Then everyone will have to adjust to the consequences of the Supreme Court determining law. What we also find little odd is that everyone seems to feel that the law will indeed be struck down, which just reeks of cynicism, sending the message that everyone understands that the court is partisan and will employ that partisan advantage to a result. The writers of the Constitution did not design the Court to operate in that capacity, but here we are. Governor Richardson got it exactly right, the Supreme Court shouldn't strike down any of the law and shouldn't be making political decisions. And that should stand for both sides.
It's moments like these that remind us of a key phrase Judge Roberts used during his confirmation hearings and that was that he was going to 'call balls and strikes,' implying that there would be no political agenda at work when making decisions. As chief justice, the court's decisions reflect on him and so far, his court has a very high profile, a controversial one that the Supreme Court should absolutely not have. If it were acting in a manner that consistent with calling balls and strikes, then they should keep the same profile as an umpire. We see them on the field, we respect their decisions, but we don't know their names.
Round Table: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Former Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM); POLITICO’s Senior Political
Reporter Jonathan Martin; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs
Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Postscript: We really haven't commented on Mr. Romney's potential vice-presidential running mate too much, though we do have our opinions on it. However, does it matter so much to speculate in this column and devote time to it? Not really. We do feel compelled to comment because after all, this column is based around what is said on Meet The Press and they do discuss the topic. With that in mind, Governor Richardson said that Romney needs a person who would make a splash. That person would be someone such as Condoleezza Rice, who Jonathan Martin said was all the buzz recently in Utah. But we don't see Mr. Romney going that way. The most reasonable, safest pick would be Governor Tim Pawlenty. He governed the moderate state of Minnesota and has a good solid conservative record. He was also an early, vocal Romney supporter, who many thought got out of the race too soon. Aside from the few brief comments, we're content not to speculate and hold for the examination when the choice is finally made.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Sunday, June 10, 2012
6.10.12: The Off Week
Call us creatures of habit that we had to write a post today even though this week's Meet The Press did not air due to French Open coverage. If you're a follower of politics you certainly know that this week was a bad one for the President. Starting with the weak jobs report then moving on to a big Democratic loss in Wisconsin to the President himself making the verbal gaffe by saying that the private sector is fine to the finale of being out fund raised by the Romney campaign by 17 million dollars.
But what may not be so evident is that this week's happenings are a peak at what's to come to come for the United States down the road, and for the sake of off-week candor, it's not good for the American people. Because if you take these incidents and extend them out a bit further, here's what you might see.
In the case of the gubernatorial election in Wisconsin, Scott Walker retained his seat as governor and more significantly, what people are calling it is a death blow to public unions. What Wisconsin showed us is that the unions don't have the muscle anymore to stand up to corporate energy. If you look at the statistics over the past 30 years, you'll see that as union jobs decline so has middle class income. The goals of the Republican Party's corporate benefactors are to crush unions in the private sector to maximize profits, profits that were used to outspend the Democrats approximately 9 to 1. And though Governor Walker exempted the police and firemen from the slashing of negotiating rights (virtually rendering the unions ineffectual), but it's just a matter of time to when they will not be exempt. Eventually, the police and fire unions disappear as well... then what? Following the corporate tact to a farther conclusion, these organizations will become inefficient as Republican politicians advocate for privatization. A for profit police force would be devastating to our culture. Think about it, prisons today have a financial incentive to have more people in prison because they are privately owned with shareholders - the more prisoners, the more profits. So imagine if the same company owned the local jail and the local police force.
Secondly, corporate money is decidedly behind the Republican party. The showed their hand in Wisconsin and then it was proven with the windfall of cash that the Romney campaign received and we think it's only going to get worse. Now that Republicans are beginning to rally around the single candidate, this solely unique candidate that is a representative of the consolidated money hence power structure, the distance in sums will become greater.
And though some say that the money that was injected into the Wisconsin race would have been legal even if the Citizens United Supreme Court case went the other way, Citizens United opened up the flood gates to for corporate entities to operate without having to disclose, hence political agendas with no checks and balances.
A short yet a bit dire column, we know, but we believe the ultimate success of the United States is in striking the right balance between private control and public control of the country's general welfare. And what is most disconcerting is that this balance is being irrevocably damaged, permanently tilting to the side of the private where money and not the general welfare, will be the goal.
But what may not be so evident is that this week's happenings are a peak at what's to come to come for the United States down the road, and for the sake of off-week candor, it's not good for the American people. Because if you take these incidents and extend them out a bit further, here's what you might see.
In the case of the gubernatorial election in Wisconsin, Scott Walker retained his seat as governor and more significantly, what people are calling it is a death blow to public unions. What Wisconsin showed us is that the unions don't have the muscle anymore to stand up to corporate energy. If you look at the statistics over the past 30 years, you'll see that as union jobs decline so has middle class income. The goals of the Republican Party's corporate benefactors are to crush unions in the private sector to maximize profits, profits that were used to outspend the Democrats approximately 9 to 1. And though Governor Walker exempted the police and firemen from the slashing of negotiating rights (virtually rendering the unions ineffectual), but it's just a matter of time to when they will not be exempt. Eventually, the police and fire unions disappear as well... then what? Following the corporate tact to a farther conclusion, these organizations will become inefficient as Republican politicians advocate for privatization. A for profit police force would be devastating to our culture. Think about it, prisons today have a financial incentive to have more people in prison because they are privately owned with shareholders - the more prisoners, the more profits. So imagine if the same company owned the local jail and the local police force.
Secondly, corporate money is decidedly behind the Republican party. The showed their hand in Wisconsin and then it was proven with the windfall of cash that the Romney campaign received and we think it's only going to get worse. Now that Republicans are beginning to rally around the single candidate, this solely unique candidate that is a representative of the consolidated money hence power structure, the distance in sums will become greater.
And though some say that the money that was injected into the Wisconsin race would have been legal even if the Citizens United Supreme Court case went the other way, Citizens United opened up the flood gates to for corporate entities to operate without having to disclose, hence political agendas with no checks and balances.
A short yet a bit dire column, we know, but we believe the ultimate success of the United States is in striking the right balance between private control and public control of the country's general welfare. And what is most disconcerting is that this balance is being irrevocably damaged, permanently tilting to the side of the private where money and not the general welfare, will be the goal.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
6.3.12: What's Fair Game
In this week's critique, some would say that it's an utter failure that this latest jobs report only shows 69,000 jobs created, but we would contest that people's perspectives are out of proportion. If this is an utter failure, what do you call losing 2.6 million jobs in the last year of your term as it did when George Bush was in office. Anyone, reading this column that would criticize that line of questioning, would most probably say that you 'shouldn't look backward, bringing up President Bush is a tired strategy,' or it's simply 'unfair.' Kevin Madden, Mr. Romney's senior adviser used this defense in today's round table discussion saying that Democrats are using the same Bain attacks on Romney today that they did in 1994 when Mr. Romney ran against Ted Kennedy. Additionally, the unemployment rate ticked up a .10 of a percent to 8.2. The reality of which is that more people are re-entering the workforce looking for work, but understandably this is overshadowed by the unemployment number going up, and means that enough jobs haven't been created, and enough hasn't been. The stock market drop is more of a product of the uncertainty of Europe's fiscal problems, not ours.
With that said, the overarching (non)debate issue here is if Mr. Romney's time at Bain Capital is fair game, and for that matter is his religion. Bain Capital is completely fair game. Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) noted that Bain was very good at creating wealth, not jobs. Whether you agree with that statement or not, it's right to debate that merits of that when the person responsible is seeking the office of the President. If Bain Capital also created a lot of jobs, then the debate should also be, something that is not discussed, is what kinds of jobs are those? If creating only jobs that pay the minimum wage, what kind of future is in that? All of these things should be on the table. With regard to Mr. Romney's Mormon religion, it would only be appropriate to debate it if he is making decisions solely based on his religion, theocratic policy making which goes against the Constitution. Otherwise, America is all about believing what you want in terms of religion.
Mr. Patrick brought up another good point that Governor John Kasich (R-OH) took exception, in which is that the President hasn't done enough according to Republicans, the same people that say that the government should do less. Translating Mr. Kasich's argument, the President hasn't done enough to get out of the way and the examples he cited were the over-regulation of the financial industry (Dowd-Frank), the uncertainty of tax policy, and the over-zealous EPA. In the face of such rhetoric, the Democrats are soft in poking holes in the Republican argument. Dowd-Frank was enacted because the financial industry, left to its own devices, made bad bets and never considered the larger repercussions as the money rolled in. Governor Kasich, in regard to tax policy, said that we should cut taxes and eliminate loopholes in the code, but the reality of what Republicans want to do, or won't allow to happen, is in fact the closing of tax loopholes because they have been indoctrinated with the idea that closing loopholes is a tax increase. To this point, Governor Patrick is correct in that Republicans' ideology is being placed ahead of what is the overall good for the country.
And lastly, we feel that Republicans simply don't understand the necessity of the EPA and the longer-term win we would have with the EPA playing a vital role. The EPA should regulate hard to keep our air and water clean, which would translate into lower long-term healthcare costs, and over-time save us money.
Contrary to a prominent American, corporations are not people, and the United States should not be run like a business, and here's why - it's pretty simple. In the Constitution it says that the United States government is to provide for the general welfare of the people. Corporations have no such obligation - the obligation for them is to their shareholders, hardly the general welfare. And corporations are not democracies. So running the United States like a corporation will essentially violate the Constitution in that it will cease on trying to achieve one of its central mandates, providing for the general welfare.
Governor Kasich really had no answer for Mr. Gregory with regard to the fact that Mr. Romney didn't support the auto bailout. Mr. Kasich honed the message as best he could in that he said that there were only 1,800 direct jobs created in the Ohio auto industry sector. The key word there is 'direct.' He's referring to how many jobs the auto makers themselves created... probably. But its the part suppliers and makers, the repair and body shops that have also benefited from the bailout.
Evident in the views of Governor Patrick and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (D) are that government can do good by investing - yes stimulating - in the economy, specifically in infrastructure. However, it is unrealistic that it can be done without any way to finance it. If Republicans truly favor closing loopholes, then we should do that and with the money set up an infrastructure bank - something where there could be consensus, unlike the auto bailout.
Mr. Kasich said that what he's seen during this campaign is that because President Obama doesn't have a plan, he resorts to just attacking Mr. Romney. He went on to say that he was not happy with how the Republicans blew up the budget when he left Congress, but there needs to be an executive in the White House. But George Bush was to be that executive and failed because he tried to run the United States as a business and not a country. Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, during today's round table, answered ever question in these terms, and explained that the President is pitting Americans against each other, but that's not the case. It's really about the unfair influence that big corporations have on our politics. It's what former Senator Bill Bradley was talking about at the end of the program. 'Corrosive' is the word he used, but what it doing is destroying the democratic ideal and transforming our system from what is now a shadow corporatocracy into an overt one. When Governor Kasich says that Washington is dysfunctional, it's not because of Democrats, it's because of the lobbied and monied interests that have unequaled influence in the Capitol, which by the way the Republicans vociferously defend. And we'll just say it right now, because Mr. Castellanos said it twice today, do not use Moses and Mitt Romney in the same sentence. That analogy is disgustingly flawed on many levels, especially when you think that Moses lead his people out of bondage, then applying this analogy in contrasting Mitt Romney to Barack Obama? Please.
Romney Senior Adviser Kevin Madden, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, President of the Center for American Progress Neera Tanden, and Atlanta’s Mayor Kasim Reed (D).
With that said, the overarching (non)debate issue here is if Mr. Romney's time at Bain Capital is fair game, and for that matter is his religion. Bain Capital is completely fair game. Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) noted that Bain was very good at creating wealth, not jobs. Whether you agree with that statement or not, it's right to debate that merits of that when the person responsible is seeking the office of the President. If Bain Capital also created a lot of jobs, then the debate should also be, something that is not discussed, is what kinds of jobs are those? If creating only jobs that pay the minimum wage, what kind of future is in that? All of these things should be on the table. With regard to Mr. Romney's Mormon religion, it would only be appropriate to debate it if he is making decisions solely based on his religion, theocratic policy making which goes against the Constitution. Otherwise, America is all about believing what you want in terms of religion.
Mr. Patrick brought up another good point that Governor John Kasich (R-OH) took exception, in which is that the President hasn't done enough according to Republicans, the same people that say that the government should do less. Translating Mr. Kasich's argument, the President hasn't done enough to get out of the way and the examples he cited were the over-regulation of the financial industry (Dowd-Frank), the uncertainty of tax policy, and the over-zealous EPA. In the face of such rhetoric, the Democrats are soft in poking holes in the Republican argument. Dowd-Frank was enacted because the financial industry, left to its own devices, made bad bets and never considered the larger repercussions as the money rolled in. Governor Kasich, in regard to tax policy, said that we should cut taxes and eliminate loopholes in the code, but the reality of what Republicans want to do, or won't allow to happen, is in fact the closing of tax loopholes because they have been indoctrinated with the idea that closing loopholes is a tax increase. To this point, Governor Patrick is correct in that Republicans' ideology is being placed ahead of what is the overall good for the country.
And lastly, we feel that Republicans simply don't understand the necessity of the EPA and the longer-term win we would have with the EPA playing a vital role. The EPA should regulate hard to keep our air and water clean, which would translate into lower long-term healthcare costs, and over-time save us money.
Contrary to a prominent American, corporations are not people, and the United States should not be run like a business, and here's why - it's pretty simple. In the Constitution it says that the United States government is to provide for the general welfare of the people. Corporations have no such obligation - the obligation for them is to their shareholders, hardly the general welfare. And corporations are not democracies. So running the United States like a corporation will essentially violate the Constitution in that it will cease on trying to achieve one of its central mandates, providing for the general welfare.
Governor Kasich really had no answer for Mr. Gregory with regard to the fact that Mr. Romney didn't support the auto bailout. Mr. Kasich honed the message as best he could in that he said that there were only 1,800 direct jobs created in the Ohio auto industry sector. The key word there is 'direct.' He's referring to how many jobs the auto makers themselves created... probably. But its the part suppliers and makers, the repair and body shops that have also benefited from the bailout.
Evident in the views of Governor Patrick and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (D) are that government can do good by investing - yes stimulating - in the economy, specifically in infrastructure. However, it is unrealistic that it can be done without any way to finance it. If Republicans truly favor closing loopholes, then we should do that and with the money set up an infrastructure bank - something where there could be consensus, unlike the auto bailout.
Mr. Kasich said that what he's seen during this campaign is that because President Obama doesn't have a plan, he resorts to just attacking Mr. Romney. He went on to say that he was not happy with how the Republicans blew up the budget when he left Congress, but there needs to be an executive in the White House. But George Bush was to be that executive and failed because he tried to run the United States as a business and not a country. Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, during today's round table, answered ever question in these terms, and explained that the President is pitting Americans against each other, but that's not the case. It's really about the unfair influence that big corporations have on our politics. It's what former Senator Bill Bradley was talking about at the end of the program. 'Corrosive' is the word he used, but what it doing is destroying the democratic ideal and transforming our system from what is now a shadow corporatocracy into an overt one. When Governor Kasich says that Washington is dysfunctional, it's not because of Democrats, it's because of the lobbied and monied interests that have unequaled influence in the Capitol, which by the way the Republicans vociferously defend. And we'll just say it right now, because Mr. Castellanos said it twice today, do not use Moses and Mitt Romney in the same sentence. That analogy is disgustingly flawed on many levels, especially when you think that Moses lead his people out of bondage, then applying this analogy in contrasting Mitt Romney to Barack Obama? Please.
Romney Senior Adviser Kevin Madden, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, President of the Center for American Progress Neera Tanden, and Atlanta’s Mayor Kasim Reed (D).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)