#sotu : Look, I like President Obama but...

Hey, make no mistake, I'm positive the country is in far better shape than it would have been with anyone else in office the past 7 years.

It's an undisputed fact that given a largely hostile congress over 3/4 of his presidency, great things have at least been attempted.

• I don't deny that getting healthcare for those that didn't even have the option because of a pre-existing condition or lack of an employer sponsored plan is a good thing.
• I don't deny that throwing a lifeline to the American auto industry saved the last vestige of American manufacturing.
• I don't deny that because of programs like HARP and mortgage lending reform families are still in their homes.
• I don't deny that there's been some improvement in how student loan programs are administered.
• I don't deny that some people that didn't have work after the financial meltdown have managed to find something.

But let's get real here.  

There's a lot of fuzzy math and hollow declarations of victory to consider.  Let's start with the thing that makes everyone's world go round, money...

Banking reform has been largely toothless and your money can be just as much at risk as it was before the crash.  Worse, many of the people who caused the financial crisis are still holding the reigns and are even richer today than they were 8 years ago.

It's no secret that the top 3% hold more than 1/2 the nation's wealth and that's not going to change anytime soon. The tax rate isn't going to move if you're a billionaire and in spite of claims to the contrary there's little desire on either side of the aisle to change that when campaign coffers are frequently filled by that top 3%.

Many of which made their billions on subprime lending, oil futures and predatory credit and collection practices.  The rest made their money on Wall street which favors those businesses that keep their overhead low ( AKA Wages) and profits high.  So what has the Obama presidency done about all this inequity?

The "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" or CFPB.  Look, the old dogs haven't changed their tricks.  The best that can be said of the CFPB is that your credit card statement is a little easier to read.  Oh yeah, and they win "symbolic" lawsuits against defunct diploma mills.  

BUT...

It hasn't stopped abusive junk debt buyers from hounding hapless victims over debts long past any statute of limitations.  The only defense, an expensive legal action or bankruptcy..  With millions still in financial distress due to the financial meltdown, look for this to only get worse over the next few decades.

Speaking of money, don't get me started on student loans.  There's been a lot of flowery, happy talk over President Obama's tenure but unless you're a newly minted high school graduate don't expect much relief.

Yes it's true.  Under this President Federally backed student loans are now administered by the Department of Education not greedy "servicers" who made billions by fleecing borrowers.  A practice that was often in collusion with private schools with shady reputations charging more per credit hour than Princeton or Harvard.

But if you're not 20 something, things aren't much different.  Yes, your payments may be tied to your income and not exceed 10% but that's been available  for over a decade.  It was one of the options you had when you consolidated your school loans.  Which many did mostly because their interest rate was higher than they were paying for their mortgage and frequently so was the monthly payment.

Still, nothing's been done or even mentioned about the last remaining loophole that all those "servicers"  milk.  That being the scourge of capitalized interest which over time can swell a $25000 loan to $40000 over a decade.  If your student loan originated sometime around Bush 2's second term or before then you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Of course the reason most people go to college is to get a better job.  Nobody wants to be relying on Walmart or Burger King to support a family.  Yet that's the bulk of all those "new" jobs out there unless you count the dead end $10 per hour jobs that have sprung up in call centers in all of those "right to work" states.  

Every State of the Union address uses fuzzy math.  Speech writers pick and choose the most favorable of statistics to present a glowing picture.  Only once in the past century has a sitting president had to admit that the state of the union wasn't so hot.  Say what you will about Gerald Ford but at least he was honest about it!

So when I keep hearing about that magical 5% unemployment rate it drives me insane.  Much like President Bush 41's clueless V.P, Dan Quayle pointing to a Help Wanted sign at a Burger King as a sign of economic recovery on the 1992 campaign trail I don't see the substance in the numbers.  It's still harder than it should be for talented people to get the kind of work that they not only deserve but in most cases went into substantial debt for.  

What those numbers don't count are the millions who've given up not because of laziness but rather due to a lack of opportunities.  It's a common practice in technical fields, for example, to post positions with no intention of filling them in hopes of importing cheaper talent through work visas.  A practice nobody has addressed in any substantial way.  CEO's decry the lack of skilled labor pools while simultaneously dismissing experienced but "expensive" talent.

Lest we forget those who've long since fallen off the unemployment rolls.  2008 was almost a decade ago and many still haven't recovered.  Nor are they counted.

More fuzzy math.  According to the White House's own website the current rate of Americans without health insurance has dropped to 8.8%.  An attractive number to campaign on but just like the unemployment figures, largely meaningless.

The Affordable Care Act was supposed to get everyone medical insurance at an affordable rate.  Thing is, the only way the government can possibly know how many people are covered with any degree of certainty is through tax filings.  It asks you right on the form and if you answer in the negative then you get to figure out your penalty.

But if you're making less than $11000, chances are you're not filing taxes and considering many people are only finding low wage part time work that number could be huge.  

More fuzzy math.  Worse, many of those who've signed up for the ACA have found that their premiums and co-pays have in some cases doubled. 

Regardless of claims to the contrary, the only thing the Affordable Care act has done is to swell the coffers of insurance companies and punish those who often find the penalty cheaper than the insurance premiums!   It's a plan the Insurance companies love.  And why not?  It was their lobbyists that influenced the legislation and effectively killed any hope of a single payer, nationalized health care system.  Add a profit motive to a government mandated program and a whole lot of nothing happens.  Sure there's a few who benefit, good for them but most of us haven't.

The saddest part of the whole speech came near the end where the President essentially told working age people in their 40's and 50's, tough luck.  Too bad if you found your personal economy destroyed by a few greedy people peddling mortgages to Burger King employees.  If you're over 40 your best bet is to just wait it out till Social Security kicks in.  So much for hope and change.

It's not that I think President Obama is a bad president.  In fact I'm confident that he was the right guy at the right time.  Anyone else would likely have seen the "Great Recession" truly descend into another "Great Depression." 

Still, even the President had to grudgingly admit that all this economic growth has benefited those at the top of the money tree the most.  The rest of us are still fighting over scraps. 

You can thank a congress more concerned with vendettas and cronyism than meaningful legislation for that.  The past 8 years have been more about who gets to marry who and dismantling healthcare reforms than anything else.  Expect more of the same if another Democrat takes over.  It's been an 8 year grudge match that even extended to his own party.  So it's no wonder that much of President Obama's agenda has amounted to less than was hoped for.

While the President's speech was hopeful and steadfast in his determination he knows that with a lame duck presidency and an obstinate congress his words will ultimately  ring hollow.  Look at the speech as nothing more than a platform for his successor,

Cord Cutting or A La' Carte, in the End it's All the Same

Article first published as Cord Cutting or A La' Carte, in the End it's All the Same on Technorati.

Last week Senator John McCain (R-AZ) took to the Senate floor with a proposal that seeks to lower your cable TV bill.   His proposal is to allow anyone who has cable or satellite television service to do something previously unheard of in the industry.  That is, only pay for what they want to watch.

A belief shared by McCain's colleague across the aisle, Senator Jay Rocefeller (D- VA)

"...rather than being able to pick smaller packages or choose the channels they want, consumers are still forced to purchase larger and larger packages of channels no matter how few they actually watch. This says to me that the market isn't working."

The Senate Commerce committee is scheduled to take up McCain's bill in a hearing on Tuesday (5-14.)

McCain's assertion is based on a solid premise.  Look at any cable or satellite TV provider and you find that all their programming is bundled into packages or tiers.  The only a la' carte options you have are for the so-called premium stations like HBO or Showtime which by themselves can cost an additional $10 a month or more and in some cases also come as part of a bundle.

Gone are the days of $20/mo basic cable.  A subscriber can easily find a bill of $50 or more per month with no premium channels.   Add HBO and a few HD channels and that bill is closer to $125.

In the end you ultimately end up subsidizing channels you don't watch.  That's because providers negotiate not with HBO or AMC but rather their parent companies like Viacom and Time Warner.  It's an all or nothing deal that can cause a disagreement over licensing fees on one channel to affect a dozen others.  That's why a tiff between a service like DirectTV and Viacom leaves subscribers with multiple blank channels instead of content. 

Cable industry lobbyists are against McCain's proposal claiming it's a "lose-lose" for both customers and providers as evidenced in an official statement from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

"As countless studies have demonstrated, subscription bundles offer a wider array of viewing options, increased programming diversity and better value than per channel options,"

Of course that assumes that the "wider array" is something you actually care to watch.  Even if you don't,  you're going to pay for it anyway and that's the logic of their claimed "win-win."

This is the rationale that's led to cord cutters who've turned primarily to online media sources like NetFlix and Hulu.  Unfortunately, legitimate online sources still can only offer a fraction of the content enjoyed by the traditional delivery model.  Unless you've got an HBO subscription, for example, you're not going to see "Game of Thrones" on the same day it airs unless you turn to illegitimate sources.

That's due to a reluctance of channel owners like Viacom to embrace online options that would lead to greater consumer choice but a less predictable revenue model.    It's flawed logic, however.

If you're a cord cutter it's probably not of any great consequence to you  about what happens to pay TV subscription rates but you're going to be affected all the same.   

With online bellwethers like YouTube launching paid channels it may seem like online TV options are poised to offer what traditional pay TV won't.    If the industry is forced into the a la' carte model, however, online TV will soon end up looking like it's broadcast predecessor.

You may be able to pick and choose from a few sources but likely run headlong into the same bundling schemes as traditional pay TV.  That's because the channels don't own the content, their parent company does and it's up to them to decide how it gets distributed. 

Add in the more targeted paid online options and soon you'll be paying as much if not more than if you'd never cut that cable.  Lest we forget data caps imposed by most Internet providers that could result in a nasty surprise in that bill if you enjoy HD content.

In short, the old guard of broadcast television has nothing to fear as one way or another we'll still end up paying more no matter how we choose to view their content.

Taking the most from the least of us

These days you'd be excused if you wondered whom your elected representatives were actually representing. 

Locked in a battle of ideology where there is no middle ground it's left those with the most to lose in a veritable no-man's land.  If you've suffered the fallout you're living a precarious existence subject to the whims of the political machine.

The proof is easy to find.

The long term unemployed have found their benefit periods drastically reduced and with the looming threat of sequester the size of those checks as well. 

State run healthcare programs have already been denying benefits to the unmarried or childless and reduced benefits and tightened eligibility for the rest..   Even Planned Parenthood and other providers of women's health services nationwide have seen their public funding evaporate based on nothing more than anti-abortion rhetoric . 

While conservatives wage war on social programs, liberals can do little more than act as a backstop even with control of the White House and the Senate.  Progressive legislation frequently finds itself gutted in favor of getting something, anything passed through congress no matter how toothless the legislation.

Wall street doesn't seem to care either way.  In this battle they may as well be the war profiteers taking full advantage of the spoils.  They can literally have their cake and eat it too.  Public policy be damned or more likely ignored so long as the shareholders are happy. 

It's no doubt they will be.

Give the working man a little more cash and they'll happily feed the economy and fill corporate coffers.  Suppress their wages while systematically dismantling a century of labor law and your fortune's made on the backs of a subjugated workforce. 

So as ideologies clash and items like tax reform and infrastructure rebuilding give way to naming post offices  and the minting of commemorative coins, state governments and big business are taking advantage of the lack of governance. 

Look no further for evidence than the state of Arizona now famous for its "Show me your papers" legislation otherwise known as SB1070. 

A week ago their state legislature decided that it was just too easy to get unemployment insurance after conservative business leaders found a sympathetic ear at the state capitol.  For their trouble they got a measure through the state House and Senate to require applicants to provide written documentation from their former employer of their involuntary dismissal from their jobs.

As written, the measure is so biased against the unemployed that all an employer has to do is not provide the applicant with required documentation and the claim can denied.  

Considering funding for the state's unemployment insurance fund comes from employers it's likely the unemployment rate in Arizona will soon drop to 0% in the next 6 months.  Whew! budget crisis solved!

Yes, that's sarcasm...

By the way, Arizona has one of the lowest maximum weekly benefit payments in the country at $240 second only to Mississippi.   Yeah, the gravy train is over you unemployed slackers .

To hear supporters of the measure you'd believe that getting unemployment insurance in Arizona required nothing more than having a social security number and a pulse.  With approximately 75,000 of the state's population of 6.5 million people still on the unemployment rolls (down from 200,0000 in 2010) it's hard to characterize their position as anything but cruel.

The U.S. Department of Labor has already "raised concerns" about the bill's legality under federal law.  Oh yeah, and Arizona's official unemployment rate was still at 8% in January.

Here's another one.  CVS Pharmacy has decided that they need to keep tabs on their employees vital statistics.  Employees covered by the company's health plan are required to provide information such as weight, body fat and other health information or be assessed a $50 per month fee on top of their insurance premiums.    In other words CVS employees can comply with this violation of their privacy or pay a penalty.
 

So if you're collecting unemployment or refuse to submit to employer inquiries about your private health information apparently you're part of the problem.  Meanwhile Washington lets it happen.

We're not talking about forcing millionaires to drive down to a homeless shelter and pass out fistfuls of $20 bills.  It's about subjugating a population already suffering the ravages of a withering economy and a congress impotent to address their concerns.

In the vacuum that's been left, Wall Street soars and so do  the numbers of the less fortunate as they further descend into poverty.  They find a social safety net with ever widening gaps and an indignant conservative leadership holding the scissors.  Worse, the supposed liberal champions of the downtrodden offer little more than lip service.

Twenty years ago this country was facing similar hurdles but ideology wasn't allowed to completely  trump reason.  The result may not have pleased everyone but at least allowed things to move forward.  Brinksmanship was a threat not a foundation for policymaking. 

Actions have consequences, Isaac Newton knew it and apparently so did Matthew, you know the guy from that book Pat Robertson likes to read out of...

"And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Matthew25-40

By the way, I'm not religious but that last one makes perfect sense to me...

           

Mail Run?

Mailed a letter lately?

Yeah, me either except when I need to stuff a bunch of mail into an envelope and send it off to relatives that haven't lived at my address for 3 years.  I have to do that because the last time I tried to get a forwarding order for them all the mail, including mine, went to their new address.

It took almost two years to straighten out that mess. 

Which really makes me wonder what I've been paying for over the past decade of regular postage rate increases.  Since 1991 the cost of a first class stamp has risen 17 cents.  Meanwhile, the post office has been reducing hours, cutting staff and playing outsourcer for UPS and FEDEX. 

Ok, so we've all heard the jokes about poor service, rude employees and mishandled mail.  Almost immediately after the advent of electronic messaging the postal service earned the moniker of "snail mail."

So now comes news less than a month after the latest rate hike that you won't be getting any mail on Saturdays  Packages will still be delivered but that's about it.  The move is supposed to save some 2 billion dollars but even Postmaster General Donahoe knows it's not enough. 

Donahoe's been "officially" claiming Internet messaging and carrier competition is driving down revenue and putting him in the red. 

In reality, the reason for the nation's mailman being in such dire straits has nothing to do with business operations.  It has to do with an accumulation of  20 Billion in debt since 2006 thanks to a document called the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. 

Regardless of the spin, no amount of cost cutting or employee attrition can offset it.

You've heard of taxation without representation, right? 

Well, if the postal service were a real person it would be the poster child for it.  You know, just like corporations are people to certain political parties. 

Technically, the postal service is not a government agency but a public entity created by the constitution.  Only congress has authority over it.  Unfortunately, that also makes it a vulnerable to politics.  The same kind of politics that have been seeking to privatize more and more public entities like Medicare, Social Security and now the U.S. Postal service. 

You see, the problem with the Postal Service has nothing to do with the Internet or competition from other carriers.  It has to do with a burden placed on it by congress that mandates that it fully fund pensions for 75 years.    No other federal entity under the authority of congress is required to do this.  In fact it actually funds pensions for employees that will likely never be hired.  Do the math and you'll soon find that an unfair burden has turned a successful business model into a organization starved for resources and failing.   

While First class mail has been on the decline, parcel shipments have been on the rise according to Donahoe's own charts.  Without the extra burden of an overfunded pension plan there'd be no deficit and no corresponding need to cut anything.  And there's the rub.

Donahoe either has no clue about what's wrong with the postal service (unlikely) or he's trying to bluff congress into fixing the real problem.  If he is, he runs the risk of turning public opinion against him with fewer service days and higher prices.  With a 113th congress much more receptive to the electorate than its predecessor that could spell final doom for the U.S. mail. 

You've placed your bet Mr. Postmaster, let's hope you're holding a royal flush.

                        

Of fallacies and firearms

It's no secret that the furor over gun control given recent events has overshadowed even the economy as the issue at the forefront of most people's minds.  Violent acts against the innocent, especially children,  shock us out of our complacency turning even the most apathetic into fair weather activists. 

So it's no surprise that the cause du jour on capitol hill is stamping out those things perceived as encouraging the worst aspects of humanity.  Perhaps more correctly, the lack of said humanity.  

Guns, video games and violent movies are easy targets with many proposing removal or strict regulation could provide society with a kind of pacifism vaccine.  Others see such action as an erosion of  civil liberties and further evidence of the heavy hand of big government. 

They're both wrong...

If you believe in the rhetoric of the NRA you probably think the government is somehow just over the next hill coming to take away your right to defend yourself.  Their defense is distraction suggesting that perhaps the opposition got one thing right. 

Yes of course!  It's those violent video games, says the NRA, that turns normal human beings into inhuman murderers urged on by the virtual bloodbath that is Starcraft 2!  The opposition is quick to point out, however, that nobody's ever been murdered by a video game no matter how violent.

The opposition is no better, however.  The proverbial baby is thrown out with the bathwater seeking to eliminate all that is perceived to be unpleasant or an affront to civil society.  To them, the government may be imperfect but its judgment ultimately superior for the sake of the public good.

The problem with regulation for the "public good" is that it often treads on civil liberties.  Look no further than internment camps detaining Japanese-American citizens during World War 2.  Of course most people aren't aware of history past Ronald Reagan's presidency so a more recent example may be in order.

There were laws put in place for the "public good" not so long ago that allow warrant less wire taps and searches under powers granted by the ironically named "Patriot Act."

All ammunition (no pun intended) for the Tea Party crowd. 

I'm going to attempt to bring this all together for you so bear with me.

First, the biggest fear of gun advocates is government "interference" with the ownership of their weapons.  They feel that government regulation seeks to eventually leave them defenseless and subjugated to an oppressive regime. 

The most extreme of the group will stockpile quantities of assault weapons in preparation for the coming "showdown."  They also frequently cite the second amendment to the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence as the foundation for their beliefs.  The right to obtain any weapon they choose without obstruction is to their mind central to a constitutionally protected right to overthrow an oppressive government.

Two major, glaring problems with those lines of reasoning.

First, all it takes is one well placed shot from a shoulder launched missile and your little revolution is over.  That's assuming they even bother to send troops and instead just have a drone take you out.

Second, there's a flaw in their logic concerning the constitutional basis for their position.  The Declaration of Independence was written as a response to the oppression of King George on the colonies not the United States.  You can copy and paste if you want but you can't cite the original for your position. 

Turning to the Constitutional argument.  The Second Amendment allows citizens to defend themselves from an invading foreign army via an organized state militia otherwise known as the National Guard.  That's it folks, nothing more, put those A-Team and Rambo fantasies to bed.

Nobody wants to be defended by an unruly band of weekend warriors running around humming the theme to the Green Berets.

Does anyone actually believe that any government document would be written with a provision to allow its own overthrow?  Sorry, but expecting constitutional protections from the very government you oppose is utter nonsense. 

One more thing, extremists are generally not good students of history and forget that there would never have been a United States without help.  Countries like France and Spain provided money, munitions and even troops to the fledgling nation.  Admittedly born more out of a hatred for Britain and economic opportunism than any great magnanimity. 

With British warships effectively blockading all major ports and choking commerce the American  revolution could have been nothing more than a skirmish without outside help.  Great Britain could have simply starved the rebellious colonies out much like the UN uses economic sanctions to punish rogue states. 

So unless you've got some superpower-sized assistance lined up, best forget your revolution and put your guns back in the trophy case.  Of course I'm probably completely wrong so I invite you to find the nearest mountain cabin from which to plot your revolution.  Let me know how that works out for you. 

Hey, at least you'll get your 15 minutes of fame on CNN before they move on to the latest Kardashian fiasco.

On the other side of the aisle, the expectation of the ideal violence-free society resembling something out of a Woodstock hallucination is equally flawed.

Congress seems to have an affinity for regulation.  Problem is, it's usually for the wrong things.  Classify Marijuana as a controlled substance and they create a booming illegal underground market.  Relax FDA regulations and late night television is crowded with ads for lawyers participating in class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies. 

There used to be an assault weapons ban but it was given an expiration date like a container of milk.  I suppose that was so they'd be safer when they became legal again...

The problem with regulation is that it's black and white when there should be shades of gray and vice versa. 

Remember when congress managed to give away 700 Billion dollars to bail out Wall street interests in 2008?  You'd think that kind of investment of public funds would have some kind of oversight, right?  Not only was the 3 page bill passed with virtually no accountability for the recipients but with specific language to prevent it. 

There were regulations passed to be overseen by the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but the agency is largely toothless in its enforcement.  It's forced to depend on the good graces of the entities it monitors.  The foxes are assumed to be on their best behavior in the hen house.

Of course, a lobby-fed congress being necessary to the security of the state...  Yes, I did it, I ripped off the second amendment for that.  And why not, it might as well be in the bill of rights. 

Deregulation of the financial markets over the past 3 decades created a fertile environment for the Wall street sideshow.  A performance that resulted in the world's economy coming to the brink of collapse.  Still, even in a period of time short enough to match the average attention span lobbyists keep congress from passing meaningful reforms in the financial market.

 So can we actually expect congress to pass meaningful legislation about anything?  Their history is to either provide toothless agencies hampered by legislative loopholes you can drive a truck through or to disenfranchise an entire segment of the population.

I'm personally frustrated by the reactionary politicians that cause this mess.  They're always on the lookout for the quick fix that'll play well to the short attention span of the constituency.  You need only look at the recent Republican Presidential campaigns for evidence.  They actually tried to use current economic conditions to unseat a sitting president, for example. 

Never mind that the country was still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  To the Mitt Romney's and Ben Quayle's, the economy should have recovered in 90 days.  Let's also not forget about the congressional logjam fueled by ideologies that only served to further delay any recovery.

What does all this have to do with gun control?  Simple, it's not about the subject, it's about the process.  We'll either get overreaching legislation or nothing at all. 

My proposal?  Quit blaming the straw man.  It's not the guns, video games, or violent media causing these bloodthirsty rampages. No, It's a flawed system easily taken advantage of by a disturbed individual at a gun show.  It's the unsecured weapon in the home of a troubled teenager.  It's not incorporating technologies into weapons that only allow them to operate when keyed to a specific owner.  So called Smart guns have been in development for the past decade by the way but adoption's been blocked by groups like the NRA citing privacy issues. 

We're required to be tested and licensed to operate a motor vehicle.  That vehicle is required to be registered to operate on the public roadways.  At any time law enforcement can, for cause, stop you if they suspect a violation of the law. 

Most of us accept those conditions to participate in our daily commute.  Why then should there be an issue with registering a device whose very design is intended to harm?  Now, don't try to paint me with a broad brush for that.  I really could care less what kind of firearm you own so long as you're willing to take responsibility for it. 

You can be sure that if you blow the front of my house off with a military surplus RPG, however, I'm going to be showing up at your door.  I would not, however, suggest that you couldn't have it rather just that I and everyone else knows that you do. 

LG 3D glasses - Purchase select LG TVs and receive 2 FREE 3D glasses

Does that mean the police are going to show up every time somebody's house gets blown up by a rocket?  Probably, but it comes with the territory. 

It's no different than the police escort you'll get every rush hour because you happen to be driving an "arrest me Red" Corvette.

It comes down to taking personal responsibility for your actions.  If you don't want the government interfering with your "rights" then you're going to need to join civil society and ditch the Rambo fantasies.

We're never going to completely eliminate the possibility of a determined psychopath causing another Sandy Hook no matter how strict our gun laws are.  There is a better chance of heading it off, however, by requiring gun owners to take personal responsibility for their actions.  That comes from measures like registration, background checks, training and smart gun technology.

I'm putting the onus on you, not the government, not the entertainment industry nor the NRA to solve the problem of gun violence.  You're the one with the guns.

Status Quo is Latin for "the way things are" and it's not going to work anymore.  Change will happen and it's best to have a say in it unless you're comfortable with someone else doing your thinking for you...

Yeah, I didn't think so...

Everything in Moderation, Politics on the Brink

Article first published as Everything in Moderation, Politics on the Brink on Technorati.

American political coverage is best consumed raw and in small doses free of commercial influence.   I'm not a political junkie by any means so I choose my sources carefully.  Lately it's seems the arguments have degenerated into nothing more than skewed utopian fantasies packaged for traditional media sources.  That leads me to C-span for what I at least believe to be unfiltered political news and events.

The first bit of programming I encountered in my latest consumption was coverage of the Arizona Republican party's Lincoln day lunch and straw poll with guest of honor Rick Santorum, darling of the Tea Party conservatives.

 After his speech the local right wing heroes were paraded up one by one starting with the recently recalled Arizona State Senator, Russell Pearce.  Badly in need of a speechwriter, his poorly constructed message included sexual references and a joke about somebody's scrotum as well as the obligatory "yay for us" message.  No substance there.

He was followed by the equally infamous Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (currently under Federal investigation for criminal abuse of power) who spent most of his time at the podium playing the wounded victim of all those "nasty Democrats."  Not much of substance there either aside from his announcement that he's going to present his report on President Obama's birth certificate on March 1st. In the same breath he proclaimed how he didn't go looking for media attention.   Truly your tax dollars at work.

It's no wonder Arizona was the last territory to achieve statehood in the continental 48. 

Later on I watched part of a program on the Occupy Wall Street Strategy forum where a collection of progressive activists calling themselves the San Francisco 99 percent Coalition spoke of the current ills of capitalism and government in general. 

At a forum held at a San Francisco Unitarian church, guests included: Democrat Rocky Anderson,( Salt Lake City Mayor from 2000 to 2008), Dave Welsh (US Labor Against the War and the San Francisco Labor council), Margaret Flowers (Pres. Candidate and Occupy DC organizer) as well as Tom Gallagher (former Mass. state rep and Progressive Democrats of America . 

The meeting was moderated by Rose Aguilar of KALW Radio and was a veritable gallery of Left wing activists with representation ranging from Democrats to self-proclaimed Socialists.  There was no room for moderates with more than one participant accusing President Barack Obama of being a Republican.  Another audience member overtly suggested the end of capitalism in Toto. 

What was striking in both examples was the extreme viewpoints being offered as a moderate position.  Nothing short of complete capitulation to their ideology would satisfy either assembly.  Should these two groups ever occupy the same room I have no doubt that blood would spill.

It's almost amusing when you consider that both sides basically want the same thing.  Both seek to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.  Of course the most heated exchanges generally concern what constitutes a baby.

There was another program I watched between these two.  It was a discussion with Peter Orszag (Former director of the Office and Management and Budget under the Obama Administration) on the economy and reasons for its slow recovery.  Like any presentation on economics there were lots of charts and references to indicators of one sort or another.  There was one chart I found particularly interesting, however.  The chart showed a relationship between the decline of political moderates and the economy.  It seems there is a direct relationship between political ideology in Washington and the speed and strength of an economic recovery. 

With division in congress rising to a level on par with the first Continental Congress circa 1786, it appears that extreme ideology not only degenerates the discussion but the economy as well.  With the decline in political moderates and the polarization of the two dominant political parties it's no surprise that compromise comes only after brinkmanship. 

Ultimately it seems that extreme political views serve no productive purpose other than to foster political gridlock and sound bites for a depraved mass media.  In a country with a voracious appetite for reality shows that sensationalize conflict it's not surprising that political antagonism is so popular on the news.  Both political camps use ever escalating rhetoric to espouse radical views they can't reasonably hold.

 It's unlikely that extreme conservatives at the Lincoln day luncheon would choose to live in Hitler's Germany any more than progressives at the occupy wall street event would choose Soviet Russia.  In that light, extremism has no merit as "My way or the highway" rarely provides either outcome.

State of the Union 2012 (Updated)

Funny how a year later almost nothing has changed...

Item's in parentheses are updated information.

Originally published on Technorati as State of the Union 2012.

At least nobody shouted "You Lie!" during the speech.  

Still, it wasn't difficult to distinguish party affiliation during the hour long oratory.  Most Republican's remained seated for most of it with politely folded hands and a 10000 yard stare.

With at least a cursory level of decorum on display in the House chambers last night we witnessed the 2012 edition of the State of The Union with President Barack Obama presiding.

The economy took precedence as the primary focus of the speech with new tax incentives for companies that create jobs domestically while removing them from those that create them elsewhere.    A new investigative unit called the Trade Enforcement Unit is charged with investigating unfair trade practices and monitoring the flow of counterfeit  and unsafe products into the U.S.

Free trade agreements between the U.S. and South Korea, Colombia and Panama were also touted as helping to increase trade and move American products into foreign markets.
(During the election these agreements that had bipartisan support in both houses were used as political barbs by the Republican party)

The president also encouraged private/public partnerships to retrain unemployed workers for technical jobs that otherwise remain unfilled.  He went on to cite the example of a single mother displaced from her job as a mechanic in North Carolina.

" Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie’s tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant."

(This initiative has gone nowhere sacrificed on the altar of the year's budget wrangling)

The cost of higher education was also addressed with an admonition to post secondary institutions to keep tuition costs down or risk the loss of public funding. 
(A great idea but a toothless mandate although new Federal student loans are no longer administered by private servicers.  Pre-existing loans have seen little to no change)

There was also mention of the need to address immigration issues regarding foreign born students studying in the U.S. who are deported because of their technically illegal status.  The President used this as an example to highlight the need for immigration reform.  From the Speech,

 " The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan (It did) , let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country"

The President also encouraged support for small businesses by allowing easier access to financing and tax incentives for providing better wages and job creation.  He went on to propose the elimination of unnecessary and cumbersome Federal regulations exemplified by the example of dairy farmer's requirement to comply with federal regulations regarding cleanup after a milk spillage because milk was classified as an oil. 

He went on to mention the need for investment in renewable energy and cited support of domestic exploration of energy resources.
(So long as oil, coal or natural gas is considered renewable, there isn't a problem for conservative lawmakers.  Public investment has been largely blocked by congressional deadlock)

The President also called for investigation of risky and abusive behavior of those in the financial industry by  a new Financial Crimes Unit under the supervision of the Attorney General of The U.S.

(Apart from heated questioning of mortgage bankers during Senate hearings, this too was largely a toothless mandate)

In his speech he highlighted the need for cooperation across party lines concerning budgetary and tax fairness issues.  The President also proposed a ban on insider trading for members of congress to curtail the influence of business lobbyists on politicians. 
("Fairness" is apparently an ambiguous term even a year later)

The measure would prevent members of congress from owning stocks in companies that they have a direct influence over or from.

(This did get through congress)

Recognition of the Military's success in eliminating Osama Bin Laden  was mentioned when the President said,

 "For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country."

(Even conservatives had to admit this fact but the political machine did its best to bury it)

The President also stressed  the need to support returning Veterans with funding for the VA and tax incentives to employers who hire veterans returning from service.

(Current budget negotiations still have VA funding on the chopping block.  A number of private funding organizations have sprang up to try to fill the gap)

As with any State of the Union we've come to expect a high level of political ideology and a wish list of associated ideals from the Executive branch.  Regardless of the motivations that craft the annual Presidential address it's understood that most of the admonitions will not come to pass. 

The Republican response to the speech from Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, for example,  was either diametrically opposed to the majority of the content or focused on election year political rhetoric.   A notable quote from the governor, "  he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse:"

(Neither can you you governor)

For the previous 4 decades the ideologies of both political parties have prevented true bi-partisanship. The result had been either congressional deadlock or biased legislation in favor of the ideals of the party in power.  

Unfortunately we are a nation of strong ideologies with political parties locked in a battle between the 20th century's New Deal and the 19th Century's industrial expansion.  Both have their merits and deficiencies but neither  is compatible with the other.  Unfortunately, more often than not this makes for an environment hostile to compromise that no well crafted oratory can overcome.

If the State of the Union serves no other purpose it at least exemplifies the constituent components  of the ideologies that prevent progress.