We may not know for some time what the true results of this third straight "change" election are to be. There are likely to be twists and turns and occasional surprises. However, what we have learned is that the mid-term victories by the Republicans have clearly emboldened them.
While most polling data has supported the notion that no one is in love with Republicans (they in fact, have a lower favorability rating than the Democrats), and John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Marco Rubio have all spoken with some humility since their big night on November 3rd, the truth is, they have no intention of delivering on the compromise that the majority of voters are hoping for.
Aside from Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell's gaffe stating that his main priority is to make Barack Obama a "one-term President," a closer look at their recent policy positions showcase a clear desire to be divisive on every issue regardless of public polling or even common sense.
To wit:
--In the face of all evidence to the contrary, Republicans want to extend tax cuts to rich people because it will stimulate growth and create jobs. Really? These tax cuts have been in place for seven plus years, and how has that worked out for us so far? Massive job losses, a recession, and the near collapse of the economic system as we know it. Yeah, it's worked out great. Despite all their talk of wanting to reduce the deficit, they don't even have a plan to pay for the $700 billion revenue loss that would created by the extension of tax cuts to the wealthy. They are actually on record as saying "the tax cuts will pay for themselves." What planet have they been living on the last several years?
--So, the rich should get a massive tax cut, but what about the nearly 10% of Americans that don't have a job? In an effort to fast track an extension of unemployment benefits that are set to expire on November 30th for millions of Americans, House Republicans blocked the measure from going forward. Happy Thanksgiving and Merry Christmas to you, you lazy, out of work bastards! The cost of extending these benefits is about $30 billion. Or about 4% of what tax cuts for the rich would would run us. It's important to note that unemployment benefits are insurance, not just a giveaway. Most of the folks on the unemployment rolls have paid into this fund and now they face being cut off by these Grinchy Republicans. And here's the other thing, extending unemployment benefits is far more stimulative to the economy than tax cuts for rich folk. Why? Because the unemployed spend the money, they don't sit on it. But why let facts get in the way of a little class warfare?
--In another move that strains credulity, last week Republicans successfully filibustered the Paycheck Fairness Act that would allow women to seek unlimited punitive and compensatory damages from companies that display gender bias when it comes to equal pay for an equal day's work. In a country where women still only earn 70% of what a man does, this would seem to be an easy sell. Well, if you believe that then you'd be wrong. In a stunning rebuke of fairness, Republicans in the Senate shot down the bill. Even the two ladies from Maine (Collins and Snowe) voted against bringing the measure forward, arguing that it would be "bad for business." Fairness is bad for business? They should be ashamed of themselves.
--The continual fight over ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell took an interesting turn last week when the preliminary results of a Pentagon study revealed that at least 70% of our men and women in uniform do not believe that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would be detrimental to morale or readiness. A recent poll released by CNN found that 78% of all Americans favor the repeal of DADT as well, So, if the soldiers are ok with it, and the public is ok with it--and by large margins--shouldn't this be a slam dunk? Wrong again, boyo.
Taking the lead for the Republican argument against the repeal is Arizona Senator, John McCain. Or, at least someone who looks and sounds an awful lot like John McCain, but seems to share no resemblance to the formerly honorable public servant that gave the W. a run for his electoral money in 2000. That John McCain has disappeared since giving up all of his standards in a missionary zeal to become President in 2008. McCain once said that if military brass came out in favor of repeal, then he would support it. After Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen did just that, McCain said we needed a study to reflect the concerns of the troops. Now that we have the early returns of said survey, McCain suggested we needed another study to reflect the concerns of the troops. Say what? Is that not exactly what the recent survey does? Interestingly, McCain's own wife, Cindy shot a recently released PSA that favored the repeal and his own very politically active daughter, Meghan, is against DADT as well. Which must make for some very tense dinner table discussions. Of course, Cindy recently said that she supports her husband's position after much was made of her anti-DADT PSA, so clearly, her husband isn't the only one in the family lost in the wilderness of contradictory opinion.
--While Republicans have often lagged behind Democrats in terms of the public trust on issues like the environment and the economy, they have typically held an advantage over the left when it comes to national security. Which makes their current opposition to the ratification of the new START treaty negotiated with Russia completely mystifying.
The original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was proposed by President Reagan and eventually signed by the first President Bush in 1991 (both Republicans, if you're scoring at home). The treaty requires a reduction in nuclear forces by both countries and allows for inspections of each others arsenal to ensure that the treaty was being implemented appropriately. Reagan referred to this as "Trust, but verify." By all reasonable accounts, the treaty has been a tremendous success. Not only has it strengthened our relationship with a former enemy, but it has enhanced our credibility on the national stage when it comes to pushing other countries to reduce and protect their nukes.
However, the original START treaty expired last year. And considering that our relationship with Russia has been somewhat chillier over recent years, the successful negotiation of the continuation of START should be seen as a major success for our nation. But, not so fast say the Republicans. Lead by the other Senator from Arizona (just secede already, will you?), John Kyl, Republicans are pushing for a slow down of that ratification into the new congress of next year when it will clearly be more difficult to get the 2/3 majority required for passage. Why? Because handing Obama a success is worse than enhancing our national security. Let's be clear, this treaty is about more than just Russia. We are currently trying to get Russia to put pressure on Iran to stop their efforts to enrich uranium for the purpose of building themselves into a nuclear power. And that's just the immediate concern. If Republicans can't get behind a measure once proposed and implemented by their own party to better secure nuclear weapons and increase our bargaining position in the Middle East, then what the hell can they get behind?
So, let's recap. The current Republicans in congress are for rich people, corporations, gender and sexual orientation discrimination, cutting off benefits for everyday Americans, and against national security. And here's the scary part, in a couple of months, there's going to be more of them trolling the halls of congress.
It has often been said that "In a democracy, we get the government we deserve." Well, if this is what we deserve, then the hell with what that says about our politicians, what does it say about the people who elected these clowns?
I think it means, we have met the enemy and he is us.
Sumo-Pop
November 17, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
9 Solutions For Our Broken Election System
With the close of the mid-term elections last week, and the beginning to the ramp up to the 2012 election, it occurred to me that this whole system sucks. It has created what can only be called a permanent campaign. Campaigns filled with empty promises, misleading and pervasive political adverts, and the politics of personal destruction.
The whole damn thing is exhausted and ineffective. Too often we end up with far less than the best options for public office. Our candidates end up primarily focused on keeping their jobs as opposed to giving us a decent reason as to why they should deserve the gig in the first place. Then--once in office--there seems to be more concern on the part of the official of figuring out how to get re-elected as opposed to being remembered for anything of merit.
So, what to do?
Well, here is my flawed (perhaps), incomplete (probably), and doomed (certainly) prescription for our cracked election system.
Here we go:
1) Term limits for senators and representatives-This is a pretty safe and popular solution that simply lacks political traction (a recurring theme). As voters, we often complain about "career politicians." And we're right to. Why in the world should the president be limited to two terms while members of congress can serve past the point of decrepitude (see Strom Thurmond)? I mean really, why are these guys so damn special? Furthermore, why do senators get a 6 year term and house members only 2?
In the kingdom of Dave, senators and representatives would both get two 4 year terms then they're out. While the current 6 year term for senators is undeniably fatuous, I actually think the two year term for representatives is even worse. It creates a cycle of working for the public good for one year then spending the next year trying to win re-election. So in a sense, we're only getting one year of work versus one year of campaigning. Does this make sense to anyone?
Now, I know the concern would be what happens to the exceptional public servant that might deserve more than two terms. Well, first off, those folks are true exceptions. Secondly, they could still run for other offices outside of the ones they are leaving. And lastly, I wouldn't be against a politician running for senate a third time as long as they sat out one cycle.
Limited terms for all nationally elected politicians would foster an influx of new ideas on a consistent basis while also allowing current office holders the ability to focus on getting things done instead of figuring out how to keep their jobs. Hell, it might even create a climate where courage and bipartisanship actually have a chance.
2) Publicly funded elections-One of the main concerns of most voters is all the money that comes in from outside groups and infects the integrity of the process. We could eliminate this concern by requiring politicians to take only public funding. Can you imagine how interesting it would be if the democratic and republican nominees for presidents had a budget of say, $80 million a piece? We could actually see who could manage a damn budget. That would be worth it's weight in gold. Not only that, but since public funding would come from tax payers instead of corporations, political action committees, and the like, maybe--just maybe--politicians would be more beholden to us than the fat cats who now line their pockets.
3) Non-partisan redistricting-One of the dirty little secrets in American politics is that in most states, the governor's office controls redistricting. This allows whichever party in power to gerrymander districts and increase their chances of taking more house seats in the subsequent election. To give you an example, in my state of Indiana--where the governor is republican, Mitch Daniels--there is much discussion of moving Laporte County out of the 2nd district prior to the 2012 election. Why does this matter? Well, in last week's mid terms, Democrat, Joe Donnelly one re-election by a single percentage point. And, if you take out the results from Laporte County (which went for Donnelly by over 20 points), Donnelly would have been toast. Of course, there may be valid reasons in some circumstances to redistrict. But in this particular instance, the only reason to redistrict is to guarantee the election of a particular party. Not very democratic to say the least. Both sides do this, and it is shameful.
My fix for this would be to create a committee in each state to consider the merits of redistricting and the most fair way to implement the process when necessary. Some states already do this. In those states that don't, they are essentially giving the ruling party the power of a king. Not a good idea to say the least.
4) Make all voting machines electronic and uniform-One of the most confusing aspects to voting is the myriad systems at play on election day. Punch ballots, lever pulling, darken the circle, and electronic voting are all in use in a variety of states and counties. Wouldn't it be best to have the same system everywhere? In the modern age, can't we all use electronic voting machines? Of course, the concern is the possibility of tampering with the machines as well as the lack of a receipt being provided by the device. To which I say, build machines that print a damn receipt. The receipt would provide you a number and allow you to confirm that your vote was tabulated correctly. No more butterfly ballots, hanging chad (the plural of chad is chad), or Supreme Court decided elections. Can't we all get behind that?
5) Allow early voting and voting by mail everywhere-There has been some progress here. Many states now allow early voting with no excuse necessary. As well, the state of Washington primarily votes by mail in all elections. Not only does this increase voter involvement, but it reduces the cost of elections while also making the tabulation of votes more efficient. Making the voter process cheaper, more convenient, and inclusive is as democratic an idea that I can think of.
6) Not election day, election days-For the life of me, I can't figure out why election day has to be in the middle of the week and only held on one day. Wouldn't it be better and (once again) more inclusive to have elections held on Friday and Saturday? This would allow those who prefer to vote the conventional way two chances to hit the polls including a weekend day. What would we lose? The single night election coverage on the various networks? Big deal. Sure, it would feel different to not have all the results on the same day, but it's an election not a pageant. We can afford to wait a day if it allows more people to participate in the process.
7) No closed primaries-In many primaries across the country, the only people that can vote are those with a particular party affiliation. This means that independents are often shut out of the primary process. Now, I do think that independents should have to choose either the democratic or republican primary to vote in, but they should not be left out. With more and more Americans registering as independents, inclusive primaries will be more necessary than ever to get a true result.
8) Repeal the law that allows only those born in America to run for president-Really, isn't this pretty silly in a nation of immigrants? I'm not saying that someone shouldn't have to be a citizen, but once they are, shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else? What if you have a 40 year old candidate who has lived here for 36 years? Is he/she less American than the rest of us? How many of us speak Apache anyway? Besides, why should we be limiting the talent pool? Do we really have so many great candidates that we need to narrow the field? I don't think so.
9) End the Electoral College-One man, one vote. Right? Wrong. The fact is, you can get fewer votes for president and still win the election (see 2000). All because of the risible electoral college. A system created by our founders who feared the direct election of a presidential candidate. To put it another way, they didn't trust the public to make the right decision. Don't believe me? Well, here's a quote from Alexander Hamilton taken from the Federalist Papers:
"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
"A small number of persons" he said. That's not only outdated and undemocratic, but it's downright insulting. We'll give you a vote, but only a limited amount of control? In a country that is supposed to be "for the people and by the people," it's time to end the Electoral College.
And let's be clear, the issues aren't merely philosophical. The Electoral College discourages turnout. Say you live in a state like Utah that almost always votes republican in a presidential election. Why even come out? However, if your one vote was a part of the deciding cumulative tally, then wouldn't you feel more encouraged that your vote actually counts?
As well, the smaller states have a disproportionate effect on the election versus the larger states. It is a fact that if you live in California or Texas, your vote is worth less than that of someone in Delaware or Montana due to the way electoral votes are divvied out.
For example (taken from the FairVote Archives): "Each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes for a population of 493,782 and Texas has 32 Electoral votes for a population of over 20 million people. By dividing the population by Electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has an "Elector" for every 165,000 people and Texas has an "Elector" for every 652,000 people."
Now, the argument for this math is that you don't want to give the larger states too much say in the process. But should that mean you should favor what I like to call the "empty states?"
You could argue for the Electoral College for a million years, but to me it all comes down to this: One man, one vote. It's simple, clean, and fair. What more can we ask of our system?
So there you have it. My RX for what ails us. This list is by no means complete or without flaw. And truth is, I probably won't live to see any of these measures implemented.
But a boy can dream, can't he?
Sumo-Pop
November 13, 2010
The whole damn thing is exhausted and ineffective. Too often we end up with far less than the best options for public office. Our candidates end up primarily focused on keeping their jobs as opposed to giving us a decent reason as to why they should deserve the gig in the first place. Then--once in office--there seems to be more concern on the part of the official of figuring out how to get re-elected as opposed to being remembered for anything of merit.
So, what to do?
Well, here is my flawed (perhaps), incomplete (probably), and doomed (certainly) prescription for our cracked election system.
Here we go:
1) Term limits for senators and representatives-This is a pretty safe and popular solution that simply lacks political traction (a recurring theme). As voters, we often complain about "career politicians." And we're right to. Why in the world should the president be limited to two terms while members of congress can serve past the point of decrepitude (see Strom Thurmond)? I mean really, why are these guys so damn special? Furthermore, why do senators get a 6 year term and house members only 2?
In the kingdom of Dave, senators and representatives would both get two 4 year terms then they're out. While the current 6 year term for senators is undeniably fatuous, I actually think the two year term for representatives is even worse. It creates a cycle of working for the public good for one year then spending the next year trying to win re-election. So in a sense, we're only getting one year of work versus one year of campaigning. Does this make sense to anyone?
Now, I know the concern would be what happens to the exceptional public servant that might deserve more than two terms. Well, first off, those folks are true exceptions. Secondly, they could still run for other offices outside of the ones they are leaving. And lastly, I wouldn't be against a politician running for senate a third time as long as they sat out one cycle.
Limited terms for all nationally elected politicians would foster an influx of new ideas on a consistent basis while also allowing current office holders the ability to focus on getting things done instead of figuring out how to keep their jobs. Hell, it might even create a climate where courage and bipartisanship actually have a chance.
2) Publicly funded elections-One of the main concerns of most voters is all the money that comes in from outside groups and infects the integrity of the process. We could eliminate this concern by requiring politicians to take only public funding. Can you imagine how interesting it would be if the democratic and republican nominees for presidents had a budget of say, $80 million a piece? We could actually see who could manage a damn budget. That would be worth it's weight in gold. Not only that, but since public funding would come from tax payers instead of corporations, political action committees, and the like, maybe--just maybe--politicians would be more beholden to us than the fat cats who now line their pockets.
3) Non-partisan redistricting-One of the dirty little secrets in American politics is that in most states, the governor's office controls redistricting. This allows whichever party in power to gerrymander districts and increase their chances of taking more house seats in the subsequent election. To give you an example, in my state of Indiana--where the governor is republican, Mitch Daniels--there is much discussion of moving Laporte County out of the 2nd district prior to the 2012 election. Why does this matter? Well, in last week's mid terms, Democrat, Joe Donnelly one re-election by a single percentage point. And, if you take out the results from Laporte County (which went for Donnelly by over 20 points), Donnelly would have been toast. Of course, there may be valid reasons in some circumstances to redistrict. But in this particular instance, the only reason to redistrict is to guarantee the election of a particular party. Not very democratic to say the least. Both sides do this, and it is shameful.
My fix for this would be to create a committee in each state to consider the merits of redistricting and the most fair way to implement the process when necessary. Some states already do this. In those states that don't, they are essentially giving the ruling party the power of a king. Not a good idea to say the least.
4) Make all voting machines electronic and uniform-One of the most confusing aspects to voting is the myriad systems at play on election day. Punch ballots, lever pulling, darken the circle, and electronic voting are all in use in a variety of states and counties. Wouldn't it be best to have the same system everywhere? In the modern age, can't we all use electronic voting machines? Of course, the concern is the possibility of tampering with the machines as well as the lack of a receipt being provided by the device. To which I say, build machines that print a damn receipt. The receipt would provide you a number and allow you to confirm that your vote was tabulated correctly. No more butterfly ballots, hanging chad (the plural of chad is chad), or Supreme Court decided elections. Can't we all get behind that?
5) Allow early voting and voting by mail everywhere-There has been some progress here. Many states now allow early voting with no excuse necessary. As well, the state of Washington primarily votes by mail in all elections. Not only does this increase voter involvement, but it reduces the cost of elections while also making the tabulation of votes more efficient. Making the voter process cheaper, more convenient, and inclusive is as democratic an idea that I can think of.
6) Not election day, election days-For the life of me, I can't figure out why election day has to be in the middle of the week and only held on one day. Wouldn't it be better and (once again) more inclusive to have elections held on Friday and Saturday? This would allow those who prefer to vote the conventional way two chances to hit the polls including a weekend day. What would we lose? The single night election coverage on the various networks? Big deal. Sure, it would feel different to not have all the results on the same day, but it's an election not a pageant. We can afford to wait a day if it allows more people to participate in the process.
7) No closed primaries-In many primaries across the country, the only people that can vote are those with a particular party affiliation. This means that independents are often shut out of the primary process. Now, I do think that independents should have to choose either the democratic or republican primary to vote in, but they should not be left out. With more and more Americans registering as independents, inclusive primaries will be more necessary than ever to get a true result.
8) Repeal the law that allows only those born in America to run for president-Really, isn't this pretty silly in a nation of immigrants? I'm not saying that someone shouldn't have to be a citizen, but once they are, shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else? What if you have a 40 year old candidate who has lived here for 36 years? Is he/she less American than the rest of us? How many of us speak Apache anyway? Besides, why should we be limiting the talent pool? Do we really have so many great candidates that we need to narrow the field? I don't think so.
9) End the Electoral College-One man, one vote. Right? Wrong. The fact is, you can get fewer votes for president and still win the election (see 2000). All because of the risible electoral college. A system created by our founders who feared the direct election of a presidential candidate. To put it another way, they didn't trust the public to make the right decision. Don't believe me? Well, here's a quote from Alexander Hamilton taken from the Federalist Papers:
"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
"A small number of persons" he said. That's not only outdated and undemocratic, but it's downright insulting. We'll give you a vote, but only a limited amount of control? In a country that is supposed to be "for the people and by the people," it's time to end the Electoral College.
And let's be clear, the issues aren't merely philosophical. The Electoral College discourages turnout. Say you live in a state like Utah that almost always votes republican in a presidential election. Why even come out? However, if your one vote was a part of the deciding cumulative tally, then wouldn't you feel more encouraged that your vote actually counts?
As well, the smaller states have a disproportionate effect on the election versus the larger states. It is a fact that if you live in California or Texas, your vote is worth less than that of someone in Delaware or Montana due to the way electoral votes are divvied out.
For example (taken from the FairVote Archives): "Each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes for a population of 493,782 and Texas has 32 Electoral votes for a population of over 20 million people. By dividing the population by Electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has an "Elector" for every 165,000 people and Texas has an "Elector" for every 652,000 people."
Now, the argument for this math is that you don't want to give the larger states too much say in the process. But should that mean you should favor what I like to call the "empty states?"
You could argue for the Electoral College for a million years, but to me it all comes down to this: One man, one vote. It's simple, clean, and fair. What more can we ask of our system?
So there you have it. My RX for what ails us. This list is by no means complete or without flaw. And truth is, I probably won't live to see any of these measures implemented.
But a boy can dream, can't he?
Sumo-Pop
November 13, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Yo Republicans! Show Us Your Budget Cuts!
A beat down, smack down, hose down, a shellacking. That's what the Democrats got last Tuesday, no two ways about it. An angry electorate punished the Dem's for high unemployment and a sluggish economy. Their advantage in the Senate was narrowed, and the House was turned upside down.
So, what now?
Well, if you listen to the Republicans, they are going to repeal Health Care Reform (yeah, good luck with that), continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and cut spending by 20%.
Here's the problem: those first two things work in direct opposition to the last one.
In regards to repealing the Health Care law, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that pulling the law back would actually cost $100 billion. So, we're already working in reverse. But then, the only way that's going to happen is if the Republicans get enough votes in the Senate (highly unlikely) and the President doesn't veto it (a snowball and Hades come to mind).
So let's move on.
Now, about those tax cuts...can anyone please explain how losing a minimum of $700 billion in federal revenue is going to cut the deficit? It's fascinating that Republicans who fought against an extension in unemployment benefits because we couldn't afford it (chump change, comparatively) can argue that the deficit can be cut while reducing revenue.
Their two stock answers are "the tax cuts will pay for themselves by stimulating economic growth" or, we'll make budget cuts elsewhere.
As far as the first response goes, if only we had four years of a historical data to base an opinion around this theory. Oh wait, we do. It's called the last four years. All the Bush tax cuts were in effect by 2006. In that time, the market crashed, middle class incomes stagnated, millions of jobs were lost, and the GDP went in reverse. But hey, let's continue to do the same thing whilst expecting a different result, shall we?
So, that leaves us with the GOP goal of cutting 20% from the budget. Which would indeed pay for the tax cuts for the rich. To do this, you will need to make serious and painful budget cuts. And on talk show after talk show, congressional Republicans refused to answer the question, "what will you cut?"
When Michelle Bachmann, John Cornyn, and John Boehner were asked if they would cut defense or entitlements, they either started answering a different question than the one that was asked, or refused to commit to cutting either. And here's the thing, if you don't cut from defense or entitlements, then you only have 15% of the federal budget left to chop. Which means you could probably balance the budget sometime in the next oh, 100 or so years.
Of course, the reason they don't want to touch entitlements is because it is a "third rail" issue with most of the public. And hacking at defense is even more of a toxic issue for their conservative base.
The Republican strategery is starting to take shape though. This week, former Bush White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card said that the President will produce a budget and the opposition will "react" to it. Which is another way of saying "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Or even more bluntly, You go first and I'll throw dirt all over it while never offering a specific alternative. Ahh, political courage at it's finest.
Is this the best they can do? They ran on a policy of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, and their very first policy out of the gates will add nearly 3/4 of a trillion dollars to the deficit and they can't come up with one specific offset?
This is make believe, fantasy land, poppycock.
And we're just getting started.
Sumo-Pop
November 5, 2010
So, what now?
Well, if you listen to the Republicans, they are going to repeal Health Care Reform (yeah, good luck with that), continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and cut spending by 20%.
Here's the problem: those first two things work in direct opposition to the last one.
In regards to repealing the Health Care law, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has stated that pulling the law back would actually cost $100 billion. So, we're already working in reverse. But then, the only way that's going to happen is if the Republicans get enough votes in the Senate (highly unlikely) and the President doesn't veto it (a snowball and Hades come to mind).
So let's move on.
Now, about those tax cuts...can anyone please explain how losing a minimum of $700 billion in federal revenue is going to cut the deficit? It's fascinating that Republicans who fought against an extension in unemployment benefits because we couldn't afford it (chump change, comparatively) can argue that the deficit can be cut while reducing revenue.
Their two stock answers are "the tax cuts will pay for themselves by stimulating economic growth" or, we'll make budget cuts elsewhere.
As far as the first response goes, if only we had four years of a historical data to base an opinion around this theory. Oh wait, we do. It's called the last four years. All the Bush tax cuts were in effect by 2006. In that time, the market crashed, middle class incomes stagnated, millions of jobs were lost, and the GDP went in reverse. But hey, let's continue to do the same thing whilst expecting a different result, shall we?
So, that leaves us with the GOP goal of cutting 20% from the budget. Which would indeed pay for the tax cuts for the rich. To do this, you will need to make serious and painful budget cuts. And on talk show after talk show, congressional Republicans refused to answer the question, "what will you cut?"
When Michelle Bachmann, John Cornyn, and John Boehner were asked if they would cut defense or entitlements, they either started answering a different question than the one that was asked, or refused to commit to cutting either. And here's the thing, if you don't cut from defense or entitlements, then you only have 15% of the federal budget left to chop. Which means you could probably balance the budget sometime in the next oh, 100 or so years.
Of course, the reason they don't want to touch entitlements is because it is a "third rail" issue with most of the public. And hacking at defense is even more of a toxic issue for their conservative base.
The Republican strategery is starting to take shape though. This week, former Bush White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card said that the President will produce a budget and the opposition will "react" to it. Which is another way of saying "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Or even more bluntly, You go first and I'll throw dirt all over it while never offering a specific alternative. Ahh, political courage at it's finest.
Is this the best they can do? They ran on a policy of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, and their very first policy out of the gates will add nearly 3/4 of a trillion dollars to the deficit and they can't come up with one specific offset?
This is make believe, fantasy land, poppycock.
And we're just getting started.
Sumo-Pop
November 5, 2010
Sparky
“I’ve got my faults, but living in the past is not one of them. There’s no future in it.”--Sparky Anderson
Sorry, Sparky. But today I'm going to live in the past. The past of a four year old boy watching his beloved Cincinnati Reds defeat the Boston Red Sox in perhaps the greatest World Series ever. And that of a five year old boy who watched one of the greatest teams ever assembled repeat the very next year by sweeping Reggie Jackson and the vaunted Yankees out of the fall classic. The past of an eight year old boy who nearly cried his eyes out when the foolish General Manager of the Reds, Dick Wagner, committed the greatest mistake in the history of the franchise by firing the manager of The Big Red Machine in 1978.
This is my past, my history.
Sparky Anderson died yesterday at the age of 76 from complications brought on by dementia.
I was genuinely surprised to learn that Sparky was "only" 76 when he passed. Sparky always seemed to be afflicted with Burgess Meredith disease. Already silver haired with deep creases in his often smiling face at the age of 36 when he was hired by the Reds in 1969. It's as if he sprung from the womb as an old man and biology never saw fit to correct its mistake.
That of course does not make his shuffling off of this mortal coil any easier to take.
It's not just that Sparky Anderson was a great manager, but--seemingly--according to all that knew him, he was a great man too.
Some have argued that Anderson was overrated as a manager. Hell, he would probably agree with them. As he once said, “The players make the manager. It’s never the other way.” And make no mistake, Sparky had great players with the Reds. Johnny Bench, Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, Dave Concepcion, Ken Griffey Sr., and George Foster were staples in his line up, and that would certainly make any manager's life easier. But it's really not that simple. Bench, Rose and Morgan were all big egos and didn't always get along. In fact, Bench and Rose couldn't stand each other. Sparky had to juggle all these egos while keeping the team united.
And here is where Sparky's genius as a manager came into play. He knew how to handle people. When the Reds were considering a trade, Anderson consulted with his "big four" (Bench, Rose, Morgan, and Perez) on whether that player would be a good fit in the club house. If the "big four" said yes, they brought the guy aboard. If not, then not. He also had a policy of treating the "big four" differently than the rest of the team. He told the rest of the guys up front that those guys had different rules to live by--no rules. This empowering of the best of the best on his team made them into leaders and created a healthy hierarchy. This might not have worked on every team, but Sparky knew his guys. And perhaps just as importantly, they knew him.
It's also important to note that Sparky was good at teaching fundamentals and utilizing strategy as well. His Reds teams didn't just hit home runs, they played defense and stole bases too. Second Baseman Joe Morgan, Catcher Johnny Bench, Shortstop Dave Concepcion, and Centerfielder Cesar Geronimo were all multiple gold glove winners and routinely saved the Reds pitchers tons of runs.
Most baseball people are aware that the Reds hit homers and played great defense. However, few knew just how well the Reds ran the bases. Most managers with a lineup full of sluggers would be satisfied with scoring runs via the big fly. Not Anderson. In all but one of the 9 years that he managed the Cincinnati Reds, they were in the top 5 in both home runs and stolen bases. Amazing.
Perhaps Sparky's greatest strategic addition to the modern game was his liberal use of the bullpen. It's easy to think of all the great Reds hitters he managed, but can anyone recall his pitchers? Jack Billingham, Rawley Eastwick, Pedro Borbon, and Don Gullett, anyone? You're forgiven if you don't. What Anderson was able to do with "B" level starters was pretty incredible. Nicknamed "Captain Hook" for his willingness to pull his starter out of the game and replace him with a situational reliever, Sparky was at the forefront of bullpen utilization. Bullpen masters like Larussa and Torre came much later. Now, everyone does what Sparky did over 30 years ago, only more liberally.
After the Reds front office lost its mind and cut Sparky loose, it wasn't long before another team came calling. In 1980, after several years of mediocrity (or worse), the Detroit Tigers hired Sparky to take over their team. He immediately made them respectable, soon a contender, and in his fifth year with the squad, World Series champions.
He did this with a less talented team than his Reds of the 70's and with solid citizens like Alan Trammell (who he would affectionately refer to as "Huck Finn") and Lou Whitaker, and large type jackasses like Jack Morris and Kirk Gibson. Once again, Sparky knew his guys, and they knew him.
To measure Anderson's greatness as a manager, one need only consider a few numbers:
2: The number of managers who had more wins under their belt when Sparky retired.
8: The number of managers who have won 3 or more world series.
And 2 again: The number of managers who have won a World Series in both the American and National Leagues (Sparky was the first).
Not bad.
But for all of that, he may be more revered for what people thought of him as a man.
ESPN Baseball Analyst, Tim Kurkijan considered him the most joyful manager he had ever been around.
His greatest players (Morgan, Rose, Bench, Perez, Trammell, Whitaker, and Morris) thought of him as not just their manager, but their friend, and their family.
For a person who spent most of his adult working life as a manager of the travelling road show that is a major league baseball team, he really didn't like to travel. Still, after he retired, he travelled a lot. Why? Because he liked to visit his former players and friends, but mostly because he couldn't turn down a charity.
He was a great manager and a great man. And not necessarily in that order.
He's also part of my past. The past of a little boy watching his favorite team on a three station television with wide eyes of wonder. He's the reason I love the Reds. Hell, he's the reason I love baseball.
I'm sure he wasn't perfect. I know he probably wasn't a saint. But just try convincing me otherwise. It won't be pretty.
Sumo-Pop
November 5, 2010
Sorry, Sparky. But today I'm going to live in the past. The past of a four year old boy watching his beloved Cincinnati Reds defeat the Boston Red Sox in perhaps the greatest World Series ever. And that of a five year old boy who watched one of the greatest teams ever assembled repeat the very next year by sweeping Reggie Jackson and the vaunted Yankees out of the fall classic. The past of an eight year old boy who nearly cried his eyes out when the foolish General Manager of the Reds, Dick Wagner, committed the greatest mistake in the history of the franchise by firing the manager of The Big Red Machine in 1978.
This is my past, my history.
Sparky Anderson died yesterday at the age of 76 from complications brought on by dementia.
I was genuinely surprised to learn that Sparky was "only" 76 when he passed. Sparky always seemed to be afflicted with Burgess Meredith disease. Already silver haired with deep creases in his often smiling face at the age of 36 when he was hired by the Reds in 1969. It's as if he sprung from the womb as an old man and biology never saw fit to correct its mistake.
That of course does not make his shuffling off of this mortal coil any easier to take.
It's not just that Sparky Anderson was a great manager, but--seemingly--according to all that knew him, he was a great man too.
Some have argued that Anderson was overrated as a manager. Hell, he would probably agree with them. As he once said, “The players make the manager. It’s never the other way.” And make no mistake, Sparky had great players with the Reds. Johnny Bench, Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, Tony Perez, Dave Concepcion, Ken Griffey Sr., and George Foster were staples in his line up, and that would certainly make any manager's life easier. But it's really not that simple. Bench, Rose and Morgan were all big egos and didn't always get along. In fact, Bench and Rose couldn't stand each other. Sparky had to juggle all these egos while keeping the team united.
And here is where Sparky's genius as a manager came into play. He knew how to handle people. When the Reds were considering a trade, Anderson consulted with his "big four" (Bench, Rose, Morgan, and Perez) on whether that player would be a good fit in the club house. If the "big four" said yes, they brought the guy aboard. If not, then not. He also had a policy of treating the "big four" differently than the rest of the team. He told the rest of the guys up front that those guys had different rules to live by--no rules. This empowering of the best of the best on his team made them into leaders and created a healthy hierarchy. This might not have worked on every team, but Sparky knew his guys. And perhaps just as importantly, they knew him.
It's also important to note that Sparky was good at teaching fundamentals and utilizing strategy as well. His Reds teams didn't just hit home runs, they played defense and stole bases too. Second Baseman Joe Morgan, Catcher Johnny Bench, Shortstop Dave Concepcion, and Centerfielder Cesar Geronimo were all multiple gold glove winners and routinely saved the Reds pitchers tons of runs.
Most baseball people are aware that the Reds hit homers and played great defense. However, few knew just how well the Reds ran the bases. Most managers with a lineup full of sluggers would be satisfied with scoring runs via the big fly. Not Anderson. In all but one of the 9 years that he managed the Cincinnati Reds, they were in the top 5 in both home runs and stolen bases. Amazing.
Perhaps Sparky's greatest strategic addition to the modern game was his liberal use of the bullpen. It's easy to think of all the great Reds hitters he managed, but can anyone recall his pitchers? Jack Billingham, Rawley Eastwick, Pedro Borbon, and Don Gullett, anyone? You're forgiven if you don't. What Anderson was able to do with "B" level starters was pretty incredible. Nicknamed "Captain Hook" for his willingness to pull his starter out of the game and replace him with a situational reliever, Sparky was at the forefront of bullpen utilization. Bullpen masters like Larussa and Torre came much later. Now, everyone does what Sparky did over 30 years ago, only more liberally.
After the Reds front office lost its mind and cut Sparky loose, it wasn't long before another team came calling. In 1980, after several years of mediocrity (or worse), the Detroit Tigers hired Sparky to take over their team. He immediately made them respectable, soon a contender, and in his fifth year with the squad, World Series champions.
He did this with a less talented team than his Reds of the 70's and with solid citizens like Alan Trammell (who he would affectionately refer to as "Huck Finn") and Lou Whitaker, and large type jackasses like Jack Morris and Kirk Gibson. Once again, Sparky knew his guys, and they knew him.
To measure Anderson's greatness as a manager, one need only consider a few numbers:
2: The number of managers who had more wins under their belt when Sparky retired.
8: The number of managers who have won 3 or more world series.
And 2 again: The number of managers who have won a World Series in both the American and National Leagues (Sparky was the first).
Not bad.
But for all of that, he may be more revered for what people thought of him as a man.
ESPN Baseball Analyst, Tim Kurkijan considered him the most joyful manager he had ever been around.
His greatest players (Morgan, Rose, Bench, Perez, Trammell, Whitaker, and Morris) thought of him as not just their manager, but their friend, and their family.
For a person who spent most of his adult working life as a manager of the travelling road show that is a major league baseball team, he really didn't like to travel. Still, after he retired, he travelled a lot. Why? Because he liked to visit his former players and friends, but mostly because he couldn't turn down a charity.
He was a great manager and a great man. And not necessarily in that order.
He's also part of my past. The past of a little boy watching his favorite team on a three station television with wide eyes of wonder. He's the reason I love the Reds. Hell, he's the reason I love baseball.
I'm sure he wasn't perfect. I know he probably wasn't a saint. But just try convincing me otherwise. It won't be pretty.
Sumo-Pop
November 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)