Month: April 2012

The Hard Reality: The Need For Long Term Reform Of Social Security And Medicare

Ronald 1 Comment

Anyone who is a progressive or a Democrat is proud of the fact that it was a Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who gave us Social Security in 1935.

Anyone who is a progressive or a Democrat is proud of the fact that it was a Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson, who gave us Medicare in 1965.

But hard reality is setting in, that something major must be done to promote sustainability of both Social Security and Medicare, as Social Security is now believed to be starting to operate in the red in 2033, and Medicare in 2024.

That is a danger sign that requires serious negotiations and acceptance of a need for major changes in both programs for the long term future.

The answer is not privatization, however, but rather recognition of the longevity of American lives and work careers, and the realization that payroll taxes on both programs must increase.

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Thomas “Tip” O’Neill negotiated a bipartisan agreement on Social Security which raised the retirement age to 66 for people born in the mid 1940s through 1959, and to 67 for those born after 1960. The agreement affected people with a long time to retirement, so was easy to adjust to without much controversy.

What must be done with Social Security would be to raise the full retirement age to age 68 for those born in 1980 and after, the beginning of the baby “boomlet” after a baby “bust” from 1965 to 1978. Additionally, those born in 1990 and after would have the age rise to 69. Additionally, all income, not just about $110,000, should be taxed, as is the case with Medicare.

As far as Medicare is concerned, the tax rate needs to be raised to collect more money, and the age of eligibility should go up to age 66 for those born in 1980 and after, and to age 67 for those born in 1990 and after.

No plan is going to have everyone satisfied, but with plenty of notice and planning, and with more money collected, and age levels raised, there is no reason why Social Security and Medicare cannot survive and prosper in the long term!

The Clashing Value Systems Of Mitt Romney And Barack Obama

Ronald 1 Comment

Last night, after proclaiming victory in five Middle Atlantic and New England state primaries, Mitt Romney declared that a person’s success in the business world, as he has had, should be respected, but also applauded as something to admire and praise.

This is Mitt Romney’s whole life, the acquisition of wealth for its own sake, no matter how it is gained, and it has shaped Romney’s value system of what is important in one’s life, economic success. And he wants us to tell him how impressed we are with his gaining of wealth!

Barack Obama, on the other hand, did not know what wealth was until he made money from books he wrote, an intellectual challenge not connected with the business world. He was a community organizer in Chicago, helping poor people in unpleasant urban environments to cope with a difficult world, and used his intellectual nature to be an adjunct professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Along the way, he and his wife Michele borrowed money on student loans to make it through college and law school, and held comparatively low paying jobs where he was helping others, and educating others. And then he ran for public office with a commitment to the advancement of others.

One has devoted his life to profits and being admired and applauded for materialism, which he loves to brag about, while the other devoted his life to service to others, concern about others, struggling to pay off student loans, and wishing to make a difference to the masses of people who are not born to wealth, or become wealthy.

These different value systems and mind sets are the crux of the election that is coming up in November!

What kind of President do we want? A President interested in his own constant acquisition of wealth and constant glorification of his accomplishments and success? Or a President who wishes to leave a legacy of making life better for those less fortunate, those who are the backbone of what America is all about, the every day citizen who just wants to have a better life and a sense of security for his children and for his or her old age?

This is a battle for the soul of America in 2012, a crucial turning point in American history!

The Urgency Of Mitt Romney To Be Transparent About His Life

Ronald Leave a comment

When a person decides to run for President, he opens himself up to the American people, and we have a right to know as much as we can about his background , his history, his beliefs, and his agenda.

Of course, no one is tied down to what he says his agenda is, as circumstances and events will shape a lot of what occurs during his administration, if he is elected President.

But being honest, frank, transparent, is always the better way, as we value someone who comes across as not secretive, not deceptive, not manipulative.

Sadly, Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for President, particularly after victories in New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, now needs to prove that he is not secretive, deceptive and manipulative, the impressions he has left in the battle for the nomination over the past year.

Therefore, if he wants us to take him seriously, and decide if he deserves to be President, he must come forward with information in precise terms about the following:

Romney needs to tell us about his Mormon faith, how he views it, what he thinks of its shortcomings and the criticisms made of it, as many wonder about a religion often considered a cult. We have a right to know how much his faith will govern his decision making and his world view.

Romney needs to reveal his investments, if any, based on reports, that he has in the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, Monaco, or Swiss banks, and why he chose to invest there, rather than in US banking institutions.

Romney needs to explain his family history, and the truth about his father, instead of claiming how poor his dad, George Romney, was, and how Mitt pulled himself up all on his own without any help from family, a story that is seen as a myth. He needs to stop denying his heritage and his wealth and advantages inherited from being the son of the chairman of American Motors and the Governor of Michigan in the 1960s.

Romney also needs to tell us what his agenda is on foreign policy, how he plans to relate to the outside world. And he needs to tell us what kind of Supreme Court appointments he would wish to make, and how he sees the law and the Constitution, in specific details. And he needs to stop evasion as a tactic, as he will be confronted with it during the campaign by media investigation, and certainly by President Obama in the three televised debates. We have a right to know if he wished to govern as a moderate or a conservative.

Since he insisted that Obama should be forthcoming on his plans after the election, he must be willing to do the same, and be totally transparent in all regards, something he has not done so far.

If he is not transparent, then he will lose the election. If he is transparent, and we find the information unacceptable, then he will lose. But better to lose on transparency than the lack of it. To have an image of being honest, frank, and transparent, is always preferred, and a good character lesson for the nation at large!

“Cool” Vs. “Stiff” Presidential Candidates: The Vote Goes To The “Cool’ Candidate Eighty Percent Of Presidential Elections Since 1932!

Ronald 1 Comment

One aspect of the battle for the Presidency over time, particularly in the age of modern media and national campaigning, is the personality of the candidates, and whether a person running for the Presidency is “cool” or “stiff” with people.

When one investigates this from the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 onward, in most cases, but not all, the “cool” , more personable, candidate wins.

This happened with FDR against Herbert Hoover in 1932, against Alf Landon in 1936, against Wendell Willkie in 1940, and against Thomas E. Dewey in 1944.

It also occurred with Harry Truman against Dewey in 1948; Dwight D. Eisenhower against Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, and John F. Kennedy against Richard Nixon in 1960.

1964 was a rare year, where Barry Goldwater seemed more personable by far than Lyndon B . Johnson, but the Johnson campaign successfully depicted Goldwater as dangerous and extremist.

In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was certainly more gregarious and warm than Richard Nixon or George Wallace, but still lost, due to the Democratic split over the VIetnam War; and in 1972, George McGovern came across as more trustworthy and personable than Richard Nixon, but was depicted as extremist and radical in a way similar to Goldwater eight years earlier.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter, a new face on the scene, came across as more personable than Gerald Ford, who seemed stiff and uncomfortable to many.

By 1980, Ronald Reagan easily came across to Americans in a more charming manner than Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale never could overcome the Reagan mystique in 1984.

In 1988, neither George H. W. Bush nor Michael Dukakis came across as personable, the only time in modern history that such a situation existed.

In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton easily came across much better in personality than Bush or Bob Dole.

George W. Bush definitely had the edge in his personality in 2000 and 2004 against Al Gore and John Kerry.

And Barack Obama had a clear advantage over John McCain in 2008, and certainly has that edge as well against Mitt Romney in 2012.

In conclusion, only Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon were the less personable candidate when they ran in 1964, 1968, and 1972, and only in 1988 could it be said there was no difference between George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis in the level of their “coolness”.

The conclusion is that the more personable or “cool” candidate has a clear edge in the modern era in being elected to the Presidency!

Unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential Ties Throughout American History

Ronald Leave a comment

It has become evident that in many cases, no love is lost between sitting Presidents and Vice Presidents, who often link up for electoral reasons, but often have poor chemistry in working together. And many times, a President has wished to “dump” his Vice President, when running for another term in office, and a few times has done so.

Examples of unpleasant Presidential-Vice Presidential relationships include:

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, with Jefferson, the opponent in the 1796 Presidential election, becoming Vice President, but leading to the 12th Amendment in 1804, to prevent any future such combination. The two men fought each other bitterly, and opposed each other again in 1800.

Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, “tied” in electoral votes in 1800, forcing the election to the House of Representatives, leading to Alexander Hamilton’s endorsement of Jefferson and trashing of Burr, and causing Hamilton’s death in a gun duel with Burr in 1804. Jefferson had no relationship with Burr, after Burr tried to “steal” the election, and he was “dumped” in 1804.

John Quincy Adams and John C Calhoun, who were rivals in 1824, had totally different views of the protective tariff, with Calhoun switching to support of Andrew Jackson and running with Jackson in 1828.

Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun were elected together in 1828, but Calhoun broke with Jackson over the protective tariff, resigning, and creating a potential threat of civil war, with the Nullification Crisis of 1833, resolved by a compromise devised by Henry Clay. Jackson even threatened to kill Calhoun if he promoted secession of South Carolina from the Union.

William Henry Harrison, elected with John Tyler in 1840, had totally divergent views since Tyler was a Democrat running on the Whig Party line, and Tyler succeeded to the Presidency when Harrison died after one month in office in 1841, and the Whigs made Tyler’s life miserable.

Abraham Lincoln and his first Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin, elected in 1860, hardly knew each other, and the indications are that Hamlin had no major role in the administration, and was replaced by Andrew Johnson on the ticket for 1864 for political reasons.

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, elected together in 1864, with Lincoln picking Democrat Johnson to help win support in the North, then was assassinated, and succeeded by Johnson after six weeks of the second term in 1865.

James Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur were elected together in 1880, from different factions of the Republican Party, and when Garfield died from assassination wounds six months into office, Arthur finished up the rest of the term from 1881-1885.

Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall were elected together in 1912, but Marshall was “kept out of the loop”, and when Wilson suffered a stroke in 1919, was denied access to the President by Mrs. Wilson, never knowing the extent of Wilson’s incapacity for the rest of the term to 1921.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his first Vice President, John Nance Garner were elected to two terms together in 1932 and 1936, with Garner unhappy with the New Deal programs, and wanting to succeed FDR in 1940, and alienated when FDR ran for a third term in 1940.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and his second Vice President, Henry A. Wallace were elected together in 1940, but Wallace was “dumped” by FDR in 1944, to please Southern Democrats unhappy with Wallace’s advocacy of civil rights for African Americans, and his backing of close relations with the Soviet Union.

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon were elected together in 1952 and 1956, but Ike wished to “dump” Nixon in 1956 although that did not happen, and he was less than supportive of Nixon in 1960 and 1968.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, elected together in 1960, were never close, having been rivals for the Presidential nomination, with LBJ feeling slighted by Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General and brother of the President, and rumors swirling that he would be “dumped” in 1964, if Kennedy had lived.

Lyndon B. Johnson and Hubert H. Humphrey were elected together in 1964, but with Humphrey feeling mistreated by LBJ, and unhappy as Vice President, seeing himself trapped, and being undermined when he was the Presidential nominee in 1968, and LBJ working against him when Humphrey ran against Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were elected together in 1968 and 1972, with Agnew feeling “used” by Nixon to do his “dirty work” against the news media, and gaining no support from Nixon when in legal trouble over accepting bribes, leading to his resignation in 1973. Agnew refused to speak ever again to his former boss.

Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were never close, and the Bushes were never invited to the White House by the Reagans, after their two victories in elections in 1980 and 1984.

George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle were elected together in 1988, with obvious discomfort by Bush as to Quayle’s performance in his term of office as Vice President, and considered “dumping” him in 1992, but not done in that losing re-election effort.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore, elected together in 1992 and 1996, got along well, but after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a growing divide occurred between the two men, and Gore decided not to have Clinton help him in the Presidential campaign of 2000, and then the two men had angry words in a confrontation in the Oval Office after the defeat.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, elected together in 2000 and 2004, originally worked well together, but Bush then ignored Cheney’s advice often in the second term, and refused Cheney’s request that Scooter Libby be given a pardon. Cheney, in his memoir, made clear that his relationship with Bush had cooled.

So often, the relationship between President and Vice President has been a very difficult one, an interesting aspect of American history!

Exceptions to this were the close relationship of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller between 1974 and 1977, although Rockefeller was “dumped” from the ticket in 1976 for Bob Dole, a move that Ford later said he did for political reasons, and greatly regretted; the extremely close ties between Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale between 1977-1981, with Mondale practically a “Co President”; and the present relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden since 2009.

Lack Of Republican Diversity In Presidential Tickets: Nixon, Dole, And Bush Dominant Since 1952

Ronald Leave a comment

With the discussion of Jeb Bush as a possible Vice Presidential running mate for Mitt Romney, it reminds us of the oddity that three names have dominated Presidential tickets in the Republican Party for the past sixty years, since 1952.

Richard Nixon was on the ballot five times–Vice President in 1952 and 1956, and President in 1960, 1968, and 1972.

Bob Dole was on the ticket twice–Vice President in 1976 and President in 1996.

A Bush was on the ballot six times–George H. W. Bush for Vice President in 1980 and 1984, and for President in 1988 and 1992. His son, George W. Bush, was the Presidential candidate in 2000 and 2004.

So only twice were none of these three names on the ballot–1964 when Barry Goldwater and William E. Miller ran, and 2008, when John McCain and Sarah Palin ran.

2012 Presidential Election: Possibly Another Bush, And Even A Clinton?

Ronald 3 Comments

Speculation is rampant that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush might indeed agree to run for Vice President with Mitt Romney.

After denying it for so long, Jeb now has left the door open, but makes clear he would rather not be on the ticket.

It is interesting how Florida Senator Marco Rubio promotes Jeb, and Jeb keeps on promoting Rubio for Vice President.

Would Jeb Bush help Romney in the Fall campaign? Both yes and no!

Obviously, Jeb is very intelligent, a good speaker, and a mainline conservative, who is not reckless, and does not make loony statements about issues. He is married to an Hispanic (Mexican) woman, is seen by many as a successful Governor of Florida, and in theory, could help to deliver that state to Romney in the fall. He is seen as a potential candidate for President in 2016, and even being on a losing ticket, he probably would gain stature for such a race by coming to the aid of Romney and the party now.

On the other hand, the question is whether there is a desire for a third Bush on a national ticket, particularly with the controversies over his brother, George W. Bush, and his eight years in office. There is believed to be an exhaustion with things Bush at this point of time. And imagine the idea of having a Bush on the national ticket every election since 1980 except 1996 and 2008, six of the last eight Presidential elections! Those who dislike the Bushes, particularly, George W. Bush, might not be willing to vote for Mitt Romney with Jeb Bush on the ticket.

And then, there are still the rumors flying that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might agree to run for Vice President, in place of Joe Biden, in order to add strength to Barack Obama’s campaign. She laughs it off, and says it will not happen, but if Obama were to ask her, could she really say no?

So imagine an election with a Bush AND a Clinton on the national tickets, which would mark one or both names on the national scene every election since 1980, except 2008, and only not in 2008 because Hillary Clinton lost the nomination to Barack Obama.

There could very well be exhaustion and disgust at the thought of what might be seen as two “royal” dynasties in America, the Bushes and the Clintons!

Jon Huntsman Compares Republican Party To Communist China

Ronald 3 Comments

Jon Huntsman, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China, in a speech in New York City last evening, compared the Republican Party of today to the government of Communist China, in that in both cases, dissent is cracked down upon.

Huntsman said the extreme right wing, controlled by the Tea Party and religious conservatives, has made it impossible for even Ronald Reagan to be nominated and elected in today’s political climate.

Doubting that he could be elected Utah Governor now, Huntsman deplored the challenge against traditional conservatives, including Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, who has been forced into a primary by right wing elements, and Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, who faces a similar challenge next month.

Huntsman said that the Republican Party today has little in common with the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan, but has hopes that Mitt Romney can move the party back toward the center.

In that, Huntsman is overly optimistic, as Romney sadly has catered to the right wing on the road to be the GOP nominee for President, but in the process, has not won their hearts!

Supreme Court To Hear Arizona Immigration Law Challenged By Federal Government

Ronald Leave a comment

In a term already historic for the significance of cases to be decided, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today on the Arizona Immigration law that permits the state to do the following:

Require state and local enforcement to verity the citizenship status of anyone stopped, detained or arrested.

Authorize law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant when an officer believes someone has committed a public offense that could lead to deportation

Make it a state crime to be in the US unlawfully, and require non citizens to carry documents to prove they are legally in the country

Make it a state crime for such a person to work or seek work, instead of the employer having the burden to verify legality of those seeking to work

This Arizona law has led to similar laws in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah and elsewhere.

The Supreme Court, with only eight Justices participating in the case, because Elena Kagan was Solicitor General in the Obama Administration, will have to decide if states can have their own immigration laws, or if this is only a federal matter.

This is one of the most controversial issues in America right now, and so far, a federal judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have held up enforcement of much of the Arizona law, pending the decision in June of the Supreme Court.

The federal government is seen by many as not enforcing immigration laws, while others would say that more illegal immigrants have been deported under Barack Obama than under George W. Bush.

This Arizona law is seen by many as an issue of basic civil rights, and as racial profiling, so the decision in the case is going to be one of the major political stories of the year, and will have an effect on the Presidential Election of 2012.

Republican Run State Governments, Their Social Agenda, And The Effect On 2012 Elections

Ronald Leave a comment

Many states witnessed Republican takeover or consolidation in the Midterm Elections of 2010, but now, 18 months later, the record of those states run by Republicans could come back to haunt them and lead to Democratic victories across America.

Of course, many states have Republican Governors whose voters have “buyers remorse” over, including Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who faces a recall vote on June 5. But also, there is a lot of discontent with other “Bully” Governors, including Rick Snyder of Michigan, John Kasich of Ohio, Rick Scott of Florida, Paul LePage of Maine, Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, and in some polls, Chris Christie of New Jersey. Meanwhile, Andrew Cuomo of New York, Martin O’Malley of Maryland, and Dannel Malloy of Connecticut are among the Democratic Governors looking great in the polls.

The Republican controlled state legislatures proceeded to pass laws on social issues, including gay rights, abortion, gun rights, laws against teaching of evolution, and laws allowing invasion of privacy of women’s bodies.

States including Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arizona, Wisconsin, Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Maine have passed all kinds of laws that will cause a revulsion among Independents, women, Hispanics and Latinos, and young voters

Even the American Legislative Exchange Council, a business backed group which promotes conservative laws at the state level, has recognized how there could be a reaction against the right wing extremism in many states, and is now focusing on economic issues.

It will be interesting to see how this all works out in November, regarding state legislatures.