Waiting on the "Declaration" of Independents

In July I got an email from the Democratic Party to complete a survey. They ask if I was a Democrat. I honestly had to reread the Iowa 2010 platform and agreed with six of the priorities:
1. We oppose corporate personhood.
2. We support a single-payer health care plan for all citizens.
3. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act.
4. We support separation of church and state.
5. We support energy independence with locally-owned renewable, eco-sustainable sources.
6. We support removing the cap on Social Security contributions.

What was absolutely missing in these priorities are the Economy and jobs. Democrats used to be the party of the working class person. They still are to a lesser extent, it helps if you are a member of a union. But when the economy and jobs don't make your top priority list, there is definitely trouble in River City.

There are some pretty significant disconnects for both Democrats and Republicans in their platforms and that causes pain for their candidates who ostensibly run on them. Why? Because they are not running for Democrat or Republican, they are Republicans and Democrats running for offices that require getting more votes than the next person. In other words, platforms are nice, but elections are won by keeping your party happy and winning over those people who have their own agenda--these are the Independents.

What I'm focusing on are the Independents who are notorious for "voting with their pocketbooks." Since the early 2000s, their pocketbooks, like many of ours, have shrunk considerably--despite tax-cuts by both Democrats and Republicans. While soccer Moms and Dads have disappeared in this year's dialogue because of the roar of the Tea Party, they are still out there and many of them are not excited about their choices. They are concerned about what will happen next.

For them, a Congress that will help them keep more money in their pockets is better than a Congress that they perceive will take more money out. Now, in fairness to Democrats who are in tight races and somehow being perceived as hurting working families, they(and no one from either party) wants to retract the middle class tax cuts that happened in the Bush and Clinton years. The difference is where the line is drawn. Democrats argue for drawing the line at individuals making less than $200,000 and families reporting less than $250,000 which equals 97 to 98% of all Americans. Republicans argue that any new tax is bad for the Economy.

How is it logical to the independent voter that voting for a progressive or even blue dog Democrat will hurt them financially? The crux is in the idea that the remaining 2% whose taxes would go up will withhold spending, thus hurting the small business person or working stiff. Categorically, this is goofy-think. If the middle class receives tax cuts, they are likely to spend money on stuff they haven't been able to buy, pay down debt, or even "gasp" put some money into savings. All are a good thing while the economy is stagnant. Money spent either on debt service or put into savings goods frees up money to be lent and money spent keeps or puts more people to work.

Also, if those who have been not been paying their "fair share" are fully in the mix like the rest of us, the debt on the rest of us comes down fairly dramatically in a much shorter time frame and at no significant hardship to those in question. This may be unpalatable to those in that 2 to 3% range, but they aren't going to go on a peanut butter and mac and cheese diet over it either.

Also, if we ever hope to transform our economy, we need to free up resources from things like war and national defense and use it to rebuild our nation's infrastructure. For example, electricity can be generated and delivered relatively cheaply from sources other than oil or coal on smart grids and people can be moved from region to region by high-speed rail, if the investment is there.

We need education that train/retrain people to work in the new economy. Democrats are investing in this by making it possible for more people to go to college or technical schools.

Reviving the economy calls for everybody who wants a job to have one. Democrats and Republicans both are off the mark in pointing their fingers at each other. It is possible to invest both in public works to build infrastructure and invest in the private sector to build new capabilities. There is no magic to this. What is lacking is a confidence that the investment will pay off. Partisan bickering and gamesmanship are the Debbie Downer of confidence being restored (as well as lobbying efforts that attempt to quash competition).

If this election is a referendum on who "gets it"--the frustration that the Independents feel about their wallets, the Republicans will likely mop the floor with the Democrats who have been tone-deaf with this issue on November 2. If the election hinges on thoughtful people who are demanding a functional government, it may turn out to be a much closer race than expected and we'll all be better off for it. In any case, it will make 2012 a much more interesting year.

Obama Machine Oiled, Fired Up, and Ready to Go?

Not a whole lot has been said about the machine behind Barack Obama and the unprecedented amount of cooperation and planning that has gone on behind the scenes to prepare our soon to be 44th President to take over the reins at the White House. Without the work of former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff, John Podesta to work with the Bush team to set the stage for the Obama administration, it is likely that Obama's movements of the last week would have been awkward to say the least.

Just consider the number of items that have been addressed within one week of the election and the style of how they have occurred:

1) Barack Obama named Rahm Emanual, his WH Chief of Staff.
2) Barack Obama's transition team has been vetting cabinet members, but has been careful about leaks.
3) A website has been set up for the transition period.
4) Barack and Michelle Obama have visited the White House and were welcomed by the Bushes.
5) President-Elect Obama has balanced respecting the sitting President's authority with his own agenda to offer a stimulus package to taxpayers, to reverse Executive Orders, and to address the War in Iraq.
6) Valerie Jarrett's name has been floated to replace Barack Obama in the Senate.

This shows an ability to use political capital and to let the American people know that he is ready to lead, but is willing to wait his turn. The question will be where does he lead us when he steps in?

Clearly with an economy in free fall, his attention will be spent on this albatross and will make other domestic policy decisions more difficult to invoke. However, when the economy turns around, it should allow Team Obama to push through comprehensive Health Care policy and other plans that will not be inexpensive to implement, though are designed to be paid for through other cuts. I doubt we can expect major policy decisions to be enacted in the first 100 days or even the first two years of his administration. Still any legislation that boosts industrial infrastructure to create jobs will be much easier to sell than another large "welfare" federal program.

Secondly, with the Iraqi's now equivocating about our presence in their country, there will have to be careful deliberations about how best to end the war there. It will take the cooperation of the world community to perhaps step in for the peace keeping efforts there and foreign aid from us to make it happen. The larger issue for Obama will be to defend his decision to "surge" in Afghanistan given that his base may be disappointed and angered by what they see as a "politics as usual" approach to a foreign conflict.

If the Democrats are smart, they will put aside the temptation to pass partisan bills and focus on the big picture. If the country is not moving in a good direction by 2010, there will be upheaval again in Congress and this time it will be the Democrats who are kicked to the curb. The Congress should take a page from the calm, reserve of their newly elected leader and move with purpose to enact infrastructure building legislation that will generate the new jobs that Americans need and deserve, should continue to support veterans and their families as an end to war is negotiated, and push back on Obama if his plans for Afghanistan do not have a clear mission.

Inflation Up, Unemployment Slightly Down in July

That bastion of liberalism, the Wall Street Journal reports "U.S. inflation soared to a 17-year-high annual rate in July, a government report showed, led by gains in food, energy, airline fares and apparel."

Also, "Separately, the number of U.S. workers filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell slightly as expected last week but remained at high levels consistent with a rapid erosion in labor markets."

With energy and commodity prices on the retreat this month and the U.S. dollar strengthening, the inflation report is unlikely to spook Federal Reserve policymakers into raising rates anytime soon as the economy struggles with rising unemployment and soft consumer spending.

Still, a surprising rise in core inflation that excludes food and energy last month will keep officials on edge about the possibility that food and energy prices will become more firmly entrenched in the economy.

The consumer price index rose 0.8% in July, the Labor Department said Thursday. That came on the heels of June's 1.1% rise, which was the second largest since June 1982. Excluding food and energy, the CPI advanced 0.3% for a second-straight month.

I'm sure it doesn't take an economist to conjecture why other prices are generally rising; transportation costs. Every item we buy has to make it to market somehow. This may be an excellent reason to support locally grown, locally made products.

Fear-Based Energy Policy

There is significant evidence that tells us that global climate change is real and sufficient science to safely say that human beings have had much to do with it. But, even if man were to be totally devoid of responsibility, there is ample evidence that shows that greenhouse gases, e.g., the particles of carbon dioxide per million, have increased and there are actions that could reduce or, at worst, not allow the level to increase.

Add to this that oil production, has already peaked (or will peak by 2020) due to the limited potential for future finds and increased demand. Whether this is true is certainly debatable, but in all cases, the production for oil slips precipitously by 2050.

The hopeful person would see this as an opportunity to introduce new energy technologies, increase those technologies that already are known to work, and reduce those technologies that contribute to CO2/greenhouse gas increases. At the very least, it should be an opportunity revisit public energy policy for long-term solutions, rather than short-term political gains.

However, in reality, economic forces and politics that are "fear-based" are in place. These are the voices that say that we can't possibly replace an oil-based economy with clean, renewable energy--and certainly not in ten years, as Al Gore is famously promoting. These voices also tell us that we must dig for oil everywhere we can to be spared the disaster that not doing so will surely rain down on us. Even those who are playing both sides of the fence, like oilman T. Boone Pickens, who has said that the current energy situation is not one we can "dig our way out of" is promoting natural gas as a car fuel, despite the continuing problems that methane (aka natural gas) would bring in the form of greenhouse gases.

The voices of true laissez faire/let the market work harbingers do not want to allow public policy to interfere with the invisible hand (which effortlessly guides the economy to cause change as economic forces declare). However, is anyone sincerely willing to play Russian Roulette with the survival of humanity? Is anyone truly Malthusian enough to wait for the invisible hand of economic forces to thin the herd?

And what of the transitionalists, like Pickens, who say that we need to transition away from fossil fuels and that natural gas, for one, is an important transitional fuel. If we don't move in this way, the argument goes, we will plunge our economy into a disarray that we can not hope to recover from.

But is it true, particularly if we accept that the type of renewable-based energy programs could be in place in ten years, that such a transition is necessary? In other words, if we only pursue the renewable energy path, would we be worse off in ten years than if we chose the path of gradualism and, perhaps, slow the trajectory for energy redevelopment to a more "reasonable" timetable?

The answer is yes only if we are talking about the world economies as static. Perhaps gradualism would be better than doing nothing in this unreal case. However, with the economies of Asia booming, particularly in India and China, the increased output of greenhouse gases put us--the global "us"--in real danger. So, the answer has to be no. Transitionalism will not a good use of time nor resources.

The best case is for an agreement to be drawn between the mega-economic states to make the 10 year plan work and to provide resources and incentives for it to happen. If we believe that the US can't do it alone, we must diplomatically join the forces that already see the benefits of working cooperatively.

Unfortunately for the USA, an election year gambit by the Republicans (and frankly, some Blue Dog Democrats) says we need to do more drilling and to bring the cost of oil down for the next ten years, which plays to some voters' fears that we cannot "do nothing" and be able to take care of ourselves and families. As we have learned the hard way, voters do not like change if it affects them in the wallet. It is sad how the public can be "feared" into war over oil, but can't be "feared" into preventing it by changing our habits where it comes to oil consumption.

Gordon Gecko of "Wall Street" fame may have believed that "greed is good", but that's not a lie we can afford to believe any more than we can afford to be led by fear tactics.

The Gore-y Inconvenient Truth

Al Gore said in a speech today, "It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now." How about that?

As I have watched Congress go back and forth about what to do about the high price of gas, the economy, and our place in the world theater about climate change, Al Gore summarized it best in his speech by saying "We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change."

His solution, to enact the equivalent of the 10 year plan that John Kennedy proposed to land a man on the moon before the decade was out. In other words, by 2018, the US will replace its dependency on fossil-fuel and replace it by "producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years."

Think of the economies that will create to retrofit the national electrical grid to accept electricity generated from solar cells as well as wind and geothermic power? Imagine the technological leaps that could be made if Exxon/Mobil, Wal-Mart and others sunk their huge profits in developing inexpensive solar cells and fixing the national grid?

Historic Election For Other Reasons

A lot of hay was made in the large media based on the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's race and gender as a bulwark for a historic election. However, there is much larger historic foundation to this election that many voters will be tuned.

1) Never has our country been in so much debt--with the debt ceiling over $10 trillion dollars.
2) People lost their homes at the highest rate on record in the first three months of the year, and late payments soared to a new high, too.
3) Americans’ equity in their homes — usually their single biggest asset — now has dropped to the lowest level on record in figures going back to the end of World War II. Homeowners’ portion of equity fell to 46.2 percent, which means the amount of debt tied up in their homes exceeds the equity they have built up.
4) Never have so many voters felt that the economy was in poorer shape than it is right now.

So, putting this bit of history up against the other, most voters are going to vote for the candidate they feel has the cure to these ills.

This portends well for Barack Obama and the Democrats. With a president whose economic policies can be boiled down to "rob Peter to pay Paul," a change to sound economic policies that keep people working is what voters are likely to back.

Policies that John McCain endorses would put even more money into a defense budget that is already the single highest discretionary budget item, which would be necessitated to continue the war in Iraq or elsewhere. Coupling this with his support of the Bush tax cuts, this is the equivalent of staying the course.

Obama's call for expanding the economy through renewable energy technologies, investing in infrastructure that lowers our total energy usage, investing in education and healthcare to improve productivity are all good, sound ideas that will work.

We Are the American People and We Disaprove of This President

Is it any wonder that Geoorge Bush is in Africa? The American Research Group's latest poll shows that George W. Bush's job approval rating has plummeted to below 20%. a record 77% disapprove of his handling of the job, particularly the economy.

Feb 2008 19% Approve; 77% Disapprove; 4% Undecided
Jan 2008 34% Approve; 59% Disapprove; 7% Undecided

According to the ARG,

A total of 78% of Americans say the national economy is getting worse and 47% say the national economy is in a recession. A total of 42% of Americans, however, say they believe the national economy will be better a year from now, which is the highest level for this question in the past year. This optimism does not spread to improvements in household financial situations as 17% of Americans say they expect their household financial situations to be better a year from now, which is the lowest for this question in the past year.

Congressional Democrats Go Soft Again

Democrat Senator Harry "Gumby" Reid with Democrat House Leader Nancy "Pokey" Pelosi

``I don't think any change in the bill is really worth the delay,'' Pelosi said.

A vote on the President's economic stimulus bill by the US Senate and House that will provide rebate checks and add yet another $167 billion to the national debt while actually providing little relief to the American people. The Democrats made only the smallest of dents by getting the Republicans to agree to $300 rebates for 20 million older retired Americans and 250,000 disabled veterans while dropping demands to extend jobless benefits 13 weeks, offer heating aid for the poor, and give tax breaks to certain industries.

About 111 million Americans who show at least $3,000 in earned income or who pay income tax. Will receive a rebate check for $600 to $1200.

The rebates phase out for individuals earning more than $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000. Any taxpayer who has children and qualifies for any rebate will receive an additional $300 per child.

The bill also doubles the amount of equipment costs a small business can expense in the first year to $250,000 and allows a 50 percent bonus depreciation for businesses that buy major equipment.

Eyes on the Prize People!

While Bill "The Man from Hope" and Hill "The Woman from Park Ridge" Clinton are tag-teaming on Barack "The Man from the Audacity of Hope" Obama and John Edwards "The Millworker's Son" is trying to be a grownup, the muck is burying the really important stuff that people are concerned with such as the economy (collapsing housing market), the war, the economy (jobs), global warming, and the economy (the national debt). Did I mention the economy?

And to be fair, the other folks (The Republican 5 M's [the Mitt, the Mac, the Mike, the Mayor, and the M.D.]) are actually doing a better job about talking about issues (albeit, 9/11, building a wall, and fawning over the legacy of Reagan don't quite meet our needs either).

While the D's and the R's and the President are looking for ways to cut checks for "average" taxpayers, we should reflect that taxes, when used well, are not a bad thing. Taxes used to allow uninsured children to have healthcare = good investment, tax dollars to fund soldier benefits = good and fair investment, tax dollars to allow tax cuts to corporations and the top 15% of income earners = not such a good investment. Tax rebates might make sense if you've figured out a way to reduce government spending to pay for them--nobody has mentioned how that would happen.

If the proposed plan goes through, I imagine that the average American will use their rebate check to pay off some bills, rather than stimulate the economy. Rebates in the past haven't worked, except for political gain. This might help the banks out, but I guess I need more information to understand how this puts people back to work.

People of conscience can argue the relative merits of a flat tax, a national sales tax, or a progressive income tax, but when we have a choice between taking care of people who have been laid off who need a hand up and those holders of vast personal wealth who want a hand out, we should resist it; particularly when the check that is cut today, will be paid off by our grandchildren.

Some see a rebate from the government as just, given that it is our money. I argue that taxes, when they go to improving the basic quality of life, are an investment. I'm sure that the Paulites would disagree, but so be it.

The basic problem with taxation, as I see it, is that we are paying for stuff that we all don't agree with and that's what is so infuriating--but hey, democracy at work, right? Since we elect people who are supposed to be watching out for our interests (that's you--elected public officials) and they hire us (yes you--government workers) to help them, you would think that patriotic duty would include limiting the spending of crazy money on things that are poor investments--like wars.

So for the candidates of both parties, listen up! I want you talking about your plans to get the economy back on track. I would like to hear how your plans will allow us to take care of those in need, how you will not crush our young under the weight of a debt that will lessen their quality of life, won't get us into another war (or keep us in this one), and how you will lead us to share the burden. I don't expect you to do everything in four years, but I expect you to leave the blueprints behind for the next leader to pick up on. So come on, give a voter something to really cogitate on--spare the sparing, we already know you aren't perfect human beings.

Because, when you come down to it, economic justice is the road to all justice. We live in a country where pocketbooks and fear of risk or buyer's remorse decide elections. We like to reward excellence, but not excess. How about moving away from he said/she said and really talk about the important stuff.

Hey, eyes up here!

What's a Million-- Give or Take

The AP reports:

Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen. It's expanding by about $1.4 billion a day - or nearly $1 million a minute.
What's that mean to you?

It means almost $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States.
Even if you've escaped the recent housing and credit crunches and are coping with rising fuel prices, you may still be headed for economic misery, along with the rest of the country. That's because the government is fast straining resources needed to meet interest payments on the national debt, which stands at a mind-numbing $9.13 trillion.

And like homeowners who took out adjustable-rate mortgages, the government faces the prospect of seeing this debt - now at relatively low interest rates - rolling over to higher rates, multiplying the financial pain.
So long as somebody is willing to keep loaning the U.S. government money, the debt is largely out of sight, out of mind.

But the interest payments keep compounding, and could in time squeeze out most other government spending - leading to sharply higher taxes or a cut in basic services like Social Security and other government benefit programs. Or all of the above.

A major economic slowdown, as some economists suggest may be looming, could hasten the day of reckoning.

The national debt - the total accumulation of annual budget deficits - is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.

That's $10,000,000,000,000.00, or one digit more than an odometer-style "national debt clock" near New York's Times Square can handle. When the privately owned automated clock was activated in 1989, the national debt was $2.7 trillion.

It only gets worse.
Over the next 25 years, the number of Americans aged 65 and up is expected to almost double. The work population will shrink and more and more baby boomers will be drawing Social Security and Medicare benefits, putting new demands on the government's resources.

These guaranteed retirement and health benefit programs now make up the largest component of federal spending. Defense is next. And moving up fast in third place is interest on the national debt, which totaled $430 billion last year.

Aggravating the debt picture: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates could cost $2.4 trillion over the next decade. Despite vows in both parties to restrain federal spending, the national debt as a percentage of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product has grown from about 35 percent in 1975 to around 65 percent today.

By historical standards, it's not proportionately as high as during World War II - when it briefly rose to 120 percent of GDP, but it's a big chunk of liability.

To 66,100 Iowans Jobs Are the Chief Issue

The Gazette reports that 1,200 more Iowans are unemployed despite 4,100 payroll jobs in September. With the latest numbers, 66,100 Iowans or 3.9% are looking for work--though in Johnson County, the unemployment rate holds steady at 2.9%.

Iowa's economy produced no job growth in August, and job growth in July was weak. Iowa Workforce Development Director Elisabeth Buck said the stronger September numbers eased worries about a possible economic slowdown. The number of working Iowans climbed to another record in September, but the number of unemployed Iowans also climbed.

The highest unemployment rate for any cities in the state was 6.1 percent in the Fort Madison-Keokuk micropolitan area and the lowest was 2.3 percent in West Des Moines.

To all you campaigners visiting the state, don't forget the economy--what are your ideas to grow it?