by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, December 23, 2010
This special time of year demands a departure from the usual. In that spirit, my brother and I have decided to break from the routine nature of our friendly but spirited debate of current issues and to offer instead our personal thoughts and wishes for the Christmas season.
So, as opposed to the standard fare of offering my opinions about the latest legislation or topic du jour, I decided to challenge you to consider some Christmas Questions.
1. Was there really a record producer somewhere who thought “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” would be a good investment of his time and effort? – And did he really think it would be funny after it was heard the first time?
2. Why do people get offended by the appearance of a Nativity Scene on public property? What are they afraid of?
3. What are children being protected from when the word “Christmas” is removed from public school calendars and assembly programs?
4. What is it about this holiday that inspires so many songs, stories, poems, lectures, sermons, paintings, movies and family traditions?
5. Could it be possible that the reason this day is so unique is because the person whose birth it represents is so unique?
6. What if all the songs about Him are true? What would you do differently if you knew He really was “God with us”?
I hope each of you finds some quiet time during these hectic days to admire a Christmas display, to listen to a child giggle, to read a Christmas story, to sing a Christmas Carol to yourself, to watch Jimmy Stewart or Ebenezer Scrooge “figure it out”, to give a special gift to someone you don’t even know and to say a solemn prayer of gratitude for our great nation.
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good and prosperous 2011!
Friday, December 24, 2010
Looking Past Our Differences
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, December 23, 2010
I am not terribly unique. I, like most people (even those who claim they are not “political”), have strongly held positions on many issues. I passionately embrace debate and relish spirited discussions. Few who know me would deny my voice is among the loudest when I am standing on my soapbox or upholding my opinion in the face of challenge.
But this time of the year is a special time. Often, we put aside our differences when we gather with our family and friends in celebration of the season. Certainly, my brothers see me as their ultra-liberal kin, but they are as likely to throw an arm around my shoulder or share a joke with me as they were before I began filling their email boxes with left-wing rants. When we gather around the table or the tree we tend to avoid conversations about things upon which we disagree.
In the din of opinion, commentary, and voiced outrage that we continually find ourselves surrounded by, it is sometimes difficult to see that we largely share common values. We world citizens tend to cling to bonds of family and friendship. Most of us celebrate our disparate holiday customs and traditions without contempt for others. For the most part, there is peace on earth and goodwill extended to all men (and women, and children), regardless of race, creed or religion.
This is true despite the inclination of many who insist on manufacturing the “War on Christmas” every year from thin air. Jon Stewart from the satirical fake news show The Daily Show recently led off a Christmas special parody demonstrating this phenomenon by saying “the season just wouldn’t be the same without people going out of their way to be offended by nothing”. The point he was making was that in spite of the fact that most of us celebrate our holidays with nary a thought to those who practice a different religion or none at all, there are those who wish to resurrect the same conflict year after year.
As intently as Fox news and Glenn Beck strive to convince me otherwise, the high school my son attends still hosts Christmas concerts featuring songs about Christian traditions and themes. At the choral concert you’ll hear the words, Christmas and Messiah as well as a whole list of other Christmas-related terms. The audience members of varied backgrounds and ethnicities applaud and cheer in unified ovation. I have not seen one person walk out in disgust.
When I finish a transaction at a store or bank this time of year I say “Merry Christmas” and hear the sentiment returned in more cases than not. If someone wishes me “happy holidays” I don’t take offense and I have not yet had someone twist my arm and force me to change my similar greeting to one that honors their Christian celebration.
Political correctness isn’t the enemy of holiday cheer. Media personalities and pundits who benefit by inspiring rage and discontent among their viewers, listeners and readers are.
As corny and cliché as it may sound, this is my most favorite time of the year. I look forward to friends and family enjoying food and drink around my table. I love the anticipation and delight in the faces of my children on Christmas morning (even now that they’ve grown into young adulthood). I admire the light displays that grace the neighborhood houses as I drive at night. Every Christmas Eve, I savor the emotion and serenity of my church’s annual candlelight service. Most people I know celebrate the season in similar ways and don’t notice any assault on their belief system.
My wish for all who read this column is that you enjoy whatever holiday you celebrate. I wish you a belated Happy Hanukkah. I wish you a belated Happy Solstice. I wish you a merry Christmas. I wish you a happy New Year.
From Broader View Weekly, December 23, 2010
I am not terribly unique. I, like most people (even those who claim they are not “political”), have strongly held positions on many issues. I passionately embrace debate and relish spirited discussions. Few who know me would deny my voice is among the loudest when I am standing on my soapbox or upholding my opinion in the face of challenge.
But this time of the year is a special time. Often, we put aside our differences when we gather with our family and friends in celebration of the season. Certainly, my brothers see me as their ultra-liberal kin, but they are as likely to throw an arm around my shoulder or share a joke with me as they were before I began filling their email boxes with left-wing rants. When we gather around the table or the tree we tend to avoid conversations about things upon which we disagree.
In the din of opinion, commentary, and voiced outrage that we continually find ourselves surrounded by, it is sometimes difficult to see that we largely share common values. We world citizens tend to cling to bonds of family and friendship. Most of us celebrate our disparate holiday customs and traditions without contempt for others. For the most part, there is peace on earth and goodwill extended to all men (and women, and children), regardless of race, creed or religion.
This is true despite the inclination of many who insist on manufacturing the “War on Christmas” every year from thin air. Jon Stewart from the satirical fake news show The Daily Show recently led off a Christmas special parody demonstrating this phenomenon by saying “the season just wouldn’t be the same without people going out of their way to be offended by nothing”. The point he was making was that in spite of the fact that most of us celebrate our holidays with nary a thought to those who practice a different religion or none at all, there are those who wish to resurrect the same conflict year after year.
As intently as Fox news and Glenn Beck strive to convince me otherwise, the high school my son attends still hosts Christmas concerts featuring songs about Christian traditions and themes. At the choral concert you’ll hear the words, Christmas and Messiah as well as a whole list of other Christmas-related terms. The audience members of varied backgrounds and ethnicities applaud and cheer in unified ovation. I have not seen one person walk out in disgust.
When I finish a transaction at a store or bank this time of year I say “Merry Christmas” and hear the sentiment returned in more cases than not. If someone wishes me “happy holidays” I don’t take offense and I have not yet had someone twist my arm and force me to change my similar greeting to one that honors their Christian celebration.
Political correctness isn’t the enemy of holiday cheer. Media personalities and pundits who benefit by inspiring rage and discontent among their viewers, listeners and readers are.
As corny and cliché as it may sound, this is my most favorite time of the year. I look forward to friends and family enjoying food and drink around my table. I love the anticipation and delight in the faces of my children on Christmas morning (even now that they’ve grown into young adulthood). I admire the light displays that grace the neighborhood houses as I drive at night. Every Christmas Eve, I savor the emotion and serenity of my church’s annual candlelight service. Most people I know celebrate the season in similar ways and don’t notice any assault on their belief system.
My wish for all who read this column is that you enjoy whatever holiday you celebrate. I wish you a belated Happy Hanukkah. I wish you a belated Happy Solstice. I wish you a merry Christmas. I wish you a happy New Year.
Lessons Learned: the Value of the WikiLeaks Dump
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, December 9, 2010
All right-wing attacks on liberals like myself (and accusations of America-hating treason) aside, the fact is that an overall concern for national security is a bi-partisan value. I care as much about threats posed by our nation’s enemies and as much about the protection of lives and operations conducted by our troops, ambassadors and diplomats as do conservatives like my brother Gordon and his heroes Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.
That said, I cannot bring to myself assign much negative consequence to last week’s dump by media organization WikiLeaks of hundreds of thousands of pages of classified documents for public consumption.
Obviously, the State Department and the Obama administration have been quick and harsh in their condemnation of the leaks uncovered and published by Australian WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Cable communications that they assumed were private correspondence have been made public, embarrassing officials and complicating diplomatic relations. To be fair, some of the information that has come to light has presented potential game-changers for at least a few missions abroad.
But I think it is valuable to take an honest and candid look at what we have really learned from this massive revelation, instead of simply jumping on the political bandwagon, labeling WikiLeaks a terrorist organization, and calling for the arrest of an international whistle-blower.
First of all there were documents that were released that told us little we didn’t already know. We have always known that the State Department and American officials attempt to operate covertly and secretly. This is part of the business of foreign policy and is no shocker. It was also no surprise that the leaders of Middle Eastern countries have called Iran a threat. Those nations have a vested interest in security and a madman like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the neighborhood would make most people nervous. Many facts that came out may have elicited an interested “hmmm” but were largely assumed or were accepted public knowledge.
There were also items of embarrassing humor. For instance, we “learned” that Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi is a paranoid prima donna who hates to fly over water and requires that his “voluptuous” blond Ukrainian nurse accompany him everywhere. Again, this is no shocker. We have seen the spectacle of his 2009 visit to the U.S.
But there are other gleanings that have real utility to us all as citizens of the United States. There are facts that are aligned with what we already know or suspect, but which bring nuances and specifics that are vital to important discussions that must be had.
Saudi Arabia, long considered an ally in the Middle East, has also been eyed with some suspicion, especially during the George W. Bush administration. WikiLeaks documents imply that Saudi King Abdullah has urged the U.S. to bomb Iran in order to stop her nuclear program. However, Saudi funding of groups like Al Qaeda casts shadows on the intentions of this so-called ally. With growing talk over how to deal with Iran, it is imperative to consider the influence the Saudis may have in the matter.
On the subject of Iran, cables were released last week that implied that while the Obama administration outwardly advocated diplomatic strategies to change the behavior of Ahmadinejad and of the Iranian state, there was little belief that those measures would be successful. This revelation told us two things. First, we learned that there was little concrete commitment to a diplomatic resolution; second, we learned that the Bush era tactic of carrots and sticks had remained in place and is the sole mode of operation for the current administration. Not only does this fact refute the assertions of Obama critics that his departure from Bush policy points to his weakness on national security (since there is no policy change at all), it opens up dialog about how the United States should approach relations with Iran going forward.
I found the documents discussing the corruption and graft, rampant within the Afghan government, particularly interesting. While I wasn’t surprised in the least to hear once again that corruption reached the very top of Hamid Karzai’s administration, the sheer magnitude of the corruption is sobering. With the recent admission by Obama that combat troops will be committed to Afghanistan until 2014 (an extension over the original 2011 estimate), I think that further dialog about the chances for success of the mission and the risks of prolonged involvement in the region is necessary. This new information confirms old suspicions and reminds a war-wearied U.S. populous of the dire nature of this conflict.
The WikiLeaks website has been the victim of attacks on its servers and the technology on which it operates. Julian Assange is under investigation and has been targeted for prosecution by several world governments. The leadership in the United States has shown rare bi-partisan unity in its condemnation of the leaks. It is difficult to say what the final outcome of the WikiLeaks “scandal” will be. But whatever our opinion of the organization, its founder and its intent, it is undeniable that the WikiLeaks dump has contributed to the political discourse already, and I feel that is an asset to our democracy.
From Broader View Weekly, December 9, 2010
All right-wing attacks on liberals like myself (and accusations of America-hating treason) aside, the fact is that an overall concern for national security is a bi-partisan value. I care as much about threats posed by our nation’s enemies and as much about the protection of lives and operations conducted by our troops, ambassadors and diplomats as do conservatives like my brother Gordon and his heroes Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.
That said, I cannot bring to myself assign much negative consequence to last week’s dump by media organization WikiLeaks of hundreds of thousands of pages of classified documents for public consumption.
Obviously, the State Department and the Obama administration have been quick and harsh in their condemnation of the leaks uncovered and published by Australian WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Cable communications that they assumed were private correspondence have been made public, embarrassing officials and complicating diplomatic relations. To be fair, some of the information that has come to light has presented potential game-changers for at least a few missions abroad.
But I think it is valuable to take an honest and candid look at what we have really learned from this massive revelation, instead of simply jumping on the political bandwagon, labeling WikiLeaks a terrorist organization, and calling for the arrest of an international whistle-blower.
First of all there were documents that were released that told us little we didn’t already know. We have always known that the State Department and American officials attempt to operate covertly and secretly. This is part of the business of foreign policy and is no shocker. It was also no surprise that the leaders of Middle Eastern countries have called Iran a threat. Those nations have a vested interest in security and a madman like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the neighborhood would make most people nervous. Many facts that came out may have elicited an interested “hmmm” but were largely assumed or were accepted public knowledge.
There were also items of embarrassing humor. For instance, we “learned” that Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi is a paranoid prima donna who hates to fly over water and requires that his “voluptuous” blond Ukrainian nurse accompany him everywhere. Again, this is no shocker. We have seen the spectacle of his 2009 visit to the U.S.
But there are other gleanings that have real utility to us all as citizens of the United States. There are facts that are aligned with what we already know or suspect, but which bring nuances and specifics that are vital to important discussions that must be had.
Saudi Arabia, long considered an ally in the Middle East, has also been eyed with some suspicion, especially during the George W. Bush administration. WikiLeaks documents imply that Saudi King Abdullah has urged the U.S. to bomb Iran in order to stop her nuclear program. However, Saudi funding of groups like Al Qaeda casts shadows on the intentions of this so-called ally. With growing talk over how to deal with Iran, it is imperative to consider the influence the Saudis may have in the matter.
On the subject of Iran, cables were released last week that implied that while the Obama administration outwardly advocated diplomatic strategies to change the behavior of Ahmadinejad and of the Iranian state, there was little belief that those measures would be successful. This revelation told us two things. First, we learned that there was little concrete commitment to a diplomatic resolution; second, we learned that the Bush era tactic of carrots and sticks had remained in place and is the sole mode of operation for the current administration. Not only does this fact refute the assertions of Obama critics that his departure from Bush policy points to his weakness on national security (since there is no policy change at all), it opens up dialog about how the United States should approach relations with Iran going forward.
I found the documents discussing the corruption and graft, rampant within the Afghan government, particularly interesting. While I wasn’t surprised in the least to hear once again that corruption reached the very top of Hamid Karzai’s administration, the sheer magnitude of the corruption is sobering. With the recent admission by Obama that combat troops will be committed to Afghanistan until 2014 (an extension over the original 2011 estimate), I think that further dialog about the chances for success of the mission and the risks of prolonged involvement in the region is necessary. This new information confirms old suspicions and reminds a war-wearied U.S. populous of the dire nature of this conflict.
The WikiLeaks website has been the victim of attacks on its servers and the technology on which it operates. Julian Assange is under investigation and has been targeted for prosecution by several world governments. The leadership in the United States has shown rare bi-partisan unity in its condemnation of the leaks. It is difficult to say what the final outcome of the WikiLeaks “scandal” will be. But whatever our opinion of the organization, its founder and its intent, it is undeniable that the WikiLeaks dump has contributed to the political discourse already, and I feel that is an asset to our democracy.
Wikileaks Exposes Need for New Plumber
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, December 9, 2010
As you may have guessed already, I find myself disagreeing with my brother’s assessment of the Wikileaks scandal. Keith concludes his column with the idea that an indiscriminate “dumping” of classified documents and confidential communiqués is an “asset to our democracy”. I do not agree. I believe it is a dangerous and costly liability – one that should be dealt with quickly and completely so as to stem the unrestricted flow of protected communications, prevent further leaks and to protect the identity and welfare of valuable informants.
In fact, many corporations and other governments have moved to restrict Wikileaks’ access to the Internet. However, our “Plumber-in-Chief” has decided to send his Attorney General, Holder, on a mission to coax the organizers of the World Cup to bring a soccer tournament to America. Priorities, man, priorities.
I think we need to make an example of Julian Assange the way our forefathers made an example of Benedict Arnold. Perhaps, if he was dealt with properly, (some have suggested execution, I prefer life imprisonment with no electronics) future generations would not be warned against “being a Benedict Arnold” but instead, they would be admonished: “Don’t make an Assange of yourself.”
Keith opens with a claim that he “cares about the lives of… our troops, ambassadors and diplomats.” Yet, he seems to downplay the significant damage done and enhanced risk being placed upon those very lives.
There are reasons why people must speak “off the record” and there are reasons why some secrets must remain secret. In fact, a very wise world leader (King Solomon) once said “…do not reveal the secret of another, lest he who hears it reproach you, and the evil report about you not pass away.” (Proverbs 25:9,10 NASB)
We live in a very dangerous world. We have terrorists plotting against us, we have rogue leaders seeking weapons of mass destruction, and we have allies that depend upon us for their safety. Therefore, we need an Intelligence network that can operate with the assurance that its communiqués are secure. People in our Intelligence community and in our military risk their lives to acquire and maintain contacts in foreign lands and those contacts take similar risks to keep our men and women informed. If there is no sense of security, there will be no more information.
In dangerous times we must take advantage of every source of information we can find. We must be assured the information is accurate and untainted by fear of disclosure. Secretary of State Ms. Clinton, was rightly distressed and troubled by the revelations, which did not disclose specific wrongful acts by the U.S., but did divulge intimate conversations; that divulgence will inhibit frankness and candor in the future.
Among the many ironies being played out by this scandal is the fact that many on the Left who saw the Valerie Plame ordeal, which centered around the disclosure of a CIA Operative’s identity, as a serious breach of National Security and classified information, see no similar breach in this case when we have the potential for far greater risk. Conversely, those on the Right who tried to downplay the risk to Plame, are now screaming for the head of Assange on a platter. I felt then, as I feel now, that state secrets should and ought to be secret. Not because I feel the state is always right and the citizens should leave the governing to the “experts”, nor is it because I feel the press should be fettered in its investigations of government. It is solely because I believe in the rule of law. The law is what separates us from anarchy and despite Keith’s attempt to claim that somehow the means used to “open political discourse” is justified by that end, I believe Wikileaks, its founder, and many of his sympathizers have anarchy on their mind.
The other irony in this mess is the statement made by Assange in which he claims that his intent is to create a “better world”. I suppose his definition of a better world is one in which no secrets are safe and no one dares to confide in another. I do not think that world would be better.
However, I do believe he may have ushered in a better world if this experience causes us to think twice about the safety of electronic communication. Perhaps we will return to face-to-face conversation and perhaps we will be more wary of the “send” button, for we have to realize that once a message hits cyberspace, it is no longer between just two people.
The final irony is the most humorous. According to a Reuters report from London, dated 12/2, Assange – who claims that Wikileaks is “an organization devoted to revealing secret documents” – was working on the next document dumping project from a “secret, undisclosed location”. Pardon me, but if this story wasn’t so serious, I’d be laughing milk through my nose right now.
From Broader View Weekly, December 9, 2010
As you may have guessed already, I find myself disagreeing with my brother’s assessment of the Wikileaks scandal. Keith concludes his column with the idea that an indiscriminate “dumping” of classified documents and confidential communiqués is an “asset to our democracy”. I do not agree. I believe it is a dangerous and costly liability – one that should be dealt with quickly and completely so as to stem the unrestricted flow of protected communications, prevent further leaks and to protect the identity and welfare of valuable informants.
In fact, many corporations and other governments have moved to restrict Wikileaks’ access to the Internet. However, our “Plumber-in-Chief” has decided to send his Attorney General, Holder, on a mission to coax the organizers of the World Cup to bring a soccer tournament to America. Priorities, man, priorities.
I think we need to make an example of Julian Assange the way our forefathers made an example of Benedict Arnold. Perhaps, if he was dealt with properly, (some have suggested execution, I prefer life imprisonment with no electronics) future generations would not be warned against “being a Benedict Arnold” but instead, they would be admonished: “Don’t make an Assange of yourself.”
Keith opens with a claim that he “cares about the lives of… our troops, ambassadors and diplomats.” Yet, he seems to downplay the significant damage done and enhanced risk being placed upon those very lives.
There are reasons why people must speak “off the record” and there are reasons why some secrets must remain secret. In fact, a very wise world leader (King Solomon) once said “…do not reveal the secret of another, lest he who hears it reproach you, and the evil report about you not pass away.” (Proverbs 25:9,10 NASB)
We live in a very dangerous world. We have terrorists plotting against us, we have rogue leaders seeking weapons of mass destruction, and we have allies that depend upon us for their safety. Therefore, we need an Intelligence network that can operate with the assurance that its communiqués are secure. People in our Intelligence community and in our military risk their lives to acquire and maintain contacts in foreign lands and those contacts take similar risks to keep our men and women informed. If there is no sense of security, there will be no more information.
In dangerous times we must take advantage of every source of information we can find. We must be assured the information is accurate and untainted by fear of disclosure. Secretary of State Ms. Clinton, was rightly distressed and troubled by the revelations, which did not disclose specific wrongful acts by the U.S., but did divulge intimate conversations; that divulgence will inhibit frankness and candor in the future.
Among the many ironies being played out by this scandal is the fact that many on the Left who saw the Valerie Plame ordeal, which centered around the disclosure of a CIA Operative’s identity, as a serious breach of National Security and classified information, see no similar breach in this case when we have the potential for far greater risk. Conversely, those on the Right who tried to downplay the risk to Plame, are now screaming for the head of Assange on a platter. I felt then, as I feel now, that state secrets should and ought to be secret. Not because I feel the state is always right and the citizens should leave the governing to the “experts”, nor is it because I feel the press should be fettered in its investigations of government. It is solely because I believe in the rule of law. The law is what separates us from anarchy and despite Keith’s attempt to claim that somehow the means used to “open political discourse” is justified by that end, I believe Wikileaks, its founder, and many of his sympathizers have anarchy on their mind.
The other irony in this mess is the statement made by Assange in which he claims that his intent is to create a “better world”. I suppose his definition of a better world is one in which no secrets are safe and no one dares to confide in another. I do not think that world would be better.
However, I do believe he may have ushered in a better world if this experience causes us to think twice about the safety of electronic communication. Perhaps we will return to face-to-face conversation and perhaps we will be more wary of the “send” button, for we have to realize that once a message hits cyberspace, it is no longer between just two people.
The final irony is the most humorous. According to a Reuters report from London, dated 12/2, Assange – who claims that Wikileaks is “an organization devoted to revealing secret documents” – was working on the next document dumping project from a “secret, undisclosed location”. Pardon me, but if this story wasn’t so serious, I’d be laughing milk through my nose right now.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
An Exercise in Futility, or an Open Door for Change?
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, November 25, 2010
The President’s Deficit Commission, AKA National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, has finally delivered a Draft Proposal that outlines in a brief (by Washington terms) 50-plus page report, their plan for reducing our deficit and – as the name optimistically describes – bringing fiscal responsibility and reform. I read the report and I glanced at the many charts and tables they provided. It was an interesting exercise.
The commission was created earlier this year by an executive order of President Obama. Its charge was to incorporate ideologies from both Republicans and Democrats and to deliver a bipartisan solution to the very real and present danger of our runaway deficit. It was co-chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles, a former Clinton Chief of Staff, and Republican Alan Simpson, a former U.S. Senator from Wyoming.
They worked with sixteen other members of the commission and came up with some bold steps that, according to their projections, would reduce the deficit/Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from the current 9.1% to 1.6% by 2020 and increase revenue/GDP levels from the current 14.6% to 21.6% the same year. It also predicts a balanced budget by 2037 and a positive deficit/GDP (i.e. a budget surplus) by 2040.
It is at times like these that I wish I could be as naïve and gullible as my leaders think I am. I wish I could believe they really could look ahead to 2040 and see our budget in perfect balance, our spending under control, and our revenues increasing. I also wish I could believe in the tooth fairy, the lottery commercials and hair growth products.
However, I am bound by the constraints of reality and I know these figures and projections are as reliable and as likely as the global warming figures and projections.
Any attempt to inject responsibility and reform into any institution will most certainly be met with resistance and protest – to do so in a governmental budget is to invite screams and squeals from every corner.
Before I add my own screams and squeals to the din, I feel I must be fair and offer up a few words of praise.
First of all, I am pleased to see that they are at least looking at the dangerous storm clouds on the horizon and they are cognizant of the need to address this threat to our national security and solvency.
I agree with the premise made in their opening “values” statements, in which they give ten defining principles that guided them as they sought solutions. Among these are the principles that we must start slowly, we must protect the truly vulnerable who are dependent upon social aid programs, we must cut waste, we must look at every program – including defense spending and even Social Security and Medicare spending – for cuts and savings.
I am in favor of putting everything on the table, and removing the Sacred Item – Do Not Touch! label from programs and subsidies that have failed to produce the desired effects, or have – like the misdirected welfare policies that destroyed the family structure – produced deleterious effects.
The commission recommended several cuts, which I approve. Among those were:
- Freezing Defense Dept. salaries and bonuses and non-combat pay
- Cutting Cost-of-Living increases for all Federal programs – including Social Security
- Cutting Federal work force by 10%
- Eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
- Cutting some redundant weapons programs from Defense spending
The increased revenue would supposedly come through some new taxes such as a 15 cent/gallon gasoline tax and by eliminating certain tax credits such as the Mortgage Interest Deduction and Child Tax Credit. Of course, we know how the travel industry, housing industry, and the pro-family lobbyists will respond to each of those proposals. I won’t even mention the idea of raising the Social Security retirement age they are recommending, for fear of sparking the howling protests we have seen from those across the pond.
As you can guess, this commission is making few friends and its chance of getting any serious consideration of passing these proposals through a divided legislature is paper thin. However, it has opened the door to a room we must all enter sooner or later – no matter how chilly and dark that room may be now – we have to walk in and sit down to the table and offer some sacrificial offerings.
I am in favor of a strong defense and I believe we should be the strongest military force on the planet, because I believe we are the most moral force on the planet. But I also believe our military can still be strong while cutting costs. I am opposed to most taxes, but I am aware that the privilege of living in a great nation requires something from every citizen.
The cost of doing nothing is far too great. Our deficit must be brought under control. Nothing should be held sacred and beyond the reach of the golden scissors – including that monstrous health care bill passed through bribery and manipulation last spring.
From Broader View Weekly, November 25, 2010
The President’s Deficit Commission, AKA National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, has finally delivered a Draft Proposal that outlines in a brief (by Washington terms) 50-plus page report, their plan for reducing our deficit and – as the name optimistically describes – bringing fiscal responsibility and reform. I read the report and I glanced at the many charts and tables they provided. It was an interesting exercise.
The commission was created earlier this year by an executive order of President Obama. Its charge was to incorporate ideologies from both Republicans and Democrats and to deliver a bipartisan solution to the very real and present danger of our runaway deficit. It was co-chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles, a former Clinton Chief of Staff, and Republican Alan Simpson, a former U.S. Senator from Wyoming.
They worked with sixteen other members of the commission and came up with some bold steps that, according to their projections, would reduce the deficit/Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from the current 9.1% to 1.6% by 2020 and increase revenue/GDP levels from the current 14.6% to 21.6% the same year. It also predicts a balanced budget by 2037 and a positive deficit/GDP (i.e. a budget surplus) by 2040.
It is at times like these that I wish I could be as naïve and gullible as my leaders think I am. I wish I could believe they really could look ahead to 2040 and see our budget in perfect balance, our spending under control, and our revenues increasing. I also wish I could believe in the tooth fairy, the lottery commercials and hair growth products.
However, I am bound by the constraints of reality and I know these figures and projections are as reliable and as likely as the global warming figures and projections.
Any attempt to inject responsibility and reform into any institution will most certainly be met with resistance and protest – to do so in a governmental budget is to invite screams and squeals from every corner.
Before I add my own screams and squeals to the din, I feel I must be fair and offer up a few words of praise.
First of all, I am pleased to see that they are at least looking at the dangerous storm clouds on the horizon and they are cognizant of the need to address this threat to our national security and solvency.
I agree with the premise made in their opening “values” statements, in which they give ten defining principles that guided them as they sought solutions. Among these are the principles that we must start slowly, we must protect the truly vulnerable who are dependent upon social aid programs, we must cut waste, we must look at every program – including defense spending and even Social Security and Medicare spending – for cuts and savings.
I am in favor of putting everything on the table, and removing the Sacred Item – Do Not Touch! label from programs and subsidies that have failed to produce the desired effects, or have – like the misdirected welfare policies that destroyed the family structure – produced deleterious effects.
The commission recommended several cuts, which I approve. Among those were:
- Freezing Defense Dept. salaries and bonuses and non-combat pay
- Cutting Cost-of-Living increases for all Federal programs – including Social Security
- Cutting Federal work force by 10%
- Eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
- Cutting some redundant weapons programs from Defense spending
The increased revenue would supposedly come through some new taxes such as a 15 cent/gallon gasoline tax and by eliminating certain tax credits such as the Mortgage Interest Deduction and Child Tax Credit. Of course, we know how the travel industry, housing industry, and the pro-family lobbyists will respond to each of those proposals. I won’t even mention the idea of raising the Social Security retirement age they are recommending, for fear of sparking the howling protests we have seen from those across the pond.
As you can guess, this commission is making few friends and its chance of getting any serious consideration of passing these proposals through a divided legislature is paper thin. However, it has opened the door to a room we must all enter sooner or later – no matter how chilly and dark that room may be now – we have to walk in and sit down to the table and offer some sacrificial offerings.
I am in favor of a strong defense and I believe we should be the strongest military force on the planet, because I believe we are the most moral force on the planet. But I also believe our military can still be strong while cutting costs. I am opposed to most taxes, but I am aware that the privilege of living in a great nation requires something from every citizen.
The cost of doing nothing is far too great. Our deficit must be brought under control. Nothing should be held sacred and beyond the reach of the golden scissors – including that monstrous health care bill passed through bribery and manipulation last spring.
Let’s Get Serious
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, November 25, 2010
When one looks at the current national debt and deficit dilemma it is undeniable that the assertion of President Obama’s appointed panel that a real solution must include both spending reduction and increased revenue rings true. Regardless of one’s political affiliation one must accept the fact that only a combination of tax increases and spending cuts will prevent leaving the tragic legacy of our irresponsibility to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. So, when a bipartisan commission makes a public statement that nothing is off the table it sounds hopeful that there is serious commitment to this end.
Unfortunately, a quick review of the draft proposal that was released last week reveals that not everything is on the table.
The most glaring omission from the proposal is the much-politicized Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The $700 billion in revenue that would be generated by allowing the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent is a bold step indeed. Apparently it is one that is an untouchable sacred item. My brother Gordon would argue that the tax cuts were necessary to bring jobs and speed economic recovery. Ironically, the cuts created zero net jobs during Bush’s terms of office, which saw unemployment nearly double during their span.
Apparently corporate welfare is the only acceptable form of government assistance to both parties in Washington. The commission lists, as one of its goals, the reform of the tax code to make “America the best place to start and run a business and create jobs”. However, one of the proposals under the tax code section is the elimination of a credit for domestic production. Once again, it is plain to see that the commission lacks serious commitment toward its stated goals if it is eliminating incentives to create local jobs. The only local employment we are insuring by offering the proposed breaks to corporations is at the executive level. Meanwhile the working class continues to suffer while the wealthy are once again the beneficiaries of government spending and legislation.
It is heartening to see cuts in defense spending on the table (and to see them receiving a nod of approval by my fellow columnist). In fact, I was happy to see a reduction in overseas bases was the second largest line item in the commission’s proposed cuts. Unfortunately again, many cuts effect those who can least afford them. Cuts designed to “modernize” the health benefits of soldiers and veterans will hurt military personal at the lowest incomes and the veterans who have bravely served their country. A freeze on non-combat military pay will add to the suffering of those low-income families who turned to military service in a time of economic crisis.
And even with a $100 billion reduction in military spending, the U.S. expenditure on defense far outweighs that of other countries. China (the number 2 nation in defense spending) spends only 1/6th of the U.S. expenditure and our defense budget is more than the next 23 nations’ combined budgets.
It is good to see the out-of-control military spending addressed, but reigning in the Pentagon’s budget is far from serious reform. Unless we look at the impact of supplemental military spending on the deficit and upon the foreign lending that allows us to sustain it, the discussion is simply rhetoric. An appeal must be made to tailor foreign policy with a mind toward constraining spending. Neither side of the political aisle denies that the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have contributed to the deficit and to our dependency on foreign aid. Yet few have suggested including these costs in the current debate. Even the president has ignored the cost when recently admitting that our military commitment in Afghanistan will last at least three years longer than expected (at undeniable economic expense, as well as the human toll). A bloated military, beholden to no-bid contractors, with wasteful spending makes us no safer.
Recent efforts to improve national security through the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia were blocked by Senate obstructionism. Despite the Obama administration’s contradictory promise of billions of dollars in investment toward modernizing weapons systems, Republicans still oppose reducing the threat of nuclear weapons. The military-industrial complex continues to hold our nation and its leaders hostage nearly fifty years after President Dwight Eisenhower made reference to it.
I found the commission’s words disingenuous when it mentioned that “Throughout our history, Americans have always been willing to sacrifice to make our nation stronger over the long haul.” Yes, it is true that during points of our history citizens have made great sacrifice to preserve the common good. The “Greatest Generation” is a testament to selflessness and a true spirit of patriotic commitment. However, this spirit is largely dead in modern America. We would rather ignore or dispute the facts of global warming than give up our luxuries or our SUVs. Those at the top of the income pyramid refuse to sacrifice even 3 percent of their millions and billions. The cry of “no compromise” is the loudest in our capitals and in our political discourse.
Still, this commission is applauded for making the “tough” decisions of asking those who can hardly afford it to make further sacrifices. Two of the biggest targets for cuts in this proposal are Social Security and Medicare, which provide vital support to the neediest among us. Is this really the best that 18 experts can come up with? Shouldn’t we get serious about the real issues?
From Broader View Weekly, November 25, 2010
When one looks at the current national debt and deficit dilemma it is undeniable that the assertion of President Obama’s appointed panel that a real solution must include both spending reduction and increased revenue rings true. Regardless of one’s political affiliation one must accept the fact that only a combination of tax increases and spending cuts will prevent leaving the tragic legacy of our irresponsibility to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. So, when a bipartisan commission makes a public statement that nothing is off the table it sounds hopeful that there is serious commitment to this end.
Unfortunately, a quick review of the draft proposal that was released last week reveals that not everything is on the table.
The most glaring omission from the proposal is the much-politicized Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The $700 billion in revenue that would be generated by allowing the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent is a bold step indeed. Apparently it is one that is an untouchable sacred item. My brother Gordon would argue that the tax cuts were necessary to bring jobs and speed economic recovery. Ironically, the cuts created zero net jobs during Bush’s terms of office, which saw unemployment nearly double during their span.
Apparently corporate welfare is the only acceptable form of government assistance to both parties in Washington. The commission lists, as one of its goals, the reform of the tax code to make “America the best place to start and run a business and create jobs”. However, one of the proposals under the tax code section is the elimination of a credit for domestic production. Once again, it is plain to see that the commission lacks serious commitment toward its stated goals if it is eliminating incentives to create local jobs. The only local employment we are insuring by offering the proposed breaks to corporations is at the executive level. Meanwhile the working class continues to suffer while the wealthy are once again the beneficiaries of government spending and legislation.
It is heartening to see cuts in defense spending on the table (and to see them receiving a nod of approval by my fellow columnist). In fact, I was happy to see a reduction in overseas bases was the second largest line item in the commission’s proposed cuts. Unfortunately again, many cuts effect those who can least afford them. Cuts designed to “modernize” the health benefits of soldiers and veterans will hurt military personal at the lowest incomes and the veterans who have bravely served their country. A freeze on non-combat military pay will add to the suffering of those low-income families who turned to military service in a time of economic crisis.
And even with a $100 billion reduction in military spending, the U.S. expenditure on defense far outweighs that of other countries. China (the number 2 nation in defense spending) spends only 1/6th of the U.S. expenditure and our defense budget is more than the next 23 nations’ combined budgets.
It is good to see the out-of-control military spending addressed, but reigning in the Pentagon’s budget is far from serious reform. Unless we look at the impact of supplemental military spending on the deficit and upon the foreign lending that allows us to sustain it, the discussion is simply rhetoric. An appeal must be made to tailor foreign policy with a mind toward constraining spending. Neither side of the political aisle denies that the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have contributed to the deficit and to our dependency on foreign aid. Yet few have suggested including these costs in the current debate. Even the president has ignored the cost when recently admitting that our military commitment in Afghanistan will last at least three years longer than expected (at undeniable economic expense, as well as the human toll). A bloated military, beholden to no-bid contractors, with wasteful spending makes us no safer.
Recent efforts to improve national security through the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia were blocked by Senate obstructionism. Despite the Obama administration’s contradictory promise of billions of dollars in investment toward modernizing weapons systems, Republicans still oppose reducing the threat of nuclear weapons. The military-industrial complex continues to hold our nation and its leaders hostage nearly fifty years after President Dwight Eisenhower made reference to it.
I found the commission’s words disingenuous when it mentioned that “Throughout our history, Americans have always been willing to sacrifice to make our nation stronger over the long haul.” Yes, it is true that during points of our history citizens have made great sacrifice to preserve the common good. The “Greatest Generation” is a testament to selflessness and a true spirit of patriotic commitment. However, this spirit is largely dead in modern America. We would rather ignore or dispute the facts of global warming than give up our luxuries or our SUVs. Those at the top of the income pyramid refuse to sacrifice even 3 percent of their millions and billions. The cry of “no compromise” is the loudest in our capitals and in our political discourse.
Still, this commission is applauded for making the “tough” decisions of asking those who can hardly afford it to make further sacrifices. Two of the biggest targets for cuts in this proposal are Social Security and Medicare, which provide vital support to the neediest among us. Is this really the best that 18 experts can come up with? Shouldn’t we get serious about the real issues?
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Who Are the Real Losers?
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, November 11, 2010
Many who have followed my columns might expect me to be despondent or depressed following last week’s “shellacking” of Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. True, there were disappointments like Tom Reed’s victory in the 29th Congressional District, and the amount of seats lost to Republicans in the House of Representatives as a whole. But unlike many on my side of the political spectrum, I’m not donning sackcloth and moping around the house.
First of all, the results weren’t a huge surprise. Historically, the party in power loses Congressional seats in times of economic crisis. Certainly, the public knows that the economic and financial decline in which the United States still finds itself mired began long before President Barack Obama occupied the White House. Still, fear and anger must find their targets and Obama and the Democrats fit the bill. Punishment was doled out in the form of ballots, and control shifted. Republicans claimed victory and retribution, and argued that the message of the people was heard loud and clear on Election Day.
But what was that message? Rush Limbaugh and other insist that it is a rejection of President Obama and his “dangerous agenda”. However, in 2008, 53 percent of Americans voted for Obama and the hope of change. That’s far too great a majority to account for “white guilt”, as Limbaugh would assert. It is hard to believe that people who voted for Obama’s campaign promises just two years ago would vote against those same policies in 2010. Any who voted for Obama but voted against Democrats this go around were likely disappointed that more was not done to further progressive issues. For instance, the arduous process of repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy angered some. I found the provisions of the health care reform that Democrats fought for to be inadequate. Unfortunately, expressing dissatisfaction at the ballot box in an election like this one does little to redress the shortcomings of which we complain most loudly.
There was also a factor that was undeniable in the lead up to, and in the days following, the recent elections. The Tea Party movement was an unmistakable influence upon the outcome. Not everyone who voted an incumbent out, or installed a GOP candidate in office, would describe himself or herself as a member of the Tea Party, but the movement’s message infected the media. It was trumpeted so loudly by the right wing that it was nearly inescapable and the same points were so oft repeated that it became hard even for normally centrist or left-leaning voters to resist its appeal.
The Tea Party ran its campaign on the same promise Obama did in 2008: change. This time change means a rollback of progressive values. Any advancement made by the Democratic President and the Congress (as insignificant as it has been) is targeted for repeal when the new dynamic in Washington is in place.
Of course, this agenda has no hope of success in the near term. The Senate (even with narrow margins) remains in Democratic control and the President is sure to veto any attempt to completely strip laws like health care reform from the books.
Republicans are really hanging their hopes on 2012. Senator Mitch McConnell has already made statements declaring that the best hope for undoing current policy is removing Obama from office. Fortunately, for McConnell and his crew, Republican wins in gubernatorial races will pave the way for state redistricting that will seriously impact the 2012 elections. Mitch McConnell’s cautioning is intended to dampen expectations, especially among the extreme right wing that conservative agendas will be advanced in the 112th Congress.
That doesn’t really matter. The GOP is happy to be the party of “NO” going forward. While Tea Party favorites like Michele Bachman (a Congresswoman from Minnesota who has her eye on a leadership position in the House) have threatened to shake things up in Congress, the current Republican elite will likely remain in power. McConnell and presumptive House Speaker John Boehner understand the way Capitol Hill operates and the limitations on their real control. Some have said this will bring conflict between the Tea Party establishment and those who are pragmatic about Washington politics, but I really don’t think it matters much to the average Tea Partier.
Many would be happy to see gridlock for the next two years. Limbaugh has devoted much of his broadcast time over the past couple of weeks to telling Republicans in Congress that he and his followers will not tolerate cooperation or compromise with the President or members from the other side of the aisle. Voters, he has said, do not want compromise. And apparently, in at least some cases, he’s right.
A Nevada Tea Partier, Ronald Hanvey, summed it up well. “I want gridlock. I don’t want any more laws.”
That is what I find saddest about the outcome of the recent election. The only change that has come to Washington in the post-Obama era is greater division and partisanship. A celebration of obstructionism is no victory. Neither is the rejection of the democratic ideals of cooperation that made our representative form of government unique and cherished in the world.
The real losers in the election on November 2nd weren’t the Democratic politicians. The real losers were you and me. We are losing the vision of our forefathers, of the United States as the shining example of democracy and liberty. We are losing the integrity of our republic.
We have allowed an extremist minority to shape the political landscape. We have forfeited our ideals to the political quagmire. We have given up on reforming Washington. Unless we stand up and vote for real democracy we have all lost.
From Broader View Weekly, November 11, 2010
Many who have followed my columns might expect me to be despondent or depressed following last week’s “shellacking” of Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. True, there were disappointments like Tom Reed’s victory in the 29th Congressional District, and the amount of seats lost to Republicans in the House of Representatives as a whole. But unlike many on my side of the political spectrum, I’m not donning sackcloth and moping around the house.
First of all, the results weren’t a huge surprise. Historically, the party in power loses Congressional seats in times of economic crisis. Certainly, the public knows that the economic and financial decline in which the United States still finds itself mired began long before President Barack Obama occupied the White House. Still, fear and anger must find their targets and Obama and the Democrats fit the bill. Punishment was doled out in the form of ballots, and control shifted. Republicans claimed victory and retribution, and argued that the message of the people was heard loud and clear on Election Day.
But what was that message? Rush Limbaugh and other insist that it is a rejection of President Obama and his “dangerous agenda”. However, in 2008, 53 percent of Americans voted for Obama and the hope of change. That’s far too great a majority to account for “white guilt”, as Limbaugh would assert. It is hard to believe that people who voted for Obama’s campaign promises just two years ago would vote against those same policies in 2010. Any who voted for Obama but voted against Democrats this go around were likely disappointed that more was not done to further progressive issues. For instance, the arduous process of repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy angered some. I found the provisions of the health care reform that Democrats fought for to be inadequate. Unfortunately, expressing dissatisfaction at the ballot box in an election like this one does little to redress the shortcomings of which we complain most loudly.
There was also a factor that was undeniable in the lead up to, and in the days following, the recent elections. The Tea Party movement was an unmistakable influence upon the outcome. Not everyone who voted an incumbent out, or installed a GOP candidate in office, would describe himself or herself as a member of the Tea Party, but the movement’s message infected the media. It was trumpeted so loudly by the right wing that it was nearly inescapable and the same points were so oft repeated that it became hard even for normally centrist or left-leaning voters to resist its appeal.
The Tea Party ran its campaign on the same promise Obama did in 2008: change. This time change means a rollback of progressive values. Any advancement made by the Democratic President and the Congress (as insignificant as it has been) is targeted for repeal when the new dynamic in Washington is in place.
Of course, this agenda has no hope of success in the near term. The Senate (even with narrow margins) remains in Democratic control and the President is sure to veto any attempt to completely strip laws like health care reform from the books.
Republicans are really hanging their hopes on 2012. Senator Mitch McConnell has already made statements declaring that the best hope for undoing current policy is removing Obama from office. Fortunately, for McConnell and his crew, Republican wins in gubernatorial races will pave the way for state redistricting that will seriously impact the 2012 elections. Mitch McConnell’s cautioning is intended to dampen expectations, especially among the extreme right wing that conservative agendas will be advanced in the 112th Congress.
That doesn’t really matter. The GOP is happy to be the party of “NO” going forward. While Tea Party favorites like Michele Bachman (a Congresswoman from Minnesota who has her eye on a leadership position in the House) have threatened to shake things up in Congress, the current Republican elite will likely remain in power. McConnell and presumptive House Speaker John Boehner understand the way Capitol Hill operates and the limitations on their real control. Some have said this will bring conflict between the Tea Party establishment and those who are pragmatic about Washington politics, but I really don’t think it matters much to the average Tea Partier.
Many would be happy to see gridlock for the next two years. Limbaugh has devoted much of his broadcast time over the past couple of weeks to telling Republicans in Congress that he and his followers will not tolerate cooperation or compromise with the President or members from the other side of the aisle. Voters, he has said, do not want compromise. And apparently, in at least some cases, he’s right.
A Nevada Tea Partier, Ronald Hanvey, summed it up well. “I want gridlock. I don’t want any more laws.”
That is what I find saddest about the outcome of the recent election. The only change that has come to Washington in the post-Obama era is greater division and partisanship. A celebration of obstructionism is no victory. Neither is the rejection of the democratic ideals of cooperation that made our representative form of government unique and cherished in the world.
The real losers in the election on November 2nd weren’t the Democratic politicians. The real losers were you and me. We are losing the vision of our forefathers, of the United States as the shining example of democracy and liberty. We are losing the integrity of our republic.
We have allowed an extremist minority to shape the political landscape. We have forfeited our ideals to the political quagmire. We have given up on reforming Washington. Unless we stand up and vote for real democracy we have all lost.
Analyze This…
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, November 11, 2010
As I look forward to the fourth Thursday of November, AKA Thanksgiving Day, I know this year I will be saying, as I do every year, a special prayer of gratitude for our great nation and the blessings we enjoy as American citizens. I will also be looking back to that first Wednesday of this November with a grateful heart and a solemn realization of the fact that when we awoke that morning and tuned into news, there were no stories of violence, bloodshed or rioting in the streets. Truly, it is no small virtue of our uniquely American system of government that we can have these political revolutions and reversals while still maintaining the rule of law and order. Give yourselves a much-deserved pat on the back America!
Now, let us go forward and try to analyze the evidence and statistics of this election.
I am not going to fall into the trap that has captured so many other analysts who think they know “what the American people think”, as if the American voter is a monolith. I cannot say this election is a rejection of or acceptance of any one particular ideology by the American populace as a whole. I only know what one American thinks, (me) and no matter what the experts say, they don’t really know “what America thinks”. Exit polls are not an exact science and votes are cast in privacy.
Only two short years ago we were told America had just held a “historic” election. We witnessed the inauguration of Barack Obama as our first black president who held the favorable opinion of over 60% of the American people and shared his party’s power in both legislative houses. It seemed the best possible scenario for change. And change did come. Deficits ballooned, legislators who were supposed to represent the voters enacted laws through trickery, bribery and closed-door dealing, town hall meetings became shouting matches between concerned citizens and obstinate officials, and disappointment clouded the once hopeful faces. The historic beginnings soon became politics as usual and politics at its worst.
Again, we are being told this election was “historic” and “unprecedented” and destined to “change the political landscape”. I find such talk humorous because every election is, and should be, noted in history books. Every day is technically unprecedented and each new officeholder is destined to bring change, no matter who they are and no matter the office they occupy.
However, in some respects this election is extremely noteworthy and I believe history books will justly note that 2010 was the year that changed the nation’s legislative process for decades to follow. I do not believe we can understate the impact of what has occurred, especially when we consider the fact that, as Keith mentioned in his column, the newly elected governors will determine some of the new congressional districts.
As we look at the state legislatures, and governor’s mansions across the nation, we see more and more of them now held by people who ran on strong conservative tickets. Over 675 state legislative seats now belong to Republican candidates and in 20 states, both houses carry Republican majorities. This bodes well for those of us who value our Constitutional right to defend ourselves, hold human life as sacred, believe in a limited federal government, ascribe to sound fiscal policies based upon free market forces and rest behind the security of a superior military.
While I agree with Keith when he says the chance of repealing Obamacare in this upcoming congressional term is between slim and none, I believe the newly elected representatives should send repeal bills to the Senate as often as possible and they should be accompanied with bold new alternatives and proposals that will use proven techniques and free market solutions to the challenge of health care for all.
However, I must disagree with Keith’s assertion that somehow “we lost” – just because he did not happen to agree with the majority rule aspect of our republican form of government. An “extremist minority” – no matter how well financed – cannot override the majority. Unless he has some evidence of a vast right wing conspiracy that somehow defrauded the election process, we must accept the fact that the people spoke their will on November 2, 2010 just as they spoke their will in November of 2008.
The integrity of our republic is still alive and well, and for that I will give sincere thanks.
From Broader View Weekly, November 11, 2010
As I look forward to the fourth Thursday of November, AKA Thanksgiving Day, I know this year I will be saying, as I do every year, a special prayer of gratitude for our great nation and the blessings we enjoy as American citizens. I will also be looking back to that first Wednesday of this November with a grateful heart and a solemn realization of the fact that when we awoke that morning and tuned into news, there were no stories of violence, bloodshed or rioting in the streets. Truly, it is no small virtue of our uniquely American system of government that we can have these political revolutions and reversals while still maintaining the rule of law and order. Give yourselves a much-deserved pat on the back America!
Now, let us go forward and try to analyze the evidence and statistics of this election.
I am not going to fall into the trap that has captured so many other analysts who think they know “what the American people think”, as if the American voter is a monolith. I cannot say this election is a rejection of or acceptance of any one particular ideology by the American populace as a whole. I only know what one American thinks, (me) and no matter what the experts say, they don’t really know “what America thinks”. Exit polls are not an exact science and votes are cast in privacy.
Only two short years ago we were told America had just held a “historic” election. We witnessed the inauguration of Barack Obama as our first black president who held the favorable opinion of over 60% of the American people and shared his party’s power in both legislative houses. It seemed the best possible scenario for change. And change did come. Deficits ballooned, legislators who were supposed to represent the voters enacted laws through trickery, bribery and closed-door dealing, town hall meetings became shouting matches between concerned citizens and obstinate officials, and disappointment clouded the once hopeful faces. The historic beginnings soon became politics as usual and politics at its worst.
Again, we are being told this election was “historic” and “unprecedented” and destined to “change the political landscape”. I find such talk humorous because every election is, and should be, noted in history books. Every day is technically unprecedented and each new officeholder is destined to bring change, no matter who they are and no matter the office they occupy.
However, in some respects this election is extremely noteworthy and I believe history books will justly note that 2010 was the year that changed the nation’s legislative process for decades to follow. I do not believe we can understate the impact of what has occurred, especially when we consider the fact that, as Keith mentioned in his column, the newly elected governors will determine some of the new congressional districts.
As we look at the state legislatures, and governor’s mansions across the nation, we see more and more of them now held by people who ran on strong conservative tickets. Over 675 state legislative seats now belong to Republican candidates and in 20 states, both houses carry Republican majorities. This bodes well for those of us who value our Constitutional right to defend ourselves, hold human life as sacred, believe in a limited federal government, ascribe to sound fiscal policies based upon free market forces and rest behind the security of a superior military.
While I agree with Keith when he says the chance of repealing Obamacare in this upcoming congressional term is between slim and none, I believe the newly elected representatives should send repeal bills to the Senate as often as possible and they should be accompanied with bold new alternatives and proposals that will use proven techniques and free market solutions to the challenge of health care for all.
However, I must disagree with Keith’s assertion that somehow “we lost” – just because he did not happen to agree with the majority rule aspect of our republican form of government. An “extremist minority” – no matter how well financed – cannot override the majority. Unless he has some evidence of a vast right wing conspiracy that somehow defrauded the election process, we must accept the fact that the people spoke their will on November 2, 2010 just as they spoke their will in November of 2008.
The integrity of our republic is still alive and well, and for that I will give sincere thanks.
Who I like in 2010 Election and Why
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, October 28, 2010
Well, it’s that scary time of year again. You know what I’m talking about. The darkness falls early upon our leaf-strewn lawns and little people appear from every corner in masks and costumes asking for treats. No, I am not talking about Halloween, I am referring to that other “Autumn in America” tradition known as the Election Cycle. Each cycle seems to leave our national face a little dirtier and more wrinkled than the last as campaigns dig deeper and deeper into the muck of negative advertising.
With a commitment to clean the air a little, Keith and I have decided to give our choices for the various positions by listing what we perceive as the positive attributes of each candidate and to refrain from pointing out the negatives of their opponents.
New York State Governor
Carl Paladino will receive my vote for Governor of New York State for many reasons. First of all, I believe a successful businessman exhibits a drive and determination that transfers well to the executive branch of government. A chief executive must be able to make hard choices and delegate authority and I think Carl has demonstrated he has that capability.
Within Carl’s plan for an improved business climate in our state is his position on Welfare Reform. I found it very interesting and attractive. He proposes the development of what he calls The Dignity Corps. Modeled after the Civilian Conservation Corps, a successful program initiated during the Great Depression, the Dignity Corps would utilize underused minimum-security prisons as training centers where able-bodied welfare recipients can develop skills and gain the self assurance and pride that comes from gainful employment. Obviously, this proposal would face opposition from those invested in the status quo of welfare dependency, but we have to see that our state cannot sustain the current system. Difficult decisions like these are necessary if we are to see his promised 10% cut in taxes and 20% cut in state spending.
United States Senators
Jay Townsend is my choice for the six-year term of U.S. Senator, currently held by incumbent Chuck Schumer. Townsend is committed to sound fiscal policies that would slow down the growth of the federal government. Jay recognizes that the health care bill and the stimulus package approved by the U.S. Senate last year have been detrimental to our economy. The increased size and scope of the federal government has siphoned tax money from the states and Jay Townsend intends to fight for lower federal spending, limited federal regulation and lower federal taxes.
Joe DioGuardi has my vote for the unexpired two-year term in the U.S. Senate once held by Hilary Clinton and currently filled by Ms. Gillibrand. DioGuardi would bring the unique vantage point of a certified public accountant to the halls of the Senate. In fact, he outlines a five-point plan that would overhaul the current system by holding our federal government to the same accounting, reporting and budgeting standards that publicly traded corporations and businesses are held to by the Securities and Exchange Commission. His plan would include the publishing of accurate information about the finances of our federal government along with the amount of debt owed to foreign sources. He would also call for the chief financial officer to become a cabinet-level position who would take over some of the duties and responsibilities currently filled by the Treasury Department. This would increase efficiency and accountability.
United States House of Representatives
Tom Reed receives my support in both the special election and general election for the seat of the 29th Congressional District. Tom has proven his ability to create jobs as he has operated four different businesses and he recognizes the onerous burden of increased taxes and regulations that stifle economic growth. He voices support for the House Republican plan to lower the lowest tax rates from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. This would encourage increased consumer spending and saving, which, in turn, would spur the economy and job creation. Reed recognizes that “the so called stimulus plan was a horrible mistake” and he claims that a common sense approach must be applied to our government the way families and businesses apply common sense solutions to their challenges. In other words, any future spending increase must be paid for by a reduction in spending in another area.
New York State Senate and Assembly
I will cast my votes for Tom O’Mara and Christopher Friend to represent me in our state government. O’Mara has seen first-hand the dysfunctional quality of our state legislature and is committed to the need for a new state Constitutional Convention to reform the workings of our state government.
Christopher Friend recognizes the overwhelming burden the state’s Medicaid system has placed upon our counties and he has witnessed certain improvements that have already been made in the system by Tom Santulli, and offers further suggestions such as requiring Medicaid recipients to use generic drugs and other cost saving proposals.
Well, those are my choices. Obviously, your choices may differ, but I urge you to put forth your own effort to use the sources available to you and to make deliberate, positive selections. I encourage you to visit the very helpful website published by The League of Women Voters in which you can find information about the ballot in your area and the candidates: http://smartvoter.org/
From Broader View Weekly, October 28, 2010
Well, it’s that scary time of year again. You know what I’m talking about. The darkness falls early upon our leaf-strewn lawns and little people appear from every corner in masks and costumes asking for treats. No, I am not talking about Halloween, I am referring to that other “Autumn in America” tradition known as the Election Cycle. Each cycle seems to leave our national face a little dirtier and more wrinkled than the last as campaigns dig deeper and deeper into the muck of negative advertising.
With a commitment to clean the air a little, Keith and I have decided to give our choices for the various positions by listing what we perceive as the positive attributes of each candidate and to refrain from pointing out the negatives of their opponents.
New York State Governor
Carl Paladino will receive my vote for Governor of New York State for many reasons. First of all, I believe a successful businessman exhibits a drive and determination that transfers well to the executive branch of government. A chief executive must be able to make hard choices and delegate authority and I think Carl has demonstrated he has that capability.
Within Carl’s plan for an improved business climate in our state is his position on Welfare Reform. I found it very interesting and attractive. He proposes the development of what he calls The Dignity Corps. Modeled after the Civilian Conservation Corps, a successful program initiated during the Great Depression, the Dignity Corps would utilize underused minimum-security prisons as training centers where able-bodied welfare recipients can develop skills and gain the self assurance and pride that comes from gainful employment. Obviously, this proposal would face opposition from those invested in the status quo of welfare dependency, but we have to see that our state cannot sustain the current system. Difficult decisions like these are necessary if we are to see his promised 10% cut in taxes and 20% cut in state spending.
United States Senators
Jay Townsend is my choice for the six-year term of U.S. Senator, currently held by incumbent Chuck Schumer. Townsend is committed to sound fiscal policies that would slow down the growth of the federal government. Jay recognizes that the health care bill and the stimulus package approved by the U.S. Senate last year have been detrimental to our economy. The increased size and scope of the federal government has siphoned tax money from the states and Jay Townsend intends to fight for lower federal spending, limited federal regulation and lower federal taxes.
Joe DioGuardi has my vote for the unexpired two-year term in the U.S. Senate once held by Hilary Clinton and currently filled by Ms. Gillibrand. DioGuardi would bring the unique vantage point of a certified public accountant to the halls of the Senate. In fact, he outlines a five-point plan that would overhaul the current system by holding our federal government to the same accounting, reporting and budgeting standards that publicly traded corporations and businesses are held to by the Securities and Exchange Commission. His plan would include the publishing of accurate information about the finances of our federal government along with the amount of debt owed to foreign sources. He would also call for the chief financial officer to become a cabinet-level position who would take over some of the duties and responsibilities currently filled by the Treasury Department. This would increase efficiency and accountability.
United States House of Representatives
Tom Reed receives my support in both the special election and general election for the seat of the 29th Congressional District. Tom has proven his ability to create jobs as he has operated four different businesses and he recognizes the onerous burden of increased taxes and regulations that stifle economic growth. He voices support for the House Republican plan to lower the lowest tax rates from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. This would encourage increased consumer spending and saving, which, in turn, would spur the economy and job creation. Reed recognizes that “the so called stimulus plan was a horrible mistake” and he claims that a common sense approach must be applied to our government the way families and businesses apply common sense solutions to their challenges. In other words, any future spending increase must be paid for by a reduction in spending in another area.
New York State Senate and Assembly
I will cast my votes for Tom O’Mara and Christopher Friend to represent me in our state government. O’Mara has seen first-hand the dysfunctional quality of our state legislature and is committed to the need for a new state Constitutional Convention to reform the workings of our state government.
Christopher Friend recognizes the overwhelming burden the state’s Medicaid system has placed upon our counties and he has witnessed certain improvements that have already been made in the system by Tom Santulli, and offers further suggestions such as requiring Medicaid recipients to use generic drugs and other cost saving proposals.
Well, those are my choices. Obviously, your choices may differ, but I urge you to put forth your own effort to use the sources available to you and to make deliberate, positive selections. I encourage you to visit the very helpful website published by The League of Women Voters in which you can find information about the ballot in your area and the candidates: http://smartvoter.org/
Candidates
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, October 28, 2010
As in every U.S. election cycle, there is no shortage of speculation or commentary surrounding this fall’s line-up of political races. Republicans are claiming premature victory in reclaiming a majority control of the House of Representatives and even of the Senate. Democrats are feverishly ramping up fundraisers, advertising and e-mail campaigns in an effort to stem any shifting of tides. Pundits and media personalities are falling over each other to offer their own predictions.
Amid the shouts and din of pre-election rhetoric, my brother Gordon and I offer our analysis. The old standard that if you don’t have anything nice to say about someone you shouldn’t say anything at all makes this a difficult piece for me. That’s not because I am a negative person. It is just that the political climate has so deteriorated into the muck and the mudslinging (and that there is so much anger among groups like the Tea Partiers) that it is difficult to find things that a candidate stands for among the things he or she stands against. I will do my best.
New York State Governor
State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has a history of working for the people of our nation and our state. He has applied and engrained work ethic to social problems in public service on a regional and national level. Among issues he has tackled are human rights, civil rights, homelessness, crime and corruption.
Cuomo understands that the still lagging economy is an important issue to New Yorkers just as it is important to the rest of the nation. He has plans to make New York the jobs capital of the United States. Key in his strategy is offering a $3,000 tax credit to companies for each unemployed New Yorker they hire. The strategy also includes organizing around regional industry clusters, reducing the cost of doing business in the state and increasing small business’ access to capital. Offering incentives to private sector businesses who keep jobs local makes more sense than sending the unemployed to prisons (even if they are called “training centers”).
United States Senators
Charles Schumer has been fighting for New Yorkers as a U.S. Senator since 1998. He has been the state’s Senior Senator since 2000. His record and experience make him a known quantity as a voice in Congress. During his career he has stood up for education, energy, the environment, health care, jobs and security. He will continue to do that work as Senior Senator. His commitment to health care reform, for instance, is evident in the prescription drug legislation he has helped author, his work to make healthcare insurance and services more accessible for all, and his support of hospitals and health industry professionals. He is also working to create jobs and lower tax burdens for New Yorkers.
Kirsten Gillibrand has filled the Senator’s seat vacated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, since January of 2009. She is committed to Democratic values and has worked to ensure that affordable health care is available to all, and that economic recovery comes to New York and to the nation. One priority that is important to Kirsten, as a parent of young children, is education. Gillibrand values public education and believes that quality education is not only worth funding well, it is vital to the future of our children and the future of our nation. Economic growth is impossible without access to quality education. Kirsten Gillibrand stands for public schools in an election year where some candidates are pushing for eliminating public education.
United States House of Representatives
I believe so much that Matt Zeller is the choice for the 29th District that I’ll be voting for him twice. He has served our country in Afghanistan and is ready to fight for New York and our nation in Washington. Zeller has plans to bring jobs to New York and take a practical approach to energy concerns (two issues that are, in some ways, interconnected). Matt believes that investing in jobs and technology is not a horrible mistake. Instead of rushing into a natural gas mining operation that could irreparably damage our environment and our drinking water (and imperil us all), he believes in investigating the process thoroughly and putting people to work advancing alternate forms of energy. These are plans that strengthen the economy and address national security, while safeguarding our resources.
New York State Senate and Assembly
I support Pamela Mackesey in the State Senate. She’s committed to building jobs, lowering the tax burden and reforming Albany. She recognizes that our state government is oversized and out of control. This fact should win her support among Democrats and Republicans alike.
I support Jason Jordan for Assembly in New York’s 136th District. He represents fresh leadership and promises to work to provide living wages, improve education and reclaim jobs that have been outsourced overseas.
As expected, my brother and I come down on either side of a predictable line. I may seem like a party hack but, on principle, I reject the idea of endorsing any one candidate over another. I encourage you to investigate the issues that are important to you before you enter the polling place on November 2, and find out who best represents your values.
From Broader View Weekly, October 28, 2010
As in every U.S. election cycle, there is no shortage of speculation or commentary surrounding this fall’s line-up of political races. Republicans are claiming premature victory in reclaiming a majority control of the House of Representatives and even of the Senate. Democrats are feverishly ramping up fundraisers, advertising and e-mail campaigns in an effort to stem any shifting of tides. Pundits and media personalities are falling over each other to offer their own predictions.
Amid the shouts and din of pre-election rhetoric, my brother Gordon and I offer our analysis. The old standard that if you don’t have anything nice to say about someone you shouldn’t say anything at all makes this a difficult piece for me. That’s not because I am a negative person. It is just that the political climate has so deteriorated into the muck and the mudslinging (and that there is so much anger among groups like the Tea Partiers) that it is difficult to find things that a candidate stands for among the things he or she stands against. I will do my best.
New York State Governor
State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has a history of working for the people of our nation and our state. He has applied and engrained work ethic to social problems in public service on a regional and national level. Among issues he has tackled are human rights, civil rights, homelessness, crime and corruption.
Cuomo understands that the still lagging economy is an important issue to New Yorkers just as it is important to the rest of the nation. He has plans to make New York the jobs capital of the United States. Key in his strategy is offering a $3,000 tax credit to companies for each unemployed New Yorker they hire. The strategy also includes organizing around regional industry clusters, reducing the cost of doing business in the state and increasing small business’ access to capital. Offering incentives to private sector businesses who keep jobs local makes more sense than sending the unemployed to prisons (even if they are called “training centers”).
United States Senators
Charles Schumer has been fighting for New Yorkers as a U.S. Senator since 1998. He has been the state’s Senior Senator since 2000. His record and experience make him a known quantity as a voice in Congress. During his career he has stood up for education, energy, the environment, health care, jobs and security. He will continue to do that work as Senior Senator. His commitment to health care reform, for instance, is evident in the prescription drug legislation he has helped author, his work to make healthcare insurance and services more accessible for all, and his support of hospitals and health industry professionals. He is also working to create jobs and lower tax burdens for New Yorkers.
Kirsten Gillibrand has filled the Senator’s seat vacated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, since January of 2009. She is committed to Democratic values and has worked to ensure that affordable health care is available to all, and that economic recovery comes to New York and to the nation. One priority that is important to Kirsten, as a parent of young children, is education. Gillibrand values public education and believes that quality education is not only worth funding well, it is vital to the future of our children and the future of our nation. Economic growth is impossible without access to quality education. Kirsten Gillibrand stands for public schools in an election year where some candidates are pushing for eliminating public education.
United States House of Representatives
I believe so much that Matt Zeller is the choice for the 29th District that I’ll be voting for him twice. He has served our country in Afghanistan and is ready to fight for New York and our nation in Washington. Zeller has plans to bring jobs to New York and take a practical approach to energy concerns (two issues that are, in some ways, interconnected). Matt believes that investing in jobs and technology is not a horrible mistake. Instead of rushing into a natural gas mining operation that could irreparably damage our environment and our drinking water (and imperil us all), he believes in investigating the process thoroughly and putting people to work advancing alternate forms of energy. These are plans that strengthen the economy and address national security, while safeguarding our resources.
New York State Senate and Assembly
I support Pamela Mackesey in the State Senate. She’s committed to building jobs, lowering the tax burden and reforming Albany. She recognizes that our state government is oversized and out of control. This fact should win her support among Democrats and Republicans alike.
I support Jason Jordan for Assembly in New York’s 136th District. He represents fresh leadership and promises to work to provide living wages, improve education and reclaim jobs that have been outsourced overseas.
As expected, my brother and I come down on either side of a predictable line. I may seem like a party hack but, on principle, I reject the idea of endorsing any one candidate over another. I encourage you to investigate the issues that are important to you before you enter the polling place on November 2, and find out who best represents your values.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
