The Candidates' Economic Worlds

The debates going on over economic issues stem from, I believe, 2 opposite views of the world that I covered in my initial blog post.

What the "you didn't build it" debate highlights is one side promoting individualism and the other promoting community.

Yes, President Obama's words were taken way out of context. He clearly stated that success doesn't come in a vacuum, but it was taken as though the individual deserves no credit.

In the world of the individualists ("Buchannanism"), only the creativity and hard work by those who start business and make it succeed is what makes America exceptional.

Yet in every company I have worked for that has succeeded, their successes have, in Management's opinion, derived from the employees who have made significant contributions to their products and services.

So we need healthy entrepreneurship AND a healthy environment for those who work for our entrepreneurs. 

The moderates acknowledge the sacrifices of entrepreneurs, but say that they succeeded in an environment where our governments were a catalyst. Yes, there are regulations to keep everyone in line, but business success does not come in a vacuum. Our public schools, public roads, public transit, strong common currency, environmental protection, national security and defense, and - yes - health and retirement protection policies have established a place that keeps our country strong and our people protected.

The individualists fear that the country (government) is taking away entrepreneurship. The globalists fear that we may be going back too far to individualism.

I believe that if we make sure we frame our programs as working to solve a specific problem - and not get too tied down in the overall individualism versus community debate - we could make more progress.  

Let's take, for example, the debate concerning stimulus and infrastructure.

Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel, John Boeher, and Eric Cantor fully support lots of government spending on America's infrastructure, as they know it will create thousands if not millions of jobs (though it will increase our debt).

The only thing is -  their infrastructure of choice is the military.

(And now with sequestration approaching, there is some fear that defense will take a big hit. I work in defense and I see it)

So there should be no argument about government needing to invest. The difference is - "in what"?

Another aspect of this debate about business versus government is being able to differentiate "entrepreneurship" from "capitalists" (people who do not produce anything, but simply use money to make money). Particularly when it comes to investment. Thom Hartman spoke to this recently. If I put my own money into my own business and it is successful, I should be rewarded. While it is nice to have outside investment, keep in mind that the investors are, like the Vegas crowd, speculating. They want the business to succeed, and may take part in some business decisions, but in the end their gratification not only comes from the business' success, but from their financial reward as a result of it.

When it comes to taxes, the individualists want to combine the entrepreneurs and the capitalists. They feel that both should pay lower taxes than workers.

I disagree.Those who directly create American jobs should get a break, but for the rest, income is income.

Keep in mind that investment in a company does not always result in American jobs. I have a separate post on this.

In conclusion, we cannot allow scare tactics of "government takeover" to frame the debate about what is best for our country. A lot of what we have done has worked but it needs to be tweaked to work better. To lower our debt AND foster business growth, we need to make sure that our government's investments in projects that will help us grow our infrastructure are properly financed, and we give some extra help to real entrepreneurs.

Thanks for reading.

Israel, the US, and the Republikuds

In Mitt Romney's convention speech, he claims that President Obama "threw Israel under the bus".

The rhetoric of division in this area is getting stronger and nastier, and it's time we fight back.

There is a merger of 2 political parties now - the US Republicans and Israeli Likud - we can call them the Republikuds. They use extreme nationalism and fear to promote their agenda. What is this agenda? That the only way to show support for Israel is make it totally unconditional. No matter what Israel says or does, they are right, and any deviation from this is seen as at least questionable if not totally unpatriotic. Arabs cannot be trusted at all. Iran must be bombed (speaking to them is was a huge mistake).

My universlist-moderate stance respects the Republikuds nationalism and desire to protect Israel, but rejects their condemnations of those who try to seek dialogue for peace.

In a nutshell, I see the Republikuds biggest problem as this: they have no long-term vision as to where Israel needs to go over the next few decades. Since they see the Arabs as mistrustful, they have put themselves in a political protective shell with no way out. This occurs while the non-Jewish population in Israel continues to grow.

Back in November 2007 when George W. Bush was President, I showed my support for his and Condeleesa Rice's efforts to bring peace at the Annapolis conference. I go into arguments with Israeli settlers and extremist Palestinians who both said they would not "give an inch".  When I asked an Israeli protester "What is the future, perpetual war?" he could only answer back by accusing me of "lying".

Our current president, Barack Obama, has made sincere efforts for peace. Yes, he at times was critical of Israeli settlement policy, but he never turned his back on Israeli security. His 2011 proposal of restarting the peace talks with the phrase "1967 borders with land swaps" was no different than George W. Bush's "Road Map" plan that twice called for Israel to "end its occupation of 1967". And on Iran, Obama has been stronger than Bush, but the Republikuds want to use their nationalism for their own political purposes. (An Iranian friend of mine suggests that bombing will backfire because it will strengthen the extremists there - so we need to be careful.)

If there are Palestinians like Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish that can potentially take power (see my earlier post), we can move in the right direction. Israel's best interest, especially in the light of uncertainty after the Arab Spring, is to come to terms with the Palestinians and find a win-win solution - of course both sides will have to sacrifice, but the "win" will be the reality of peace, friendship, and prosperity.

In the meantime, we, the moderate Jewish American community,  have to repudiate the Republikuds.

Thanks for reading.