A lot has been published recently around the Tea Party movement, especially given that they have become so visible during tax season. Much of what I have read attempts to mock, trivialize, or name-call their members. Some characterize them as racists or unfettered followers of a naive libertarian agenda (enabled by Fox News). But a recent poll shows that they are growing in size and are attracting mainstream Americans.
A recent Washington Post article by 2 Democrats has the view that we need to cave in to their views. I disagree.
In my view, the Tea Party is a well-organized political movement that has both top-down leadership and a grass-roots feel. However, I do not support most of its views, and I would like to suggest how those of us who support more progressive ideas can work together to come out on top at critical times, such as votes on important bills and at the next election.
The reason this movement is able to gain strength is that they are, like the Progressives of 2006 and 2008, NOT in power.
There are many problems on our President's plate and he has now been in office long enough to have "taken ownership" of them. This is what the Tea Party capitalizes on.
The former President Bush created many of the problems that exist today, such as the Mideast tensions (if you agree that we should have concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan we'd probably be out of there by now), the rise of Iran (and Hamas and Hezbollah). Needless to say, the state our economy has fallen to was mostly on Bush's watch and due to his tax-cutting-but-high-spending policy.
The Tea party shifts responsibility for our troubles to President Obama and the Democrats. Of course we know that's wrong, but how do we answer it?
It is correct for Obama to point out that we are on the path of improvement. But as we all know, it is slow and may not be complete. It may be too little too late for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
It is my view, therefore, that we point out the Tea Party's errors in judgment by PROJECTING what things would be like if THEY were currently in power, or got into power in 2010. The purpose of this would be to counteract their simple solutions of "lower taxes, less government".
The basic message of the Tea Party is appealing, we all would like freedom, minimal government intrusion, less adventurism abroad, and of course, less taxes.
But what would the world be like if we followed their agenda to the letter?
This is where leadership, a continuation of the 2007-2008 Progressive grass roots movement and creative use of the media come in.
The basic idea is this: come up with commercials, TV, and other media (books, web) "specials" that provide human-based stories of life under a Tea Party regime.
Don't be over-dramatic, make it look "realistic".
An example: let's say we have another Katrina. Let's "show" a major metropolitan area devastated by a natural disaster. But, for the twist, we show that there is no FEMA, and the Tea-party-based state governments have reduced their budgets to only pay for basic fire and police. Those who have the money (thanks to the high-bracket tax cuts) will be able to escape and rebuild (we could show them sipping some "gourmet tea"), but the middle class and lower will be shown suffering. The contrast would need to be clear, accurate, and emotional.
We could probably come up with great examples in health care, but I'll leave it up to you, the reader to think of ideas.
The promotion of these ideas would come top-down and grass roots. The former would gather funding to prepare the media and get it distributed and publicized (what's moveon.org doing these days?). The grass roots organizations would lead rallies to show that the people do not want Tea-Party leadership to happen.
I am convinced that there are many of us who want to see progressive government that isn't "socialist" but is practical in that it recognizes that it must regulate to protect people from being victims of powerlessness. Not just powerlessness against their governments, but powerlessness against the other "big" decision makers in society, such as banks and health insurance companies. Ultimately we want a world of "checks and balances" between government and business to ensure our individual freedom and influence.
It is for this reason that I feel the Tea Party (and especially Sarah Palin's) ideas are incorrect in that they only see "government" as the enemy. It's an easy scapegoat. But think about it - it was government that abolished slavery, that stopped child labor, that gave us Social Security and Medicare. In all cases, other forces (very much like the Tea Party) tried to stop this government regulation by claiming that it infringed on individual freedom, violated states rights and was bad for (free market) business. But I ask, do you want to return to those days?
Let's get moving, let's take on the Tea Party. But let's get this right so that we can get what we need out of our government.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. Looking forward to your commnets.
Update: May 7, 2010 - I wrote the above post prior to the Louisiana oil spill. People are complaining that Obama reacted too slowly. But imagine if a Tea Party administration - with no EPA or other cleanup agency - was in power.
Update May 21. 2010 - Now that Rand Paul was nominated, it will be incumbent upon us to keep track what he says and does. Let's not demonize him, but see how consistent he is (or isn't), what he tries to eliminate from government and what he tries to add to it. I'll post more as I get info.
By the way, I just composed a song for the Tea Party movement. I'll put the link to it when I get it posted.
Update November 5, 2012 - After seeing the effects of Hurricane Sandy on NYC, I went back to this post to remind myself what things would be like if the Tea Party was in power. Also, I looked at a clip from "An Inconvenient Truth" to validate Al Gore's projection of what could happen in NY down the road.
Update December 12, 2012 - I posted an entry after the Governor of Michigan's decision to limit the power of Labor Unions.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Gaza Survivor and His Message
The word "orphan" refers to a person who has lost his or her parents. "Widow" or "widower" refers to one who loses a spouse.
But what word exists for one who loses a child? Especially three.
And what can we call someone who loses three children in a war but is not bitter and goes on promoting reconciliation?
Perhaps the most tear-jerking true story I have heard recently is the one of Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish, an Arab-Muslim doctor (OBGYN) in Gaza who works in Israeli and Palestinian hospitals. He and his family live in the Jabalia Camp in Gaza, Palestine (his parents are from the area near the Harat Shikmin ranch that is now occupied by the Sharon family). Last September 16th, Dr. Abuelaish became a widow as his wife succombed to leukemia. Exactly 4 months later, on January 16th, Dr. Abuelaish lost 3 of his 8 children to a tank shell in the Gaza war (the Israeli IDF has acknowledged shooting it as they suspected a militant hideout). During all of this time (and prior to the loss of his wife), the doctor was promoting reconciliation between Palestine and Israel. On the fatal day in January, Abuelaish was about to be interviewed by Israeli TV to give a first-hand account of the war (reporters were not let in) when the bomb hit. The moments afterward are documeted on TV (This is the raw segment).
Since that tragedy, Dr. Abuelaish made a conscious decision to make lemonade out of lemons. He came to the U.S. to speak to various groups. I saw him last Monday night at the "Peace Cafe", which is at the restaurant "Busboys and Poets" in Washington DC (the cafe is run by Ari Roth of the DC Jewish Community Center and Andy Shallal, a Iraqi-born American citizen and owner of Busboys). The event was sponsored by "Americans for Peace Now". (I also heard the audio of an event he was the speaker at on the following day.)
I forgot my cell phone, so I don't have any pictures of the event. Dr. Abuelaish is not too tall, a bit stocky, clean-shaven, and well-dressed. He speaks fluent Hebrew and his English is pretty good. In his message, he spoke of how he felt that this tragedy was divine fate (though it was "man-made"), with the message that he needs to pursue the message of reconciliation (he does not like the "vagueness" of the word "peace"). So he showed us pictures of Gaza, pictures of his children on the beach (they wrote a message on the sand as though they foresaw their own death, he said). He wishes to make something positive that is bigger than the tragedy itself. His main point was that prior to working out specifics of a policy or agreement, the two sides must truly begin to understand the "humanity" of each other (and he sees himself doing his part to fulfill that role, calling on others to take action to do the same). Finally, he said that he will establish a Foundation for Women's Health in his children's name, as it is "time for women to be the decision makers" in the world.
His speech reminded me of one I saw just a year ago at my nephew's graduation from Northeastern U in Boston. The main speaker was a student whose mother, a psychologist, was murdered 3 months prior. The student spoke of looking ahead and "making lemonade out of lemons".
I briefly spoke to Dr. Abuelaish afterwards about his work (I shared some personal stories about some life challenges). He was so kind and gave me his business card. I understand he is nominated for a Nobel Prize, so if he gets it I can call him personally - really cool!
If we only had more role models like Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish....
Thanks for reading.
Update 05 June 2010: I've been in recent contact with Dr. Abuelaish, he's safely in Canada working and teaching at a University. His philosophy has not changed. He has a website dedicated to a fund he has established to promote the advancement of women
Update 21 August 2011: Dr. Abuelaish was kind enough to send me a signed copy of his book: "I Shall Not Hate". I'm reading it now and will comment in a future post.
But what word exists for one who loses a child? Especially three.
And what can we call someone who loses three children in a war but is not bitter and goes on promoting reconciliation?
Perhaps the most tear-jerking true story I have heard recently is the one of Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish, an Arab-Muslim doctor (OBGYN) in Gaza who works in Israeli and Palestinian hospitals. He and his family live in the Jabalia Camp in Gaza, Palestine (his parents are from the area near the Harat Shikmin ranch that is now occupied by the Sharon family). Last September 16th, Dr. Abuelaish became a widow as his wife succombed to leukemia. Exactly 4 months later, on January 16th, Dr. Abuelaish lost 3 of his 8 children to a tank shell in the Gaza war (the Israeli IDF has acknowledged shooting it as they suspected a militant hideout). During all of this time (and prior to the loss of his wife), the doctor was promoting reconciliation between Palestine and Israel. On the fatal day in January, Abuelaish was about to be interviewed by Israeli TV to give a first-hand account of the war (reporters were not let in) when the bomb hit. The moments afterward are documeted on TV (This is the raw segment).
Since that tragedy, Dr. Abuelaish made a conscious decision to make lemonade out of lemons. He came to the U.S. to speak to various groups. I saw him last Monday night at the "Peace Cafe", which is at the restaurant "Busboys and Poets" in Washington DC (the cafe is run by Ari Roth of the DC Jewish Community Center and Andy Shallal, a Iraqi-born American citizen and owner of Busboys). The event was sponsored by "Americans for Peace Now". (I also heard the audio of an event he was the speaker at on the following day.)
I forgot my cell phone, so I don't have any pictures of the event. Dr. Abuelaish is not too tall, a bit stocky, clean-shaven, and well-dressed. He speaks fluent Hebrew and his English is pretty good. In his message, he spoke of how he felt that this tragedy was divine fate (though it was "man-made"), with the message that he needs to pursue the message of reconciliation (he does not like the "vagueness" of the word "peace"). So he showed us pictures of Gaza, pictures of his children on the beach (they wrote a message on the sand as though they foresaw their own death, he said). He wishes to make something positive that is bigger than the tragedy itself. His main point was that prior to working out specifics of a policy or agreement, the two sides must truly begin to understand the "humanity" of each other (and he sees himself doing his part to fulfill that role, calling on others to take action to do the same). Finally, he said that he will establish a Foundation for Women's Health in his children's name, as it is "time for women to be the decision makers" in the world.
His speech reminded me of one I saw just a year ago at my nephew's graduation from Northeastern U in Boston. The main speaker was a student whose mother, a psychologist, was murdered 3 months prior. The student spoke of looking ahead and "making lemonade out of lemons".
I briefly spoke to Dr. Abuelaish afterwards about his work (I shared some personal stories about some life challenges). He was so kind and gave me his business card. I understand he is nominated for a Nobel Prize, so if he gets it I can call him personally - really cool!
If we only had more role models like Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish....
Thanks for reading.
Update 05 June 2010: I've been in recent contact with Dr. Abuelaish, he's safely in Canada working and teaching at a University. His philosophy has not changed. He has a website dedicated to a fund he has established to promote the advancement of women
Update 21 August 2011: Dr. Abuelaish was kind enough to send me a signed copy of his book: "I Shall Not Hate". I'm reading it now and will comment in a future post.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Mid-East Blues and Hopes
There is so much mixed news coming out of the Middle East these days, and it's happening rather quickly.
First, President Obama sent New Year's greetings to the people of Iran, a strong gesture indicating a desire to change the animous relationship to one of mutual respect. We are not appeasing their government's development of the Bomb, nor are we condoning their government's support of Hamas and Hezbollah (my Iranian friend tells me that the people there were "hands off" on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute until the recent Gaza war). Ahmadinejad and Khameini responded by saying that they want actions rather than words. It'll be interesting to see what Obama's next step in this chess game is: will he offer diplomatic relations? This can have a bearing on the Iranian elections in June. I hope that the Reformists unite behind one candidate (I prefer Moussavi), since the Principalists will only have Ahmadinejad (see PressTV for their media coverage of the election). By the way, I've been blogging on PressTV to explain my support for the both the warming of relations and for Israel.
The Israeli events are more sobering. The new administration stated that the peace process "has reached a dead end". FM Lieberman does not want to be held to any time commitments. My worry is that there are now more walls being built, and the more you build the more you have to tear down. Unless you are prepared for a perpetual war. Obama, on the other hand, wants to move quickly, as he sees this issue as one that affects the U.S. and other democracies (e.g. the price of oil). So, while I'm OK with measures Israel takes to protect its own people (such as the recent testing of anti-missile hardware - which Obama supports), I'd really push the Netanyahu administration to resume serious talks with the Palestinians. Otherwise, U.S. foreign aid for offensive weapons will be endangered. As I've always stated, everyone wants the same thing in the end - peace - but we have to find the win-win way to get there.
Thanks for reading
First, President Obama sent New Year's greetings to the people of Iran, a strong gesture indicating a desire to change the animous relationship to one of mutual respect. We are not appeasing their government's development of the Bomb, nor are we condoning their government's support of Hamas and Hezbollah (my Iranian friend tells me that the people there were "hands off" on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute until the recent Gaza war). Ahmadinejad and Khameini responded by saying that they want actions rather than words. It'll be interesting to see what Obama's next step in this chess game is: will he offer diplomatic relations? This can have a bearing on the Iranian elections in June. I hope that the Reformists unite behind one candidate (I prefer Moussavi), since the Principalists will only have Ahmadinejad (see PressTV for their media coverage of the election). By the way, I've been blogging on PressTV to explain my support for the both the warming of relations and for Israel.
The Israeli events are more sobering. The new administration stated that the peace process "has reached a dead end". FM Lieberman does not want to be held to any time commitments. My worry is that there are now more walls being built, and the more you build the more you have to tear down. Unless you are prepared for a perpetual war. Obama, on the other hand, wants to move quickly, as he sees this issue as one that affects the U.S. and other democracies (e.g. the price of oil). So, while I'm OK with measures Israel takes to protect its own people (such as the recent testing of anti-missile hardware - which Obama supports), I'd really push the Netanyahu administration to resume serious talks with the Palestinians. Otherwise, U.S. foreign aid for offensive weapons will be endangered. As I've always stated, everyone wants the same thing in the end - peace - but we have to find the win-win way to get there.
Thanks for reading
Laissez-Faire Is Now Laissez-Failed
One fun aspect of writing letters to newspapares is when one of their regular Op-Ed writer gives you an opening in their articles to comment.
Just about a month ago I published my blog entry entitled "Tradeoffs 101" where I spoke of the need to understand the "win-lose" dynamics of political decision making.
Then, last week, Charles Krauthammer published his op-ed in the Washington Post called "Obama's Ultimate Agenda", his lament of the increase of government authority under President Obama. OK, I thought, time to incorporate my earlier post into a letter to the WashPost.
I had fun with this one, especially the end. Poor Krauthammer is, I think, clutching at straws. Also, I got in my dig at those who lament "socialist redistribution of income" by pointing out that they, too, have policies that redistribute the other way. Can't income just be income? (the argument that cap gains cuts spur employment is bogus: first, how do we know the investments produce American jobs? Certainly investing in gold, short-selling, or job-reducing mergers and acquisitions doesn't. Second, if we really wanted to reward those who create American jobs, why not do it directly to employers who do exactly that, who can then pass those rewards down tax free to their investors?)
Here's my letter, published April 8th, 2009 in the Washington Post:
Charles Krauthammer lamented the "radical extension of the welfare state" because of the latest proposed "government intervention" in health care, education and energy.
As I'm sure Mr. Krauthammer knows, government intervention is not new. Lincoln intervened in the free-market system to end slavery. Child-labor laws, antitrust laws and minimum-wage laws are other examples. Lowering capital gains tax rates below the tax rates on wages also redistributes income to the non-producing rich.
Our collective decisions must be based on their practicality and their morality. Almost every one of them has tradeoffs -- someone wins, someone loses. A "free" market does not mean a morally responsible or equitable market, so we need checks and balances to get to the fairness level we collectively decide on. That is our democracy.
My difference with Mr. Krauthammer is where we draw our lines. I believe (especially for health care, education and energy) more in a just, partly regulated market than in the dogma of laissez-faire libertarianism.
The editors took out another example - the battle of the current budget between Obama and McCain. McCain's proposal is a win for the high-bracket taxpayer. We're not sure who loses because I have not seen the details of his budget and therefore what exactly gets cut (that's typical Republican way). Obama's budget will provide more jobs, but there will probably be a tax cost down the road (or higher inflation). For now I'll go along with Obama, since I have not heard any better ideas.
Thanks for reading.
Just about a month ago I published my blog entry entitled "Tradeoffs 101" where I spoke of the need to understand the "win-lose" dynamics of political decision making.
Then, last week, Charles Krauthammer published his op-ed in the Washington Post called "Obama's Ultimate Agenda", his lament of the increase of government authority under President Obama. OK, I thought, time to incorporate my earlier post into a letter to the WashPost.
I had fun with this one, especially the end. Poor Krauthammer is, I think, clutching at straws. Also, I got in my dig at those who lament "socialist redistribution of income" by pointing out that they, too, have policies that redistribute the other way. Can't income just be income? (the argument that cap gains cuts spur employment is bogus: first, how do we know the investments produce American jobs? Certainly investing in gold, short-selling, or job-reducing mergers and acquisitions doesn't. Second, if we really wanted to reward those who create American jobs, why not do it directly to employers who do exactly that, who can then pass those rewards down tax free to their investors?)
Here's my letter, published April 8th, 2009 in the Washington Post:
Charles Krauthammer lamented the "radical extension of the welfare state" because of the latest proposed "government intervention" in health care, education and energy.
As I'm sure Mr. Krauthammer knows, government intervention is not new. Lincoln intervened in the free-market system to end slavery. Child-labor laws, antitrust laws and minimum-wage laws are other examples. Lowering capital gains tax rates below the tax rates on wages also redistributes income to the non-producing rich.
Our collective decisions must be based on their practicality and their morality. Almost every one of them has tradeoffs -- someone wins, someone loses. A "free" market does not mean a morally responsible or equitable market, so we need checks and balances to get to the fairness level we collectively decide on. That is our democracy.
My difference with Mr. Krauthammer is where we draw our lines. I believe (especially for health care, education and energy) more in a just, partly regulated market than in the dogma of laissez-faire libertarianism.
The editors took out another example - the battle of the current budget between Obama and McCain. McCain's proposal is a win for the high-bracket taxpayer. We're not sure who loses because I have not seen the details of his budget and therefore what exactly gets cut (that's typical Republican way). Obama's budget will provide more jobs, but there will probably be a tax cost down the road (or higher inflation). For now I'll go along with Obama, since I have not heard any better ideas.
Thanks for reading.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Avigdor Lieberman - the George Wallace of Israel?
Do you remember our Presidential election in 1968? We had 3 candidates: Hubert Humphrey, a moderate (liberal on social and economic issues but supported the Vietnam War); Richard Nixon, a conservative Republican, and the then Governor of Alabama, George Wallace.
Mr. Wallace (now deceased) was well known as the man who stood in front of the doors of the University of Alabama to stop the school from integrating. He wanted, at least at this educational level, the "separation" of races.
Wallace came in third in the election. Got ten million votes and 5 states. This was an ugly time in American history. (Four years later, he was nearly assassinated, the hospital he was brought to is 5 miles from my home.)
Fortunately, our country changed. Wallace himself changed, realized his mistakes, and reformed.
I don't think a man like Wallace would get 10,000,000 votes today. And an African-American has become our President - Thank God.
As we all know, Israel just had an election. The Kadima and Likud parties split the votes, and the third place finisher, in an upset, was Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beitenu party. Like the USA in 1968, there is much turmoil in Israel today, and this can lead to increased Nationalism and scapegoating. (Barack Obama has a great essay about "Black" Nationalism in his Autobiography.)
Like all of us, Lieberman wants a solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. However, like Mr. Wallace, Lieberman wants a "separation" of Jew and Arab from the land of Israel. At least, he doesn't want Arabs who, even though they might already be citizens, have not explicitly professed their "loyalty" towards Israel. This is like "Guilty until proven innocent"!
Lieberman published an Op-Ed in the American Jewish press recently, and I was obliged to respond. What we need to think about is what Zionism is, and what standards we hold ourselves to. Will we let the views of "Israel's George Wallace" prevail?
Here is my letter which got published in Washington Jewish Week.
Israeli Arabs -- loyal until proven otherwise
Perhaps Avigdor Lieberman has changed his tune a bit from his 2004 plan to accept only "loyal" Arabs in Israel ("The case for responsible citizenship in Israel," WJW, March 5). But in essence, I still have a profound disagreement with him on what is right for our Jewish state.
I feel we can follow the American model in this way: All immigrants, regardless of former nationality or religion, must be held to the same standard. In the U.S., all immigrants take an oath of citizenship in order to officially become Americans. For Israel, it can only be "all or nothing" -- either everyone or no one would take the oath.
Those who currently reside in Israel, regardless of religious beliefs, should be treated the same in one important respect -- they are "loyal citizens" until proven (by law) otherwise.
A deviation from this would, in my view, strengthen the Carter-Apartheid view of Israel, and that's the last thing we need.
Thanks for reading.
Update: 4/2/09 - Lieberman is now Foreign Minister of Israel, and has stated that the Annapolis process no longer applies. Meanwhile, a newly-elected Arab member of the Knesset declared that "the very concept of a Jewish state was "inherently racist," saying that Israel must be turned into a "state of all its citizens," which would eliminate its Jewish or Zionist nature".
I see clouds on the horizon.
Mr. Wallace (now deceased) was well known as the man who stood in front of the doors of the University of Alabama to stop the school from integrating. He wanted, at least at this educational level, the "separation" of races.
Wallace came in third in the election. Got ten million votes and 5 states. This was an ugly time in American history. (Four years later, he was nearly assassinated, the hospital he was brought to is 5 miles from my home.)
Fortunately, our country changed. Wallace himself changed, realized his mistakes, and reformed.
I don't think a man like Wallace would get 10,000,000 votes today. And an African-American has become our President - Thank God.
As we all know, Israel just had an election. The Kadima and Likud parties split the votes, and the third place finisher, in an upset, was Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beitenu party. Like the USA in 1968, there is much turmoil in Israel today, and this can lead to increased Nationalism and scapegoating. (Barack Obama has a great essay about "Black" Nationalism in his Autobiography.)
Like all of us, Lieberman wants a solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. However, like Mr. Wallace, Lieberman wants a "separation" of Jew and Arab from the land of Israel. At least, he doesn't want Arabs who, even though they might already be citizens, have not explicitly professed their "loyalty" towards Israel. This is like "Guilty until proven innocent"!
Lieberman published an Op-Ed in the American Jewish press recently, and I was obliged to respond. What we need to think about is what Zionism is, and what standards we hold ourselves to. Will we let the views of "Israel's George Wallace" prevail?
Here is my letter which got published in Washington Jewish Week.
Israeli Arabs -- loyal until proven otherwise
Perhaps Avigdor Lieberman has changed his tune a bit from his 2004 plan to accept only "loyal" Arabs in Israel ("The case for responsible citizenship in Israel," WJW, March 5). But in essence, I still have a profound disagreement with him on what is right for our Jewish state.
I feel we can follow the American model in this way: All immigrants, regardless of former nationality or religion, must be held to the same standard. In the U.S., all immigrants take an oath of citizenship in order to officially become Americans. For Israel, it can only be "all or nothing" -- either everyone or no one would take the oath.
Those who currently reside in Israel, regardless of religious beliefs, should be treated the same in one important respect -- they are "loyal citizens" until proven (by law) otherwise.
A deviation from this would, in my view, strengthen the Carter-Apartheid view of Israel, and that's the last thing we need.
Thanks for reading.
Update: 4/2/09 - Lieberman is now Foreign Minister of Israel, and has stated that the Annapolis process no longer applies. Meanwhile, a newly-elected Arab member of the Knesset declared that "the very concept of a Jewish state was "inherently racist," saying that Israel must be turned into a "state of all its citizens," which would eliminate its Jewish or Zionist nature".
I see clouds on the horizon.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Tradeoffs 101
When you hear a politician say "This is good for America", or "This is good for the working man", do you buy it?
I'm turning 55 next month, but years ago I figured out a basic principle about politics - I'll call it "The Law of Tradeoffs".
Simply put: There is no one way for any government to do things right. All poltical decisions have tradeoffs".
This is true for your condo board, your county government, your school system, your state government, the federal government, and even the United Nations.
Every decision, poltical or economic, has winners and losers. Always keep this in mind as you hear a proposal or read a budget.
For example - this is an easy one - let's take tax policy. If President Obama wishes to cut taxes for the "average American", but raise taxes on the upper income bracket, it would appear that the middle and lower brackets are "winners" and the upper bracket the "loser". The Republicans, on the other hand, want to make the Bush upper bracket tax cuts permanent and give some additional tax cuts to businesses. Here the list of winners and losers are different (the Republicans claim a "trickle down" effect, but it's not clear that the trickling actually occurs).
Most of the time, the tradeoffs are more subtle. Let's take health care for example. There are a number of proposals out there. If we go to a single-payer system like Canada, who are the winners and who are the losers? I don't know for sure, but I can tell you with certainty that there will be some people on both sides of the win-lose fence. And it's not black and white, there are shades of gray. The "biggest" winner would probably be those who have the most medical needs and the least money, those who could not be insured. The biggest loser would probably be one who never felt he/she needed insurance and now has a mandate to pay for it each year. (Some are saying that this system can cause long waits, so maybe those affected would be losers as well.) But what about most of us, who have either private insurance that we pay for or is subsidozed by our employers or the government? Who will be the winners, who will be the losers? It's hard to tell.
Now sometimes you'll hear (even from me) that a policy is "win-win", as if everybody benefits. That may look right at the surface, but if you dig in, you'll find someone who will be worse off. I don't mean to be cynical, I will heartily support some policies that benefit many but adversely affect a few, but I just want to warn that we should never be misled.
So what do I do with this realization? If you look at my opening blog entry I spoke of "PatBuchannanism" and "Universalism". I stated that I do not share the former, a viewpoint that looks narrowly at self-interest at all levels of decision making. I'm more on the side of the Universalist, who wishes for decisions made for the the overall good. But I always have to remind myself of the "tradeoff" rule. Some people will be worse off by a policy. So I have to identify the winners and losers. Can I (or we as a nation) live with this choice? If the policy involves self-sacrifice for the overall good, can I accept it? (yep, even I will act out of self-interest at times, but I'll at least try to catch myself).
As we go through our current economic crisis and solutions are proposed, it will be wise for us to keep the tradeoff rule in mind. Who will bank bailouts help? Who will they hurt? Is the massive spending on infrastructure going to help one group but hurt another? If so, who and by how much? What sacrifices will I need to make to go green? Will it help my child (who is 8 months old)?
If you take a budget for your association or government, there are inflows and outflows. If it changes, ask about who pays more, who pays less, who gets more, and who gets less? It's quite that simple.
I think this is a better way to look at our politics than to assign labels such as "right-wing", "socialist", "liberal", or "conservative".
What I ask of all politicians is that they be honest - that they adopt the principal of "tradeoffs" and accurately identify to their constituents the potential winners and losers in any new policy proposal or budget change. With this information we will have what we've always wanted to have in America, an informed, engaged public, using our democratic institutions to make our lives and this country (and the world) a better place.
Thanks for reading.
I'm turning 55 next month, but years ago I figured out a basic principle about politics - I'll call it "The Law of Tradeoffs".
Simply put: There is no one way for any government to do things right. All poltical decisions have tradeoffs".
This is true for your condo board, your county government, your school system, your state government, the federal government, and even the United Nations.
Every decision, poltical or economic, has winners and losers. Always keep this in mind as you hear a proposal or read a budget.
For example - this is an easy one - let's take tax policy. If President Obama wishes to cut taxes for the "average American", but raise taxes on the upper income bracket, it would appear that the middle and lower brackets are "winners" and the upper bracket the "loser". The Republicans, on the other hand, want to make the Bush upper bracket tax cuts permanent and give some additional tax cuts to businesses. Here the list of winners and losers are different (the Republicans claim a "trickle down" effect, but it's not clear that the trickling actually occurs).
Most of the time, the tradeoffs are more subtle. Let's take health care for example. There are a number of proposals out there. If we go to a single-payer system like Canada, who are the winners and who are the losers? I don't know for sure, but I can tell you with certainty that there will be some people on both sides of the win-lose fence. And it's not black and white, there are shades of gray. The "biggest" winner would probably be those who have the most medical needs and the least money, those who could not be insured. The biggest loser would probably be one who never felt he/she needed insurance and now has a mandate to pay for it each year. (Some are saying that this system can cause long waits, so maybe those affected would be losers as well.) But what about most of us, who have either private insurance that we pay for or is subsidozed by our employers or the government? Who will be the winners, who will be the losers? It's hard to tell.
Now sometimes you'll hear (even from me) that a policy is "win-win", as if everybody benefits. That may look right at the surface, but if you dig in, you'll find someone who will be worse off. I don't mean to be cynical, I will heartily support some policies that benefit many but adversely affect a few, but I just want to warn that we should never be misled.
So what do I do with this realization? If you look at my opening blog entry I spoke of "PatBuchannanism" and "Universalism". I stated that I do not share the former, a viewpoint that looks narrowly at self-interest at all levels of decision making. I'm more on the side of the Universalist, who wishes for decisions made for the the overall good. But I always have to remind myself of the "tradeoff" rule. Some people will be worse off by a policy. So I have to identify the winners and losers. Can I (or we as a nation) live with this choice? If the policy involves self-sacrifice for the overall good, can I accept it? (yep, even I will act out of self-interest at times, but I'll at least try to catch myself).
As we go through our current economic crisis and solutions are proposed, it will be wise for us to keep the tradeoff rule in mind. Who will bank bailouts help? Who will they hurt? Is the massive spending on infrastructure going to help one group but hurt another? If so, who and by how much? What sacrifices will I need to make to go green? Will it help my child (who is 8 months old)?
If you take a budget for your association or government, there are inflows and outflows. If it changes, ask about who pays more, who pays less, who gets more, and who gets less? It's quite that simple.
I think this is a better way to look at our politics than to assign labels such as "right-wing", "socialist", "liberal", or "conservative".
What I ask of all politicians is that they be honest - that they adopt the principal of "tradeoffs" and accurately identify to their constituents the potential winners and losers in any new policy proposal or budget change. With this information we will have what we've always wanted to have in America, an informed, engaged public, using our democratic institutions to make our lives and this country (and the world) a better place.
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Politics of Our Current Economy
This is what I tried to get published today, it sums up what I see going on in Washington:
It is good to see Senator McCain expressing his wrath over earmarks and pork by the big-bad government. But have we heard an equal expression of anger from him about how the people of this great country are being ripped off by greedy speculators, incompetent yet immensely powerful corporations, and Senators who vote for war and then hide the true cost of it? Has he shown compassion towards those who have truly lost during this economic crisis?
This is a man who will use every opportunity to be an opportunist. He needs to look at his own actions before being critical of our President's attempts to be honest. At least with Obama we now will have some transparency. (Senator, where where you with that? Where was your rage when Bush raised the deficit?)
My Friends, he claims to be a maverick, but he is just a sore loser
Thanks for reading.
It is good to see Senator McCain expressing his wrath over earmarks and pork by the big-bad government. But have we heard an equal expression of anger from him about how the people of this great country are being ripped off by greedy speculators, incompetent yet immensely powerful corporations, and Senators who vote for war and then hide the true cost of it? Has he shown compassion towards those who have truly lost during this economic crisis?
This is a man who will use every opportunity to be an opportunist. He needs to look at his own actions before being critical of our President's attempts to be honest. At least with Obama we now will have some transparency. (Senator, where where you with that? Where was your rage when Bush raised the deficit?)
My Friends, he claims to be a maverick, but he is just a sore loser
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)