Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Monday, February 25, 2013
The Race to Cooperate
I'll be giving out an award on Friday to whichever party in Washington cooperates the most to avoid the sequester. I want to give the award in a three-way tie between Republicans, Democrats, and the President. I'm more expecting that I won't be able to give out the award at all.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Status Quo
After billions of dollars and two years of anguish, we are left where we began. Obama is president again. The Republicans are in control of the House, and the Democrats are in control of the Senate.
House Republicans have already signaled that there will be no taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That means that the cliff of automatic defense and other cuts loom at the end of the year without any clear avoidance. The Tea Partiers won't compromise. It's not clear that Obama will compromise on the tax issue any more. Scarily, it looks like we may face two more years of gridlock again.
The Health Care debate is over. It will go into effect. There will be no repeal. It is a non-issue from this point on.
The Republican Party will try to reorient itself around Latinos. I think a lot of Republicans will shift in favor of the Dream Act, and we will see bipartisan immigration reform early next year.
The economy will continue to improve unless Congress does something stupid (which is possible). It was going to improve no matter who was elected because the economic crisis is over. If Romney had been elected, it would have continued to improve. It will continue to improve under Obama unless gridlock kills it, which is possible.
The national debt now remains THE major issue. If the Democrats are smart (and we'll have to see), they will focus a lot of energy on debt reduction these next four years or else their goose is cooked in 2016--unless of course the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot like they did this time.
There will of course be no more bail-outs because they were a one time, bi-partisan emergency move during the greatest recession since the Great Depression. They will not come up again, barring another global economic crisis.
America is not moving in a socially conservative direction. For example, all the most socially conservative candidates on the issue of abortion lost. I think evangelicals have a choice to make. The frontal assault is a losing battle. What if we tried to influence by example rather than force to convert? I personally believe that is the Wesleyan way.
House Republicans have already signaled that there will be no taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That means that the cliff of automatic defense and other cuts loom at the end of the year without any clear avoidance. The Tea Partiers won't compromise. It's not clear that Obama will compromise on the tax issue any more. Scarily, it looks like we may face two more years of gridlock again.
The Health Care debate is over. It will go into effect. There will be no repeal. It is a non-issue from this point on.
The Republican Party will try to reorient itself around Latinos. I think a lot of Republicans will shift in favor of the Dream Act, and we will see bipartisan immigration reform early next year.
The economy will continue to improve unless Congress does something stupid (which is possible). It was going to improve no matter who was elected because the economic crisis is over. If Romney had been elected, it would have continued to improve. It will continue to improve under Obama unless gridlock kills it, which is possible.
The national debt now remains THE major issue. If the Democrats are smart (and we'll have to see), they will focus a lot of energy on debt reduction these next four years or else their goose is cooked in 2016--unless of course the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot like they did this time.
There will of course be no more bail-outs because they were a one time, bi-partisan emergency move during the greatest recession since the Great Depression. They will not come up again, barring another global economic crisis.
America is not moving in a socially conservative direction. For example, all the most socially conservative candidates on the issue of abortion lost. I think evangelicals have a choice to make. The frontal assault is a losing battle. What if we tried to influence by example rather than force to convert? I personally believe that is the Wesleyan way.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Budget Thoughts...
I know few of you are interested in my thoughts on economics or the budget--and it is especially a shame to speak of such things in the middle of Holy Week--but I am sitting here watching Hannity interview Sarah Palin and thought I would jot down my thoughts.
1. The S & P announcement, whatever the politics behind it, confirms to me that Obama's budget proposal is not enough. We should be looking at something more extensive like the bipartisan budget commission's recommendations this past Fall.
2. The debt ceiling has to be raised. I think almost everyone recognizes this, and it is really too serious of an issue to use for political bargaining. Anyone who votes against it is a danger to the US, almost on the level of impeachment. We should immediately eliminate from our minds any candidate who suggests we should not do so--these are very, very dangerous, loony people.
3. Ryan's proposal to privatize Medicare and push Medicaid down to the states is a non-starter. Not only does it have no chance of passing--I get so annoyed with people who can't handle reality and prefer to beat their heads against the wall until they knock themselves out--it seems to deconstruct the very purpose of these programs, which was to provide medical care for the most vulnerable in our society--the elderly and those unable to take care of themselves. Instead, it likely lops off these in favor of those partially able to take care of themselves. Cut it we must, finance it some other way we must. But Ryan's idea is DOA, period.
4. We should increase revenues at the same time we make deep cuts. Perhaps we could compromise by only returning to pre-Bush rates for those who earn over 500,000. Or perhaps we could institute a flat tax on these individuals without any exemptions. I am as unconvinced as ever that tax breaks at this level for this group return more economically than the taxes do, and there is no moral argument to be made here that stands up against even the smallest scrutiny.
My thoughts in troubling times... It's compromise, compromise, compromise. The fear that Congress and the President will not be able to compromise, more than anything else, stands behind the S&P statement.
1. The S & P announcement, whatever the politics behind it, confirms to me that Obama's budget proposal is not enough. We should be looking at something more extensive like the bipartisan budget commission's recommendations this past Fall.
2. The debt ceiling has to be raised. I think almost everyone recognizes this, and it is really too serious of an issue to use for political bargaining. Anyone who votes against it is a danger to the US, almost on the level of impeachment. We should immediately eliminate from our minds any candidate who suggests we should not do so--these are very, very dangerous, loony people.
3. Ryan's proposal to privatize Medicare and push Medicaid down to the states is a non-starter. Not only does it have no chance of passing--I get so annoyed with people who can't handle reality and prefer to beat their heads against the wall until they knock themselves out--it seems to deconstruct the very purpose of these programs, which was to provide medical care for the most vulnerable in our society--the elderly and those unable to take care of themselves. Instead, it likely lops off these in favor of those partially able to take care of themselves. Cut it we must, finance it some other way we must. But Ryan's idea is DOA, period.
4. We should increase revenues at the same time we make deep cuts. Perhaps we could compromise by only returning to pre-Bush rates for those who earn over 500,000. Or perhaps we could institute a flat tax on these individuals without any exemptions. I am as unconvinced as ever that tax breaks at this level for this group return more economically than the taxes do, and there is no moral argument to be made here that stands up against even the smallest scrutiny.
My thoughts in troubling times... It's compromise, compromise, compromise. The fear that Congress and the President will not be able to compromise, more than anything else, stands behind the S&P statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
