Donald Trump is Talking ... Do We Want to Listen?

"Hail to the Chief" is replaced by the O'Jays' "For the Love of Money".

Camp David is shut down, and the presidential retreat is shifted south to Mara Lago.

The classic and historic White House furniture is replaced with golden chairs and giant banquet tables.

Air Force One is replaced by a sleek private jet, and Marine One by a flashy jet chopper.

Cabinet meetings would be run with George, Don, Jr., and Ivanka sitting on either saying, "It was a tough decision, but you made the right choice."

I think it goes without saying (but I will say it anyway) that these are probably the first thoughts that come to mind when people consider the possibility that Donald Trump may throw his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination for president. Over the past few weeks, many politicians have stated that they cannot accept him as a legitimate candidate, that he is a joke, and that he has no business in the White House. Journalists, in a more indirect route, are expressing the same sentiment - you need look no further than Candy Crowley's response to answers he provided in a recent interview, or Savannah Guthrie's constant interruption of him during their sit-down this morning on the "Today Show".

But should we in fact be taking him seriously?

As David Brooks points out in his column in today's New York Times, Trump is leading in several GOP polls and is "within striking distance" of Obama in one poll. The website RealClearPolitics, in an average of surveys conducted by CNN, Fox News, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Gallup, and Pew Research, shows Trump trailing only Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, while he leads Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels and Rick Santorum - in that order. Yes, polls - as I and many others know - are only a snapshot of the views of a select group of people at that one particular moment.

But what does it say that he is polling that highly, when so many people claim he shouldn't be taken seriously? And what does it say about the remainder of the potential Republican field when a real estate mogul most famous for a reality television series is doing this well?

Trump is bombastic, loud, cocky, obnoxious, and focused on the wrong issues (Mr. Trump, please get over the Obama birth certificate issue, and no, it's not necessarily true that when countries win wars they can take over the losing country). But is he tapping into something? The same way that the Tea Party tapped American outrage over our nation's fiscal problems, Trump is tapping the base - as described by Brooks - of people who love "abrasive rich" men. And despite the fact that, contrary to what Trump says, we can't tell OPEC what to do, we can't just waltz in and take all of Libya's oil, and we can't necesarily put a flat 25% tax on every single import from China just to show them that we mean business, there's something appealing about it.

I like the fact that Trump says what he thinks, like it or not. I like his don't-give-a-damn attitude when confronting opponents. I like the fact that we have someone who has actually been in business (yes, in hotels, casinos, and apartments I could never afford, but in business nonetheless) is trying to come up with solutions on dealing with America's financial ledger. And he still has my support for firing Omarosa in season one of "The Apprentice".

Are people taking him seriously? No. Should people take him seriously? Perhaps. I only know that, regardless of whether he runs or not, he's added a bit of life to a Republican field that is putting me to sleep.

Charles Rangel Ethics Documents Here

Everything that you ever wanted to know about the investigation of Congressman Charles Rangel has been posted on the website for the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It definitely makes for some entertaining reading, particularly since this is a man tasked with writing the laws regulating how we are taxed - and yet he found a way to not pay his taxes and "forget" to report income.

The documents are all available here.

More to Graham's Climate Backdown Than Meets the Eye?

Consider this sequence of events:

(1) The EPA releases a draft tailoring rule which will give the agency a framework for regulating carbon dioxide and GHG emissions by heavy industrial emitters in the U.S.

(2) Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman begin work on a revised version of climate change/cap-and-trade/environmental protection (what ever the word du jour is) legislation - rumored to include a provision which would hamstring the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions.

(3) The EPA submits its draft tailoring rule to the White House for final review, indicating that its finalizing and formal release could be imminent (per EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, most likely in May).

(4) Senate Majority Leader Reid - in a desperate gambit to save his seat in the November elections - shifts the priorities of the Senate legislative calendar from climate change to immigration reform.

(5) Senator Graham, angry at the sudden switch from climate to immigration, withdraws from negotiations, putting an indefinite pause on moving the legislation forward - and blocking the provision preventing the EPA from exercising oversight.

In the few days since Graham pulled back, there have been numerous columnists and bloggers theorizing that he took this action because of pressure from Republican leadership. I'm not sure I agree, and here's a wild theory I've come up with along those lines: he pulled out because of White House pressure. While the President publicly says climate change legislation remains a priority, could he privately want the authority to regulate heavy emitters in the hands of the Executive Branch? By pressuring the one Republican senator willing to negotiate on the Senate legislation (or was he promised something in return?) to step aside, the Administration could potentially have killed the bill and the provision taking away EPA oversight.

So perhaps everyone gets what they want: Graham gets some sort of payoff later on; Reid gets his immigration bill and (presumably) secures his reelection; and the Administration gets to control a big sector of American manufacturing. Far-fetched? Perhaps - but certainly plausible...

The Value-Added Tax (-man Cometh)

I can remember hearing it often: " I will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year." No how; no way. My family was not going to be hit with higher taxes; thank you, President Obama! I'm so glad to know that...

What? That's not true, you say? My taxes will go up? That can't be right - except I'm looking at numerous news reports saying that the President and his fiscal commission are considering the implementation of a value-added tax (VAT) that would hit everyone in the United States. I'm also reading how phenomenally the implementation of a VAT in Europe has worked out for our neighbors across the Atlantic. Let's look for a moment at excerpts from an April 15, 2010 story in the Wall Street Journal on this topic:

VATs were sold in Europe as a way to tax consumption, which in principle does less economic harm than taxing income, savings or investment. This sounds good, but in practice the VAT has rarely replaced the income tax, or even resulted in a lower income-tax rate. The top individual income tax rate remains very high in Europe despite the VAT, with an average on the continent of about 46%.

In the U.S., VAT proponents aren't calling for a repeal of the 16th Amendment that allowed the income tax—and, in fact, they want income tax rates to rise. The White House has promised to let the top individual rate increase in January to 39.6% from 35% as the Bush tax cuts expire, while the dividend rate will go to 39.6% from 15% and the capital gains rate to 20% next year and 23.8% in 2013 under the health bill, from 15% today. Even with these higher rates, or because of them, revenues won't come close to paying for the Obama Administration's new spending—which is why it is also eyeing a VAT.

One trait of European VATs is that while their rates often start low, they rarely stay that way. Of the 10 major OECD nations with VATs or national sales taxes, only Canada has lowered its rate. Denmark has gone to 25% from 9%, Germany to 19% from 10%, and Italy to 20% from 12%. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation recently calculated that to balance the U.S. federal budget with a VAT would require a rate of at least 18%.

Proponents also argue that a VAT would result in less federal government borrowing. But that, too, has rarely been true in Europe. From the 1980s through 2005, deficits were by and large higher in Europe than in the U.S. By 2005, debt averaged 50% of GDP in Europe, according to OECD data, compared to under 40% in the U.S.

Certainly, if the Administration were considering such a tax, they would come right out and say it. Hey, Austan Goolsbee, you'll be straight with us, won't you?

So there we have it - an official White House spokesman telling us ... absolutely nothing, although clearly demonstrating his ability to give fantastic non-answers to basic questions. What makes it worse is that he's an economist giving non-answers; where's Paul Krugman when you need him? At least he'd give you a straight answer...

Votes for Sale in Congress

Doling out favors in exchange for votes on key legislation isn't anything new in the halls of Congress. One of the most notable examples occurred during the vote on the Medicare prescription bill several years ago, when Republican leadership in the House of Representatives allegedly offered campaign contributions to the candidate son of a congressman who was wavering on his vote. Today, it appears to have happened again; President Obama - in perhaps one of the wildest coincidences ever - nominated Scott Matheson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

What's the coincidence? Only that Matheson's brother, Jim, is a congressman from Utah - and is a wavering vote on the health care reform bill.

If anyone tries to say this is just a coincidence after Matheson decides - after what I assume will be couched as "careful consideration and listening to the views of [his] constituents" - to vote yes, I won't be able to look at them with a straight face. The country is going broke, legislation that we can't afford gets passed almost daily, and votes are getting bought and sold like stocks in a Madoff investment portfolio. Madoff got caught for his Ponzi scheme and the fact that the taking of one person's money to pay off the dividends of others was a house that collapsed around him.

When will the congressional Ponzi collapse?

Labor Boss Redux: Andy Stern and the SEIU

As a brief follow-up to my post yesterday on the effectiveness and value of union leadership, I was interested to read a story on the website for the San Francisco Bay Guardian regarding leadership elections held for SEIU Local 1021. I think the headline says it all: "SEIU Members Oust the Old Guard."

According to the story, the defeat of the entire slate of candidates put up by SEIU president Andy Stern "was a stunning repudiation of the union leadership." And Stern's candidates didn't just lose; they lost big. The article continues, "In addition, it could roil SEIU's internal politics after a turbulent year, in which Stern created divisive clashes with his own local health care workers, UNITE-HERE, and the California Nurses Association."

A separate article on the website of the Alliance for Worker Freedom also questioned the disparities in the pension funding levels of SEIU workers. According to their analysis, "In 2006, the SEIU National Industry Pension Plan, a plan for rank-and-file SEIU members covering 100,787 workers was 74.9% funded. A separate fund for employees of SEIU had 1,305 participants and was 90.6% funded. The pension fund for SEIU officers and employees had 6,595 members, and was 103.3% funded. This inequity was not always the case. In 1996, the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund had close to 110% of the funds it would need to pay all promised pensions to its workers."

Further, "The problem of poor funding is not only in the national pension plan. Research by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce revealed that 13 SEIU local pension plans were all less than 80% funded. Six of them were less than 65% funded. In 1996, all of them were more than 65% funded, and half were more than 80% funded. While those who were in poor shape back in 1996 are worth significant concern, the Massachusetts Service Employees Pension Fund is perhaps of greater concern. It fell from nearly 110% to 70% funded in 10 years, and the SEIU 1199 Upstate Pension Fund fell from 115% to 75% since its inception in 1999."

Pension plan security for the leadership, and pension plan shortfalls for the rank-and-file members.

So again I ask the question: are union members - in this case the SEIU - really benefitting from their leadership? The folks in San Francisco don't seem to think so, and I wonder if those who are checking their pension coverage feel they are getting the best...

Labor Bosses: Still a Friend to the American Worker?

The history of organized labor in this country has certainly been an interesting tale, and the personalities who have led the numerous trade and professional unions over the years have certainly become more and more "entertaining" as time has passed. During these many decades, it seems that the motives of the union bosses have changed as well.

I should interject here that I am not a member of a union, but union representation has been a fairly significant part of my family's history. My father, a teacher for nearly 20 years, was a member of the VEA and NEA, as were/are several of my relatives and friends who are currently teachers. My late paternal grandfather, a 42-year employee at a Virginia iron foundry, was (I believe) a member of the USW (I'm actually in the midst of a project attempting to learn more about that part of his life). I had a great uncle who was a career railroad employee, and I can only assume that he was part of a union as well. In short, unions have helped my family over the years.

Even though I have traditionally been fairly conservative in my political views, I can certainly see the value that labor unions provide for American workers. Just in the past 24 hours, I have seen several media reports about unions gathering to protect the 1,000-plus workers in danger of losing their jobs at a Whirlpool plant, several thousand employees at Continental who voted to become part of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the collaborative efforts of the AFGE and TSA employees to provide contract and benefit protections for those employees through membership in the federal employees' union. Even though nothing has been certain during this time of economic upheaval the downturn has affected union and non-union workers alike, I would think that being a part of a union would provide some sort of safety net - even if it is just networking through locals to try and find a new position, if not enjoying the protection of a solid contract.

The dynamics of unions have certainly changed over the past several years. While union membership within the federal government has gone up, private industry union representation has dropped. Whether it is a combination of right-to-work laws or employers who make an effort to provide strong salary and benefits packages to their employees so that a unionization effort is unnecessary, the shift in hard numbers for membership has changed.

And, as I mentioned at the beginning of this entry, so seemingly has the approach and style of union bosses.

To me - as a union outsider - it seems the glory days of unionization were during the era when the A. Philip Randolphs and John L. Lewises of the world were hard at work, forming trade unions, working for protections for train porters and steelworkers and coal miners, and setting up a network (the old AFL and CIO, pre-1955 merger) of locals around the country to ensure that American workers could achieve the dream of a comfortable, middle-class (or more) life. Over the years, though, it seems the motives of the union bosses have changed; first, there was Jimmy Hoffa and his ruthless drive to take over the Teamsters, including his close collaboration with members of organized crime. More recently, Andy Stern of the SEIU has drawn fire from a wide range of folks for the unlimited access he seems to have with the Obama Administration (read that as "unlimited influence," perhaps?), his alleged lobbying efforts even after dis-enrolling as a registered lobbyist, and now his appointment to the newly-created debt commission.

Now I don't know Andy Stern, and I have never met Andy Stern, but from the media I have read (and I will freely admit that much of it has been of the non-union variety) it seems that Stern has gradually become more concerned with his own success than that of his members. I seem to see Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO out in the field, supporting his workers, than I do Stern.

So using the SEIU leadership as an example, I have to ask: are today's labor bosses more concerned with the strength and stability of their members or with their own power and level of access. My perception of today's unions is certainly slanted; I read stories of the success of union locals and see how they continue to provide value for their members, but it is countered by watching what the big boys in Washington are doing.

I am hoping that union members and non-union employees alike will weigh in on this issue. I pose the question not out of anger, spite, or from a conservative tilt, but just to get a fuller sense of how people feel about today's union leadership. At the very least, I'm hoping that my research into my grandfather's professional life may give me a more complete picture of the importance of the USW on the stability of his family.

Virginia's Budget Crunch: Lots of Complaints, No Solutions

"So what do you think of your governor?" my youngest sister asked after the first month of Bob McDonnell's term in Virginia had come and gone. It seemed to be the predominant question on the lips of many folks after the details of the Governor's first budget were released last week - and it was a proposal that caused groups from across the political and social spectrum a great deal of heartache (heartburn, anxiety, stress, and gut-wrenching nausea are acceptable substitute terms based on what I've read and heard over the past several days). Never mind that once a governor or president is elected, that person is everyone's governor or president, regardless of whether everyone for that person or not.

In short, it called for massive cuts in education funding, state low-income insurance funding, subsidies for lunches for low-income children, and numerous other programs hitting families from all demographics and income levels. I'm a bit stunned that anyone would be surprised by this proposal; the Commonwealth's legislators and governors over the years - from both parties - have allowed a near-term $2.2 billion budget shortfall to develop, and without something being done it's only going to get worse.

So what should be done to address the shortfall without cutting programs? Surprisingly, no one has offered a single concrete answer (other than eliminating the Commonwealth's car tax, which was rejected by the Governor). Whenever situations like this arise, the agreement that something must be done to address our budgetary problems is unanimous - but when asked where the cuts should come, a circular firing squad develops and everyone starts firing away at everyone else. Naturally, there's always the option of raising taxes (awkward silence here, followed by the sound of crickets and the occasional cough among the audience).

Let's focus on education for a moment. With one child in public schools and one entering the system in just a few years, with a father who was a teacher for nearly 20 years, and with many friends who are current and former teachers, education is something that is very important to me. Anything that would result in depriving my children of a good, substantial education, or in eliminating a job held by one of my friends would be a difficult thing indeed. But the longer-term ramifications of doing nothing now to address the budget problems could be far, far worse; however, no one seems to be thinking beyond the next year and into the out years. If nothing is done now, what shape will schools in Virginia be in when both of my kids are in high school? At that point, how drastic will the cuts have to be to address the problem?

No one wants to cut education. Transportation funding is off-limits. Social program support is taboo when it comes to cuts. Low-income healthcare is forbidden. The list goes on and on.

So what do we do? I keep looking for someone to offer a solution and to this point haven't seen one. I even looked to the media to offer some sort of fix - and you know the cupboard is really bare when you even think about looking to them for a solution. A perfect example is today's Roanoke Times, with a several-hundred word column - fully one-third of the page - by editorial page editor Dan Radmacher entitled "McDonnell's Budget Cuts Too Deeply." As I expected, he did a great job of giving his opinion on the problem, but by the end of the column his complaining had yet to give way to something even remotely resembling a recommended solution.

When your car is broken, you look for a way to get it fixed. If your house needs repairs, you cut your budget wherever possible to pay for those repairs. It's just a shame we can't take that same common-sense approach to fixing our state.

2012: Could We See Obama-Dean?

30 years ago, the Democrat party was in chaos. On the heels of rising inflation, rising fuel prices, and a presidential approval rating pegged at 28 percent by Gallup, Ted Kennedy threw his hat in the ring to challenge incumbent Jimmy Carter for the 1980 presidential nomination. Kennedy followers had long suspected he would run at some point in his career, although when he did their enthusiasm was quickly tempered by the fact that he never could explain exactly why he was running. To many observers, his battle with Carter was an unmitigated disaster, and the dissension within the party is credited by some as a major reason why Ronald Reagan won the general election in November of that year.

Fast forward to 2010, and there's a renewed sense of dissension within the Democrat ranks. Leading that dissension? None other than former Vermont governor and DNC chairman Howard Dean. In recent months, Dean had been making health care reform the major focus of his activities - but not in the way some would expect. Instead of spending 100 percent of his time leading the charge for reform, some of his effort has been expended in attacking President Obama and Democrat leadership in the House of Representatives and Senate for what he perceives as caving on key provisions that he has been advocating for health care legislation (chiefly the so-called "public option").

In a story published today in Politico, "The Resurrection of Howard Dean," writer Kenneth Vogel says that some of those closest to Dean think that his attacks on fellow Democrats about their approach to health care reform are just the beginning. According to Vogel, "Dean’s health care stand has infuriated party leaders, who have alternately tried to marginalize him and to bring him on board. Yet at the same time, his provocative approach has re-energized the political group he founded and thrilled legions of progressive activists, many of whom were drawn to politics by Dean's insurgent 2004 presidential campaign, then deflated when he didn’t land an Obama Cabinet post."

So let's think ahead three years, to the 2012 election cycle. If this dissatisfaction continues, and we see a regeneration of the tremendous enthusiasm among a wide section of the Democrat base that Dean brought about in 2004, could we see a repeat of 1980 and watch as Dean challenges Obama in the primary? Ever since his famous "taking back the White House/heeyaaah!" meltdown that marked the end of his campaign, a lot of folks -political pundits, voters, comedians, and many others - have thought Dean is just as crazy as he is unpredictable. And taken as a whole, a package of unpredictability, craziness, and grassroots enthusiasm, could motivate him to a position of mounting a serious challenge to Obama.

So sit back and enjoy the ride - the Howard Express could provide some exciting times in the next few years.

On this Veterans Day, One of Our Greatest Generals

This is one of the most memorable speeches ever delivered by a member of our armed forces: Douglas MacArthur's farewell speech to Congress in 1951 (this is the final, most well-know part). I think it is one of the most appropriate clips I could post here today - a great speech with some great photographs.

Politics 101 with Professors Carville and Gingrich

This is a fascinating two-part video from earlier this year, when James Carville invited Newt Gingrich to speak to his "2008 Presidential Election" class at Tulane University. They are both masters in their respective fields, and the exchanges between the two are as interesting as their lectures to the class.

Hey Nobel Committee! What About Bill Clinton?

Ladies and gentlemen, I am about to do something that is far out of the norm for me. I am about to defend Bill Clinton.

Yes, Bill Clinton - the man who one email (reported by Politico) said is today the angriest man on the planet. For once, I have to agree with his anger (assuming he is in fact upset about the news that broke earlier today).

If you haven't heard - and at this point I don't know how anyone couldn't have heard - President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, barely two weeks after taking the oath of office in January, he was nominated for his efforts in ...

Shoot, I forgot; what was it he did? Ah, yes; now I remember. It waas awarded for - and let me get this right - his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." That's a helluva lot he accomplished there in his first 12 days, isn't it? It's incredible what a catchy phrase like "Yes we can!" can get for someone. Rodney Dangerfield had his "I get no respect" line, but nope, no prize for him; George Burns had his "Say goodnight, Gracie" closing each episode of the old "Burns and Allen" show, but no, the Nobel Committee ignored him; Elton John had "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting" - oh, wait; the title of that song exempted him from consideration.

Seriously, folks? Nominated after two weeks in office? I don't care what anyone says about how much he deserved this and how much he accomplished in his (snicker) 12 days in office before the nomination. This is a reaction not to what Obama did, but is another rebuke of Bush. We get it: the international community wasn't thrilled with what Bush did and decided to knock his Administration down a few pegs by giving the Prize to someone who talked about change, restoring our standing in the international community, and bringing the nations of the world together in a spirt of kumbayah where we can all sit at the table of brotherhood, a round table on the patio where a black professor and a white cop can share a beer.

And so I go back to - gasp - Bill Clinton. Clinton has done more in his post-presidency to deserve a Peace Prize than either President Obama or even Al Gore (Side bar: I want speed bumps on my street so that cars will slow down and pose less of a threat to the neighborhood children. Can I have a Prize?); he worked with President George H.W. Bush to raise astounding amounts of money and aid for the folks devastated by the Asian tsunami. His Clinton Foundation has raised untold amounts of money to help poor and impoverished nations and regions around the globe. He should even get credit for the work he did in trying to bring peace to the Middle East and to Central Europe. I think that even Bono merits consideration for the tremendous amount of good works he has done.

So why didn't he win? Was he even nominated? He's gotten passed over for his former vice president. He's gotten passed over for the person who knocked his wife out of running for the White House. Is Bill Clinton angry? I'd put good money down that he is - and I can't really blame him. I'm a bit angry that it takes so little to get the Prize nowadays - Desmond Tutu and Elie Wiesel worked for years before they were recognized. Guess it doesn't take much now to amaze the Nobel Committee other than excited crowds, a catch-phrase, and the promise that you'll try to do something.

So based on the new criteria, I'm off to pick up trash off the front curb, get a cat out of the tree, get folks to chant "Look what I did!" and help my neighbor carry in her groceries.

Oh, and I'll expect my Peace Prize in the mail tomorrow.

Don't Want Health Care Coverage? Get Out Your Check Book

Let's for a moment assume that health care reform - in some shape or scope - manages to be passed out of the Senate, is successfully conferenced between the two houses of Congress, and is signed into law by the President. It's not necessary for purposes of this post to discuss whether it incldues either a public or single-payer option, or how many of the 30 million uninsured in this country will be covered. (Side bar: Hold on, Mr. President. I thought it was 47 million; why are you and the congressional leadership now saying 30 million? Did the other 17 million move, or did you miscount? Is this what we can expect to see in next year's census? End side bar.)

Now let's assume that you decide that you are okay with not having coverage, and you take a pass. I don't find that beyond the realm of possiblity, especially if you are young; the risk of illness is always there, but maybe you think you'll be okay and don't need the coverage.

It's your choice, right?

Wrong.

If you don't buy into the system, you could get a fine as high as $1,900 - and the Internal Revenue Service will make sure you pay. As Politico reported on September 24, "Americans who fail to pay the penalty for not buying insurance would face legal action from the Internal Revenue Service, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The remarks Thursday from the committee's chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, seems to further weaken President Barack Obama's contention last week that the individual mandate penalty, which could go as high as $1,900, is not a tax increase. Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would 'take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings.'"

Later, as was reported in the same publication, "Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it 'Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.'"

Hold on a minute. A person exercises their individual choice not to buy health insurance coverage, and they get slapped with a nearly $2,000 penalty? What if the person can't afford to buy insurance? How are they supposed to pay the penalty - and taken to its logical conclusion, what about the $25,000 in fines?

Penalty. Surcharge. Fee. Tariff. Cover charge. Whatever you want to call it, this is another way of raising revenue and represents - wait for it - a tax. It also represents a way of penalizing the choices we make. I have a family, so insurance coverage isn't a question for me; my wife and kids need to have it. But what about the 23-year-old intern fresh out of college with no dependents and no responsibilities?

The President may be correct in saying this bill will not raise taxes. But let's pull out the thesaurus and ask the same question by substituting every possible synonym for the word tax and see what answer we get.

Democrat Math on Unemployment and Jobs: It Doesn't Add Up

The unemployment numbers for the month of August were released today, and the news was not good. With 466,000 new unemployed men and women last month, the total rate jumped to 9.7% and 14.9 million people are now out of work. This is the highest level in 26 years - and it raises several questions in my mind.

First, how honest are Democrats being about the total number of folks who lost their jobs last month? The Bureau of Labor Statistics press release said that 216,000 non-farm payroll jobs were lost and a total of 466,000 people became unemployed. Yet in a press release just issued by House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer, he states that only 216,000 jobs were lost. Well, which is it? BLS gives the total number, and House Democrats are only focused on part of that? Forgive me, but I thought that through all of the last eight months of discussion by Democrats about being concerned for all Americans they were genuinely concerned about all Americans. Why aren't they including all of the unemployed in their figures? Are they only concerned about non-farm workers?

Oh, wait - I know (and it brings me to point 2): it undercuts their claims of having saved or created 750,000 jobs since the stimulus bill was signed into law. You remember - the stimulus bill that was going to save or create millions of jobs and keep unemployment below 8%. Vice President Biden was touting that fact in a speech earlier this week, but with today's news it seems to fall flat. As I commented on another site, my math is not great so I'm having a difficult time figuring out how the saving and creating of 750,000 jobs since the stimulus was passed stil results in a 9.7% rate and nearly 470,000 additional jobs lost in just the last month.

Either we're creating a helluva lot more jobs that are balanced out by the jobs lost - ending with a net of 750,000 - or the recovery folks are as bad at math as I am. My money is the latter.

So how do we fix the problem and get folks back to work? 14.9 million unemployed is 14.9 million too many, but under-reporting numbers in press releases and running fast and loose with the statistics in speeches doesn't help. If we don't truly know - or if at least members of Congress and the Administration only say what they want us to hear - how bad things are, then we won't be able to determine how large the solution needs to be. Obviously, the vaunted stimulus bill wasn't the answer. Democrats get points for effort, but it's not something they can solve alone - a fix is going to take efforts at real bipartisanship and real cooperation, not simply using the words to impress constituents back home.

Here Comes Jimmy T!! Traficant, That Is...

Politics has been too drab and boring lately - no catchy lines, no heated arguments, no controversial incidents. Okay, so that's not true, but it's never too late to liven things up even more, just to keep us all entertained.

Enter Jim Traficant. Those suits (denim)! That hair (which he claimed was cut with a weed whacker). Seven years after being expelled from the House of Representatives and sent to prison for various and sundry forms of corruption and abuse of power, he's back!! Later today, he'll walk out the prison doors a free man, ready to tackle the world once again. I for one hopes he does not go gentle into that good night; he's too much of an entertaining character to deprive the world of his wackiness and incredible quotes.

Forgotten some of what he said over the years? Here's a stroll down memory lane.

"We are not playing monopoly down here. These are taxpayer dollars. Enough is enough. Last I heard it was Uncle Sam, not Uncle Sucker. I yield back the balance of the hard-working jobs that the steel industry is losing." - discussing IMF bailouts with American tax dollars, October 5, 1998

"The last I heard, NATO did not work for the Western Union. It is time for NATO to do their job. It is time for France to step up once in a while. It is time for Europe to help us out, and it is time for independence in Kosovo. One last thing, Mr. Speaker. Milosevic must be stopped. It is about time for France to do their job, too." - commenting on the genocide in Kosovo, October 1, 1998

"Washington does not need more lobbyists and lawyers to advise Congress. I honestly believe that a proctologist is in order down here. I yield back whatever common sense is left." - talking about fast track procedures, September 25, 1998

"Mr. Speaker, I have one question for these wise guys to constipate over: How can some thing come from no thing? And while they digest that, Mr. Speaker, let us tell it like it is. Put these super-cerebral master debaters in some foxhole with bombs bursting all around them, and I guarantee they will not be praying to Frankenstein." - discussing scientists believing in God, August 3, 1998

"Free trade my ascot, Mr. Speaker. This is a free ride and a free for all for China, who is gobbling up our national security secrets faster than the President can down a Big Mac and a box of fries. Think about that." - talking about China, free trade, and security, June 24, 1998

And finally, one of my personal favorites, uttered after he was expelled from the House: "I will take with me a file, chisel and a knife. I'll try to get some major explosives to fight my way out. Then when I get out, I'll grab a sword like Maximus Meridius and as a gladiator, I'll stab people in the crotch."

Speaker Pelosi, the Democrats need Jim Traficant. Congress needs Jim Traficant. The American people need Jim Traficant (even if it is just so that we have something further with which to amuse us). Something tells me when he gets in the car and drives away from prison today, it won't be the last we've heard of the, umm, distinguished gentleman from Ohio.

Pointing the Finger on Health Care Reform

There's an old saying that you shouldn't ever point the finger at someone, because you'll have three other fingers pointing back at you (not counting the thumb, of course). I thought about that this morning as I considered all of the arguments flying back and forth over who is to blame about the delays in implementing health care reform.

Here's the finger being pointed: "Obama in recent days has shifted directly attacking Republicans, portraying their opposition to his health initiative as little more than a political attack designed to destroy his presidency... In remarks Tuesday, Obama continued to hammer home the theme that his opponents were driven by political motives, but he refrained from mentioning the Republican Party or referring to any specific Senator." - Roll Call, July 22, 2009

And today, here are the fingers pointing back at Democrats:

As the pressure increases to cut deals on health care reform, nerves are starting to fray among Democrats. Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and his top legislative aide, Phil Schiliro, traveled to the Capitol on Thursday to try to sort out an impasse between Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and seven fellow Democrats in the centrist Blue Dog Coalition. But they emerged after three hours in the speaker’s office without a breakthrough.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) conceded that House Democrats had held a “contentious” closed-door session on Thursday morning, the day after Obama increased the pressure on Congress to get something done on health care.

And in the Senate, Democratic Finance Committee members not directly involved in the bipartisan talks warned Baucus that their votes could not be taken for granted as he works toward a deal with Republicans.

“Don’t think we are so desperate. We are not going to fall into line,” Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said, describing the message Democrats delivered to Baucus. “I’m not allowed into the meetings, the real meetings they have, what they call the coalition of the willing. It is a really, really bad way to try and develop support and ideas. So the whole philosophy is, if we can get these three Republicans, we can call it bipartisan, but I don’t think any of you [in the media] are going to think it is particularly bipartisan.” - Politico, July 24, 2009

Why did Obama not name any specific Senator or identify the opponents driven by political motives? Because that would entail identifying members of his own party - the members of the Senate who are opposed to the route this reform legislation is taking, and the 50-plus members of the House Blue Dog coalition who could block any bill that they see increasing taxes on their constituencies.

So I ask Democrats in Congress and the Administration, "Can you tell me who's really to blame here?" Let me state that I am not opposed to all Americans having access to health care; what I am opposed to is trying to jam a massive bill through the process in less than two months between the time the legislation was introduced and the time a final vote is held. What you're seeing here are members that recognize a fix needs to be made - a fix that is affordable and doesn't drive the country even further into a debt that we've succeeded in building up over the past several years - as well as recognizing that this vote could make or break their careers.

Be careful where you point the finger on this issue - and remember that one of the three pointing back at you is the middle one.

New Game Demonstrates Effects of Card Check

I'm sure that many of you by this point have heard of the Employee Free Choice Act, more commonly known as "card check." Passage of this legislation - which President Obama indicated last year he would sign if it made it to his desk - would dramatically strengthen the ability of organized labor to unionize business and industry throughout the country, force management to accept binding arbitration in all negotiations over contracts and benefits, and increase the amount of money flowing to union coffers through mandatory deductions from workers' paychecks to cover the cost of dues.

The good news is that the legislation is showing few signs of progress in the Senate at this point in time, and senators are at an impasse over possible compromise language which would draw the support of 60 senators (with the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, passage in that chamber is guaranteed). The bad news is that it continues to be the number one priority of organized labor, and as such they are pushing hard to get a compromise bill through - provided it doesn't touch the mandatory arbitration issue that would be so harmful to American business.

The Alliance for Worker Freedom has been very active on this issue, and earlier this week unveiled their new interactive online card check game. "Card Checked: The Game" allows the user to experience first-hand a scenario in which they are pressured to sign an authorization card to allow for unionization of their business. In a format similar to the old "Choose Your Own Adventure" books, you have the option of how to act at each stage of the game and witness the repercussions of your actions. The game is also heavily documented with real-life incidents relating to some of the pressure techniques used by labor to force unionization.

I encourage you to visit and explore this game and the supporting documentation for yourself. You can play the game by going here.

The Grief and Struggle of Robert McNamara

“’Terribly Wrong’ Handling of Vietnam Overshadowed Record of Achievement.”

“Robert S. McNamara, Architect of a Futile War, Dies at 93.”

“Vietnam War Architect Robert McNamara Dies.”

“Architect of Vietnam War Later Revealed His Regrets.”

“A Onetime ‘Whiz Kid’ Brought Low by Vietnam.”

Yesterday’s death of former Secretary of Defense and World Bank President Robert McNamara naturally made the front page of countless newspapers across the country, and you really only had to look at the headlines (such as the ones above from, in order, the Washington Post, New York Times, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, and Wall Street Journal) to get a sense of what slant the different writers would be taking. No matter the angle, however, Vietnam was the centerpiece of each story (and of the numerous personal reminiscences run on the op-ed pages of each paper) – surpassed only by the focus on the internal struggle McNamara faced from the time he stepped down from his post in the Johnson Administration in 1968 until the day he died.

Even though I was born during the height of the Vietnam War, I’ve never really considered myself part of the Vietnam generation. Thankfully, the war by and large bypassed my family – my father missed on having to go because of a previously-broken ankle, and my father-in-law was a C-130 pilot in the Air Force who flew several tours there in the 1960s before returning safely to the United States. Despite that, Robert McNamara was someone with whom I have always been familiar, at least peripherally. I haven’t read his 1995 memoir (yet), and I haven’t seen the 2003 documentary “The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara” (yet), but I do know that he fought mightily to come to grips with the role he played in the war.

Among all of the stories, analysis and recollections that I’ve read today, one passage from the Washington Post story really jumped out at me. In it McNamara is quoted as saying: “We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo – men, women and children,” he told [Errol] Morris [producer of the 2003 documentary]. “[General Curtis] LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost,” he added. “But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?”

What makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

It’s a new way of looking at the old saying about history being written by the victors, and I think it’s a glimpse – albeit a small one – into the intellectual and emotional struggle in which McNamara found himself during the past four decades. Looking at the Tokyo raid in World War II, as well as the horrific raid on Dresden during the same conflict, people have acknowledged these were tragic occurrences – but not much else. Had we in fact lost the Second World War, would we view these any more differently? And don’t you think that the Japanese and Germans view these under a different lens as well?

Not having known McNamara and not yet having read his book or seen the documentary, I can only guess that his statement about the morality or immorality of the Tokyo bombing was a reflection of his deeper internal struggle about this country’s role in Vietnam – and the tremendous cost in both in lives and national morale that we had to endure and which lingered for many years. The loss of 56,000 Americans in Southeast Asia was a tremendous tragedy, and I can only surmise from what I do know that McNamara deeply felt the loss of each one of those men and women every day for the rest of his life.

Why Sarah Palin Just Torpedoed a Shot at 2012

In keeping with our recent spate of astounding, amazing, and downright shocking news stories, Sarah Palin has provided us with yet another. In order to enable herself to do more for the nation than she could if still governor, Palin announced today that she will not seek reelection for a second term - and to seal the deal also stated that she will be resigning effective the end of this month.

If this is her way of setting the stage for a 2012 run for the White House, I think this was a horrible move to make. During the election last year, the McCain-Palin team had a difficult enough time convincing the electorate that her time as mayor of Wasilla and brief period in the governor's mansion qualified as legitimate, national-level executive experience. But in all honesty, I don't think she can use that argument any longer, considering she wasn't even willing to finish out her first (and apparently only) term as Alaska's chief executive.

Unless she is about to sign a major deal with Fox News Channel or announce a potential run for Senate against Lisa Murkowski, this accomplishes nothing (other than giving her time to finish the manuscript for her soon-to-be-published memoir). The attention span for presidential primaries doesn't even really take hold until February or March of the actual election year, meaning that it's going to be the beginning of 2012 before anyone will - or should, for that matter - take a serious look at the contenders. Name ID certainly won't be an issue for Palin, if that's what she's thinking - anyone who hasn't heard of her by this point has been living under a rock.

And at the risk of offending my much more Conservative friends, I don't see Governor-for-28-more-days Palin as the savior of the GOP. I think she has potential at some level - Senate, perhaps, or maybe even a cabinet-level position like Interior secretary - but I just don't see her being the one crowned nominee at the 2012 Republican convention. Trying to determine a front-runner at this point is a useless exercise, and trying to make yourself a front-runner is even more pointless; people will get tired of you now long before your campaign even starts up.

Tom Friedman and Dan Becker: Has Climate Change Made Their Memories More Selective?

In his latest New York Times column, "Just Do It," author and environmentalist Tom Friedman accuses Republican members of the House of Representatives - along with, to a lesser extent, President Obama and the American public - of being one of the major reasons that the Waxman-Markey bill arrived in the Senate in its current, weakened form. To be precise - and here he quotes comments made by Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign - he refers to the version that was passed last Friday on a 219-212 vote as being "too weak in key areas and way too complicated in others" and being "watered down to bring them [coal-state Democrats] on board."

(To say that the bill is weakened isn't going to matter much to the folks who will be paying higher electricity costs, higher costs on commodities, higher costs on goods and services, and on and on and on. I don't care if the CBO assessment of $175 per year or the Heritage Foundation prediction of several thousand dollars a year is correct, or whether you prefer the word "tax" or "free." More money is more money, and we're going to be spending more. How much could we be paying if the bill wasn't "watered down?")

To further buttress his argument about Republicans not supporting this bill (while, oddly, not mentioning at all that no compromise on earth could convince the 44 Democrats who voted against it to change their minds), Friedman again quotes Becker, who said "every House Republican voted against the bill and did nothing to try and improve it." I don't know what's worse: citing someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, or not thinking independently on this issue.

A few examples:

1. Becker says that every House Republican voted against the bill. Um, sorry Dan, but you're off there. Apparently you didn't check the vote tally - eight Republicans actually voted for the bill (much to the consternation of the conservative base). For your argument, I suppose that's not important.

2. Becker also says that Republicans did nothing to try and improve the bill. Again, I'm not sure at all where he's coming from on this. During the markup of the Waxman-Markey legislation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, minority members offered countless amendments in an attempt to try and make the bill better - and an overwhelming majority of them were defeated. Later, when the bill was handed off to the Rules Committee, the committee chair allowed a grand total of ONE Republican amendment to be considered on the House floor. And then Speaker Pelosi broke her pledge of allowing at least 24 hours between announcing a vote on a bill and holding the vote for members to read the bill, giving - as Minority Leader John Boehner said during his remarks on the floor - a total of five hours of debate.

I don't think the bill is in its current form because Republicans didn't offer any help. Truth be told, Democrats don't want their help - they're going to ram it through, come hell or high water, with or without Republican votes. I won't say that a more conservative columnist and the head of a more conservative think tank wouldn't tilt their explanation more to the right; it's just the nature of the game. No, my concern here is the selective memory displayed by Becker, and the reliance on those comments by someone who I thought had more sense than that.

Not everyone watched the debate or fully understands what's going on, and to read this slanted explanation leaves out much of the story.