Donald Trump ran on the promise to make America great again. Though hardly central to that promise, tax reform has been presented as part of the path back to such greatness, however that greatness may be defined. Unfortunately, perhaps due to the President's populist urges, perhaps due to pressure brought to bear on GOP legislators by wealthy donors, perhaps due to mere desperation to pass something, tax reform has morphed into little more than supply side-style tax cuts that once again make the dubious promise to pay for themselves through the enhanced economic growth they are expected to unleash. That is not a path to greatness. In fact, it is almost certain to hasten our decline as the promised growth turns out to be a mirage and budget deficits instead balloon to even more dangerous levels.
The reasons the proposed cuts are so ill-advised are twofold. First, growth expected as a result of tax cuts is premised on the belief that lack of capital is the cause of our anemic and uneven economic performance. It is not. Quite simply, the U.S. economy has unprecedented cash at its disposal for investment purposes. The challenge is not finding investment capital, it is finding worthwhile places to invest it. As it is, as of last year, U.S. companies held over $1.9 trillion in cash domestically, in addition to the $2.5 trillion they hold overseas. Furthermore, investors hold another $2.66 trillion in essentially interest-free money market accounts, while banks have another $2.15 in excess capital residing at the Federal Reserve. In all, this amounts to more than $9.2 trillion, $6.71 trillion of which sits within our shores, available to fund economic growth. That this cash is sitting in accounts that essentially pay zero interest should suffice as proof that businesses cannot find better uses for it. A recent show of hands at a gathering of CEOs proved as much when only a smattering of hands went up when asked who expected to increase capital investment if tax cuts became law, perplexing White House Chief Economic Advisor Gary Cohn.
This is borne out elsewhere in any discussion one has with corporations, venture capitalists or private equity investors, who uniformly report that the most difficult task they have is finding worthwhile uses for their cash. The corollary to this story comes from startups and businesses who repeatedly state that finding cash is the least of their challenges. In fact, nearly any viable small to medium-sized business will speak of the steady stream of investors offering to acquire them or take them private. All of which exposes the fallacy behind any of the current tax proposals. Far from fueling growth, they are likely to simply fuel inflation, asset bubbles and eventually, higher interest rates that will choke, rather than fuel, economic growth.
Worse yet, any such strangling of our financial position could not come at a more dangerous time for the U.S. economy, which, already facing record levels of public debt and the Social Security and Medicare obligations for a wave of retiring baby boomers, finds itself competing with an ascendant China that will control much of the debt we owe. That our greatest economic rival will not only hold an increasingly strong global economic position, but also great sway over our ability to finance our debt, is likely to bring back the specter of 1970's style stagflation, where growth is impeded as prices rise.
Now is not the time to reduce taxes in the misbegotten belief that it will fuel future growth. Go ahead and encourage the return of overseas cash by offering a temporary tax amnesty, but we should not risk the financial future of the United States by pursuing tax policies that are questionable at best and dangerous at worst. We have been lulled into a false sense of security by artificially low interest rates resulting from the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing. However, the day draws nearer when such schemes will no longer be able to keep market forces at bay and interest rates will once again accurately reflect faith in our willingness and ability to meet our debt obligations. Given our record of fiscal irresponsibility the past few decades, we can expect that faith to be severely tested. As of this writing, the U.S. is still seen as the world's safest haven for investment, but once that faith teeters, we are likely to find ourselves no longer in control of our economic destiny as those who hold our debt will determine how much we'll be allowed to borrow and at what rates.
A world where Russia manipulates our elections while China holds the strings to our finances hardly sounds like the recipe for greatness, because it is not. It is a recipe for disaster that threatens our sovereignty as no foreign invader ever could. We should not - must not - give in to desires to deliver a political victory that ignores the long-term economic, political and human cost such poorly conceived tax policy would deliver, lest we want this era to be central in historians’ search for the inflection point that signaled the decline of the United States. It is that serious. The time to act is now and it is time to say enough. Let this be the moment that fiscal responsibility returns to the U.S. economy.
11/19/2017
Millennials: Love ‘Em or Hate ‘Em, I Love Them
There are two kinds of people in this world – those who believe there are two kinds of people, and those who don’t. I am among the former, and so, I believe there are two kinds of people when it comes to Millennials – those who love them, and those who don’t. Again, I am among the former.
Not sure what it is about this particular generation that generates such angst, but it does. Conversations about them are like old Vaudeville comedy routines – “and how about those Millennials?” The challenge is in guessing which direction that conversation will lead. One person will complain about the work hours they keep, the next will laud them for their work ethic. How’s one to know what to think?
Well, here’s what I think: On whole, Millennials work harder at everything than we (Boomers) worked at anything.
Think about it. When we were twelve, baseball meant fifteen Little League games at local schoolyards spread over 6-8 weeks, with maybe a practice thrown in on Saturday. The season began when it stopped snowing and ended before it interfered with Memorial Day picnics. Today, baseball means 50-60 games (more if one’s in their teens) that begin in March and run well into the summer. Vacations revolve around where the tournaments are. Team workouts begin in winter and players often work with private instructors to hone their craft. The story is similar for basketball, volleyball, soccer, golf or any manner of athletic endeavor.
And that’s just sports. Today’s young adults also spent more time taking high school courses that many of us Boomers passed up in college. To paraphrase an old U.S. Army slogan, thanks to everything from Advanced Placement courses in calculus, chemistry, physics and writing to traveling debate and robotics teams, Millennials have done more by age twenty than most people do their whole lives.
Yes, they were brought up with participation trophies and they resist set work hours, but as a Millennial recently stated to an audience of job-seeking Boomers, perhaps that’s because those are the things we longed for. That’s another thing to think about – do we not all prefer flexibility in our work lives in order to attend to life’s needs? Part of that is due to the workplace catching up to the reality of dual-income families who require time to take kids to the doctor, stop by a school or deal with life’s everyday challenges. Millennials were not only the drivers behind that evolution, but were witnesses to its implementation. Should we be surprised they see workplace flexibility as a necessity, if not a birthright? Yes, Millennials may not be at their desks from 8 to 5, but they are the ones working on their laptops Saturdays at Starbucks and are never out-of-touch. The schedule may be lax, the effort is not.
Even as the participation trophy generation, Millennials may have a thing or two to teach us. Aren’t we learning that positive workplace environments that offer reinforcement rather than retribution are more effective in furthering organizational objectives? We have recognized the type of work environment we wish for and have simply adapted it to our child-rearing. Far from creating monsters, we have prepared them for a lifetime of effective leadership.
And none of this even takes into account that, by and large, Millennials have been fighting our war on terror. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya and Niger, this generation has proven itself in ways those of us who came of age after Vietnam can never claim. Yes, they may be soft when it comes to uncomfortable opinions on college campuses, but on whole these are not soft people.
So, count me among those who love ‘em. Lord knows, I'd love to have been one.
Not sure what it is about this particular generation that generates such angst, but it does. Conversations about them are like old Vaudeville comedy routines – “and how about those Millennials?” The challenge is in guessing which direction that conversation will lead. One person will complain about the work hours they keep, the next will laud them for their work ethic. How’s one to know what to think?
Well, here’s what I think: On whole, Millennials work harder at everything than we (Boomers) worked at anything.
Think about it. When we were twelve, baseball meant fifteen Little League games at local schoolyards spread over 6-8 weeks, with maybe a practice thrown in on Saturday. The season began when it stopped snowing and ended before it interfered with Memorial Day picnics. Today, baseball means 50-60 games (more if one’s in their teens) that begin in March and run well into the summer. Vacations revolve around where the tournaments are. Team workouts begin in winter and players often work with private instructors to hone their craft. The story is similar for basketball, volleyball, soccer, golf or any manner of athletic endeavor.
And that’s just sports. Today’s young adults also spent more time taking high school courses that many of us Boomers passed up in college. To paraphrase an old U.S. Army slogan, thanks to everything from Advanced Placement courses in calculus, chemistry, physics and writing to traveling debate and robotics teams, Millennials have done more by age twenty than most people do their whole lives.
Yes, they were brought up with participation trophies and they resist set work hours, but as a Millennial recently stated to an audience of job-seeking Boomers, perhaps that’s because those are the things we longed for. That’s another thing to think about – do we not all prefer flexibility in our work lives in order to attend to life’s needs? Part of that is due to the workplace catching up to the reality of dual-income families who require time to take kids to the doctor, stop by a school or deal with life’s everyday challenges. Millennials were not only the drivers behind that evolution, but were witnesses to its implementation. Should we be surprised they see workplace flexibility as a necessity, if not a birthright? Yes, Millennials may not be at their desks from 8 to 5, but they are the ones working on their laptops Saturdays at Starbucks and are never out-of-touch. The schedule may be lax, the effort is not.
Even as the participation trophy generation, Millennials may have a thing or two to teach us. Aren’t we learning that positive workplace environments that offer reinforcement rather than retribution are more effective in furthering organizational objectives? We have recognized the type of work environment we wish for and have simply adapted it to our child-rearing. Far from creating monsters, we have prepared them for a lifetime of effective leadership.
And none of this even takes into account that, by and large, Millennials have been fighting our war on terror. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya and Niger, this generation has proven itself in ways those of us who came of age after Vietnam can never claim. Yes, they may be soft when it comes to uncomfortable opinions on college campuses, but on whole these are not soft people.
So, count me among those who love ‘em. Lord knows, I'd love to have been one.
11/12/2017
There's Nothing Manly About Immature Retorts
Last week, the Cincinnati Bengals' AJ Green justified punching Jacksonville Jaguars defensive back Jalen Ramsey on grounds that he had to set an example for his young son. That sentiment was backed up by an ESPN anchor, who agreed that anyone disrespected as AJ was needs to defend his honor. Today, we have White House spokesperson Kellyanne Conway justifying the President's childish tweet directed at North Korea's Kim Jong Un, asking why he'd call the President "old" when the President wouldn't call him "short and fat," by claiming, "That was just the president responding the way that he does when someone insulted him first."
We've seen similar defenses before. In 2004, another batch of ESPN commentators defended Indiana Pacer Ron Artest's charge into the stands to deliver retribution for a tossed beverage, saying that any "man" was not only justified, but required under some unwritten code, to defend his honor.
Let's be clear. These men and their defenders have it completely wrong. Strong, secure adults do not feel the need to respond to insults. In fact, the sign of strength and maturity is to do just the opposite and turn away. Unfortunately, this macho mindset has plagued us for too long and has been responsible for everything from gang wars to world wars. And if such thinking is irresponsible when the projectile in question is a carbonated beverage, it is clearly far more serious when the potential projectile could be nuclear-tipped.
It doesn’t have to be this way. In "The Better Angels of Our Nature," about the decline in violence over the course of human history, author Steven Pinker compares the outcomes of the 1914 killing of Archduke Ferdinand, setting off a chain of events that led to WWI and millions of unnecessary deaths, with the Cuban Missile Crisis, which ended without a single casualty. One factor in the different outcomes was that John F. Kennedy had recently read a history of WWI entitled "The Guns of August," with its lesson on how "personal complexes of inferiority and grandeur" led to an escalating game of one upsmanship that resulted in calamity. Thus, against the advice of every advisor and general in the room, he sought to provide Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev a way to save face by trading removal of obsolete U.S. missiles in Turkey in exchange for complete removal of Soviet missiles in Cuba.
Such is how studying history can avoid fatal reruns. Unfortunately, from our playing fields to our highest office, our society is brimming with emotionally-stunted macho men who refuse to study history, let alone learn its lessons. Instead, they seek to risk the safety of all those around in the name of personal “honor.” On a street corner, the risk is to innocent passersby. On a nuclear-armed world stage, the risk is to humanity itself.
Perhaps we’d be well-served to recall the childhood lesson about sticks and stones and how words can never hurt us – unless we let them. If a child can learn that lesson, then perhaps so can grown men.
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2017
We've seen similar defenses before. In 2004, another batch of ESPN commentators defended Indiana Pacer Ron Artest's charge into the stands to deliver retribution for a tossed beverage, saying that any "man" was not only justified, but required under some unwritten code, to defend his honor.
Let's be clear. These men and their defenders have it completely wrong. Strong, secure adults do not feel the need to respond to insults. In fact, the sign of strength and maturity is to do just the opposite and turn away. Unfortunately, this macho mindset has plagued us for too long and has been responsible for everything from gang wars to world wars. And if such thinking is irresponsible when the projectile in question is a carbonated beverage, it is clearly far more serious when the potential projectile could be nuclear-tipped.
It doesn’t have to be this way. In "The Better Angels of Our Nature," about the decline in violence over the course of human history, author Steven Pinker compares the outcomes of the 1914 killing of Archduke Ferdinand, setting off a chain of events that led to WWI and millions of unnecessary deaths, with the Cuban Missile Crisis, which ended without a single casualty. One factor in the different outcomes was that John F. Kennedy had recently read a history of WWI entitled "The Guns of August," with its lesson on how "personal complexes of inferiority and grandeur" led to an escalating game of one upsmanship that resulted in calamity. Thus, against the advice of every advisor and general in the room, he sought to provide Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev a way to save face by trading removal of obsolete U.S. missiles in Turkey in exchange for complete removal of Soviet missiles in Cuba.
Such is how studying history can avoid fatal reruns. Unfortunately, from our playing fields to our highest office, our society is brimming with emotionally-stunted macho men who refuse to study history, let alone learn its lessons. Instead, they seek to risk the safety of all those around in the name of personal “honor.” On a street corner, the risk is to innocent passersby. On a nuclear-armed world stage, the risk is to humanity itself.
Perhaps we’d be well-served to recall the childhood lesson about sticks and stones and how words can never hurt us – unless we let them. If a child can learn that lesson, then perhaps so can grown men.
10/22/2017
In Anthem Controversy, Kneelers are the Real Patriots
The controversy surrounding the national anthem has been framed as one between showing respect for country, flag and military personnel on one side, and the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment on the other. But there is a much more profound issue at play here, one that can be illuminated by considering the words of Abraham Lincoln.
In his Gettysburg Address, dedicating the national cemetery there, Lincoln noted that it was right and proper that we honor the dead through such ceremony. But he went on to note that such ceremony was meaningless if the cause for which they died, died with them. He thus proclaimed the only way to truly honor those who fell at Gettysburg – and all who fall in defense of liberty – is to dedicate ourselves to their cause. That cause is to ensure that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, not perish from the earth.
We've heeded his call. In the 150-plus years since that plea was made, we have fought steadily, if unevenly, to fulfill that vow made at Gettysburg. For some, that fight meant taking a seat in a school once prohibited because of skin color. For others, it meant taking a seat at a “Whites Only” lunch counter. And at least once, it meant taking a seat at the front of the bus. Today, for some who believe we have stalled in pursuit of that dream, that fight means taking a knee.
And just as those who integrated our schools, lunch counters and city buses faced the wrath of a public that felt such brazen acts of disregard for societal norms were out of place and disrespectful, so it is with those who take a knee. Likewise, those calls to stand up and show respect are reminiscent of those calls to get up from the counter, go to the back of the bus and stick with one’s own kind. It should surprise no one that such demands only stiffen the resolve, especially when they come from the highest office in the land. Where one would hope to find support in the fight for justice and equality, one finds only opposition and disdain.
When asked what kind of government the framers of the Constitution had devised, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A republic – if you can keep it.” One virtue of a republic, compared to direct democracy, is that it provides for majority rule while guaranteeing minority rights. We can debate how deep the racial attitudes underlying today’s concerns regarding those minority rights truly run, but we should not – cannot – deny that those concerns rightfully exist. This nation fought a deadly civil war to begin delivering those rights to an entire race. But as Lincoln noted, bowing our heads in reverence to those who died in battles past, or standing to honor the flag under which they fought, dishonors their sacrifice if we do so at the expense of fighting for their cause today. By that measure, those taking a knee are paying those who’ve fallen the highest honor.
We've heeded his call. In the 150-plus years since that plea was made, we have fought steadily, if unevenly, to fulfill that vow made at Gettysburg. For some, that fight meant taking a seat in a school once prohibited because of skin color. For others, it meant taking a seat at a “Whites Only” lunch counter. And at least once, it meant taking a seat at the front of the bus. Today, for some who believe we have stalled in pursuit of that dream, that fight means taking a knee.
And just as those who integrated our schools, lunch counters and city buses faced the wrath of a public that felt such brazen acts of disregard for societal norms were out of place and disrespectful, so it is with those who take a knee. Likewise, those calls to stand up and show respect are reminiscent of those calls to get up from the counter, go to the back of the bus and stick with one’s own kind. It should surprise no one that such demands only stiffen the resolve, especially when they come from the highest office in the land. Where one would hope to find support in the fight for justice and equality, one finds only opposition and disdain.
When asked what kind of government the framers of the Constitution had devised, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A republic – if you can keep it.” One virtue of a republic, compared to direct democracy, is that it provides for majority rule while guaranteeing minority rights. We can debate how deep the racial attitudes underlying today’s concerns regarding those minority rights truly run, but we should not – cannot – deny that those concerns rightfully exist. This nation fought a deadly civil war to begin delivering those rights to an entire race. But as Lincoln noted, bowing our heads in reverence to those who died in battles past, or standing to honor the flag under which they fought, dishonors their sacrifice if we do so at the expense of fighting for their cause today. By that measure, those taking a knee are paying those who’ve fallen the highest honor.
 |
| Floyd Protests Revive NFL Kneeling Controversy (AP photo) |
8/18/2017
Guns, The Constitution and Tyranny of the Strong
Comments by Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, claiming that militia members “had better equipment than our State Police”—and that their weapons prevented law enforcement from imposing order and protecting peaceful protesters, go to the heart of why Second Amendment proponents arguing gun rights in the name of liberty miss the danger of their argument.
It's been said countless times that total freedom leads to anarchy, and anarchy leads to tyranny of the strong. We saw that principle at work in Charlottesville last week, where there was no law, only anger and emotion, rendered unstoppable because many involved were invoking their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms - and someone died because of the lawlessness that ensued. I fear we've not seen the last of such episodes.
Sadly, too many view the lamentation of the Virginia governor as precisely how the Second Amendment is meant to work, as a protection against an overbearing government. That government forces were outmatched in armaments is viewed as a good thing.
It is not. Our forefathers wisely stated that a well-regulated militia is necessary to secure a free state. They did not state that a well-armed, unruly mob is necessary to secure a free state. Every loosening of limits on guns increases the odds that events like that which took place in Charlottesville will become armed conflict. It may be those on the right who are most adamant about the Second Amendment guaranteeing unfettered access to firearms, but that right is not exclusive to them. It extends to all. We should not be surprised, therefore, when members of an undefined, anarchic group like Antifa exercises their Constitutionally protected right to arm themselves in anticipation of their next confrontation with the hate groups of Charlottesville. What transpires then will not be classified as terrorism, but civil war.
God help us then.
The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword
I've long believed the First Amendment precedes the Second for a reason (beyond numeracy), namely that our founding fathers knew that the pen is mightier than the sword. More importantly, they understood that without principles of liberty in the First Amendment to defend, the guns protected in the Second Amendment defend nothing.
Our current obsession with gun rights reminds me of the joke I've shared before about the construction worker who left work every day with a wheelbarrow filled with sawdust. Every day his foreman would search the sawdust for pilfered materials, but found nothing. After years of this, the worker arrived one day driving a new Mercedes. The foreman shouted, "I know you were stealing something! What was it?"
The worker replied, "A wheelbarrow a day."
I often think the folks obsessed with the Second Amendment are unwittingly leading to a similar sleight of hand, wherein the First Amendment liberties we take for granted are being pilfered while we laser focus on protecting our right to keep and bear arms, A misguided focus, to be sure.
5/14/2017
Party or Constitution - Time for GOP to Put Up or Shut Up
In his farewell address, George Washington warned that political parties, which did not exist when he first took office, were likely “to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
That is where we are today if Republicans in Congress choose to dismiss Donald Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey as simply the exercising of presidential prerogative. This is not a time for partisan circling of the wagons to protect one’s own. Instead, it is time for the party that professes to be the great protector of the Constitution to embrace the fundamental separation of powers that our founding fathers recognized as the single best tool to check any attempt to subvert democracy itself.
Consider how such subversion might transpire – an ambitious candidate with little respect for Constitutional limits on power, a recognized lack of moral principle and a win-at-any-cost reputation decides to pursue the presidency, naming a former agent for Russian politicians as campaign manager. As the campaign unfolds, a series of security breaches and releases of stolen communications take place against his opponent. Every intelligence agency involved in studying possible meddling identify with virtual certainty that those breaches were perpetrated by Russia with the intent of harming the candidate’s opponent.
Once elected, it becomes known that members of the campaign and transition team not only communicated with Russia after the election, but possibly before and that some lied about those communications. The FBI becomes central to investigating possible attempts by Russia to influence the election, which rightfully requires investigating the questionable contacts between the candidate’s team and Russian officials. This investigation becomes even more urgent given the unusual praise the candidate showered upon Russian President Vladimir Putin during the campaign.
Given all that, how could a president thwart such an investigation? Well, he could start by firing the person heading the most independent investigation of the election. That is precisely what Donald Trump did – and admitted to in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt – when he fired James Comey. Given the circumstances under investigation, this is nothing less than democracy at risk.
Now, it is entirely possible that Donald Trump and his campaign are completely innocent in this case. But that is not for the president to decide, and if he tries to claim it is and obstructs law enforcement’s pursuit of the truth, then it is the duty of Congress to step in and state that this will not stand. It is their duty to ensure that a full, fair and thorough investigation takes place. Moreover, Congressional members of both parties need to state in no uncertain terms that they understand the gravity of the situation and that country takes precedence over party. That is patriotism – and the elegance of our Constitution – at work.
Whether guilty or innocent, if this president can fire the person investigating potential wrongdoing – potentially treasonous wrongdoing – then so can the next president. The precedent regarding how such challenges to our democracy are addressed is being set now. Will the precedent be one of principle, or one of partisanship? The reputation of the Republican party and the future of the republic itself will largely be determined by whether Republicans choose loyalty to the Constitution or to their party. Their choice will determine just how prescient our country’s first president may have been.
That is where we are today if Republicans in Congress choose to dismiss Donald Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey as simply the exercising of presidential prerogative. This is not a time for partisan circling of the wagons to protect one’s own. Instead, it is time for the party that professes to be the great protector of the Constitution to embrace the fundamental separation of powers that our founding fathers recognized as the single best tool to check any attempt to subvert democracy itself.
Consider how such subversion might transpire – an ambitious candidate with little respect for Constitutional limits on power, a recognized lack of moral principle and a win-at-any-cost reputation decides to pursue the presidency, naming a former agent for Russian politicians as campaign manager. As the campaign unfolds, a series of security breaches and releases of stolen communications take place against his opponent. Every intelligence agency involved in studying possible meddling identify with virtual certainty that those breaches were perpetrated by Russia with the intent of harming the candidate’s opponent.
Once elected, it becomes known that members of the campaign and transition team not only communicated with Russia after the election, but possibly before and that some lied about those communications. The FBI becomes central to investigating possible attempts by Russia to influence the election, which rightfully requires investigating the questionable contacts between the candidate’s team and Russian officials. This investigation becomes even more urgent given the unusual praise the candidate showered upon Russian President Vladimir Putin during the campaign.
Given all that, how could a president thwart such an investigation? Well, he could start by firing the person heading the most independent investigation of the election. That is precisely what Donald Trump did – and admitted to in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt – when he fired James Comey. Given the circumstances under investigation, this is nothing less than democracy at risk.
Now, it is entirely possible that Donald Trump and his campaign are completely innocent in this case. But that is not for the president to decide, and if he tries to claim it is and obstructs law enforcement’s pursuit of the truth, then it is the duty of Congress to step in and state that this will not stand. It is their duty to ensure that a full, fair and thorough investigation takes place. Moreover, Congressional members of both parties need to state in no uncertain terms that they understand the gravity of the situation and that country takes precedence over party. That is patriotism – and the elegance of our Constitution – at work.
Whether guilty or innocent, if this president can fire the person investigating potential wrongdoing – potentially treasonous wrongdoing – then so can the next president. The precedent regarding how such challenges to our democracy are addressed is being set now. Will the precedent be one of principle, or one of partisanship? The reputation of the Republican party and the future of the republic itself will largely be determined by whether Republicans choose loyalty to the Constitution or to their party. Their choice will determine just how prescient our country’s first president may have been.
2/13/2017
Steven Miller - The Most Frightening Man in America
Quite simply the most frightening performance I've ever witnessed by a United States government official. The fact that the administration is praising his performance on yesterday's Sunday morning shows only serves to reinforce how dangerously they disrespect the limits of power that have been the foundation and hallmark of our existence as a free nation. We are in trouble.
View his frightening claims of executive power here.
View his frightening claims of executive power here.
1/29/2017
Six Words to Reclaim the Party of Lincoln
"Four score and seven years ago…"
With those six words, Abraham Lincoln transformed the United States from a geographic region governed by a set of laws into an ideal. An ideal for which the Republican Party – the Party of Lincoln – was founded to preserve and perpetuate. Today, that party is traveling a path contrary to that ideal, and thus on the verge of forfeiting its claim as the party of Lincoln. However, if it – or any party – wishes to earn the right to such a claim, a good start would begin by embracing these six simple words: Lincoln’s idealism, Roosevelt’s populism, Reagan’s optimism.
Lincoln’s Idealism
When Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, he pointed back not to the ratification of the Constitution, but the signing of our Declaration of Independence eighty-seven years prior, with its founding principle that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.
That must be the foundation upon which the party is rebuilt, rededicating itself to the proposition that all men, and all women, of every race, creed and color are equal not only in the eyes of their Creator, but also in the eyes of the law and the eyes of their fellow citizens. To do so demands not just quiet acceptance of such an obvious fact, but active rejection of those who would argue otherwise. Let those who are so rejected seek refuge elsewhere, but let them be denied safe harbor within our party. Let the Republican Party regain its long lost historic place as the defender of liberty and guarantor of equal justice. And let us finally acknowledge, and forever rescind, our quiet tolerance of those who would deny such justice in the cynical pursuit of electoral victory. We may suffer temporary defeat, but let us lose on principle, rather than win by sacrificing it.
The Party must celebrate equally the diversity that makes us unique among nations, and those common bonds that unite us as Americans. We must be the party that lives by the motto E Pluribus Unum – out of many, one. Such was the founding principle of our nation and our Party. We must make it so again and forever.
Roosevelt’s Populism
If Lincoln taught us that America was an ideal, Theodore Roosevelt‘s populism showed the world it was exceptional. And he did so by championing two seemingly contradictory, but decidedly American icons – the big idea and the common man. Roosevelt’s America did the impossible, building a canal through godforsaken jungle. The unthinkable, preserving vast swaths of American wilderness for future generations. And finally, the unexpected, breaking up trusts owned by industry titans with names like Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan.
Such a far cry from the cowering populism and crony capitalism of today. Rather than walls to shield us from the outside world, we built pathways to bring it closer. Rather than building barriers to trade, we knocked them down. Rather than viewing natural wonders as resources to be exploited today, we saw them as gifts to be preserved for tomorrow. And rather than cater to the whims of the powerful, we put the people first.
A return to the Party’s roots needs to begin with the understanding that America still does great things. It is evident every day. From Silicon Valley to the far reaches of space, from agriculture to water technology, Americans and those who have come to our shores seeking opportunity are doing things thought impossible, unthinkable, unexpected. We are on the verge of a new dawn driven by science and technology. We must embrace, rather than reject, what science, knowledge and the future can bring.
A return to the Party’s roots must include Roosevelt’s respect for the planet and the resources we’ve been given – not with an eye only on today’s pleasures and tomorrow’s profits, but for the health, safety and well-being of mankind for millennia to come. The universe is filled with limitless energy and resources, but we have only one home. Tapping the former, while preserving the latter takes only human ingenuity. Doing so can lead to a future unimagined. No nation is better suited to lead and deliver that future than the United States. Our Party must be the driver, rather than the naysayer, in pointing our nation and our planet forward.
A return to the Party’s roots must include a commitment to competition rather than cronyism, in both the private and public arenas. We must also recognize in our zeal for liberty, the paradox that unlimited freedom – laissez faire - inevitably leads to anarchy, which leads to tyranny of the strong. Roosevelt recognized this danger in the monopolies of the day, and we see it at work today as money begets influence, which begets more money. And so on. It is an insidious feedback loop that benefits the privileged at the expense of the many, done cynically in the name of liberty.
A return to the Party’s roots would value an even and predictable playing field where competition takes precedence over scale. Competitive markets ensure fair prices, efficient operations, innovation and distributed benefit. Conversely, today’s free markets are little more than crony capitalism that ultimately rewards only the connected via protection and patronage. The result has been a world of “too big to fail,” where the connected reap the lion’s share of the benefit, while the risk – financially, environmentally and otherwise – is borne by the people and society as a whole.
Furthermore, a return to the Party’s roots must recognize those same dangers in the public arena, where vast swaths of alienated citizens feel powerless as money buys both a voice and influence. That God and guns are the palliatives left to soothe the rank-and-file, as the establishment elite exchange cash for considerations, only makes the situation more volatile. Thus, the same commitment to competition must apply in the public arena, lest the voiceless rise up with guns on their hips and God on their side.
Just as Roosevelt broke the backs of big money trusts, so must we break the backs of big money donors. To libertarians who would decry such limitations as free speech violations, let us be reminded that the First Amendment makes no guarantee of an audience, only the right to speak one’s mind. Limiting cash in politics limits no one’s right to speak, only the opportunity to be heard. An equal platform means an equal voice. A renewed Republican Party needs to be committed to permitting the voices of all to speak, with the ultimate power being exercised via the ballot box, rather than the checkbook. Liberty and justice for all.
Reagan’s Optimism
Finally, Ronald Reagan’s optimism, most famously on display in his portrayal of the United States as the shining city on a hill, was a manifestation of Lincoln’s idealism and Roosevelt’s populism. He understood that America was as much an aspiration as destination because he understood fundamentally the ideal that Lincoln captured at Gettysburg. And he believed America capable of great things because he believed in the American people.
His optimism was also born of the understanding that the world is not a zero-sum game. That for one to win does not require another to lose. He thus saw America’s contributions to the world as mutually beneficial, which in turn fueled his belief in American exceptionalism. Exceptional in the liberty that pointed a way for countless oppressed. Exceptional for the wealth that worked to end poverty and disease on a global scale. Exceptional for the sacrifice that helped save the world from tyranny. And, exceptional for the belief that all men, and all women, of all colors and all creeds are equal. Reagan knew that sharing our liberty, wealth, sacrifice and ideals with the world did not make us poorer. It made us richer as a people by making us part of a richer, freer world community.
Conclusion
These prescriptions are sure to alienate parts of the Republican constituency. That is not only expected, that is by design. As our politics now lie, there are essentially four distinct parties in the United States – the Sanders Socialists, center/left Democratic technocrats, limited government, chamber of commerce Republicans and Donald Trump’s nationalist alt-right. If a return to the Party’s roots attracts centrist Democrats while alienating those who seek to exclude and divide on the right, we may find a new governing center that makes America both good and great. Let the socialists and nationalist reactionaries tug at the edges, but let those who believe in the goodness of the American people, those who trust in science, knowledge and our democratic institutions, those who know a better future awaits, work together to make that future a reality. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
That must be the Party’s creed. If not, may another party rise to proclaim it.
With those six words, Abraham Lincoln transformed the United States from a geographic region governed by a set of laws into an ideal. An ideal for which the Republican Party – the Party of Lincoln – was founded to preserve and perpetuate. Today, that party is traveling a path contrary to that ideal, and thus on the verge of forfeiting its claim as the party of Lincoln. However, if it – or any party – wishes to earn the right to such a claim, a good start would begin by embracing these six simple words: Lincoln’s idealism, Roosevelt’s populism, Reagan’s optimism.
Lincoln’s Idealism
When Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, he pointed back not to the ratification of the Constitution, but the signing of our Declaration of Independence eighty-seven years prior, with its founding principle that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.
That must be the foundation upon which the party is rebuilt, rededicating itself to the proposition that all men, and all women, of every race, creed and color are equal not only in the eyes of their Creator, but also in the eyes of the law and the eyes of their fellow citizens. To do so demands not just quiet acceptance of such an obvious fact, but active rejection of those who would argue otherwise. Let those who are so rejected seek refuge elsewhere, but let them be denied safe harbor within our party. Let the Republican Party regain its long lost historic place as the defender of liberty and guarantor of equal justice. And let us finally acknowledge, and forever rescind, our quiet tolerance of those who would deny such justice in the cynical pursuit of electoral victory. We may suffer temporary defeat, but let us lose on principle, rather than win by sacrificing it.
The Party must celebrate equally the diversity that makes us unique among nations, and those common bonds that unite us as Americans. We must be the party that lives by the motto E Pluribus Unum – out of many, one. Such was the founding principle of our nation and our Party. We must make it so again and forever.
Roosevelt’s Populism
If Lincoln taught us that America was an ideal, Theodore Roosevelt‘s populism showed the world it was exceptional. And he did so by championing two seemingly contradictory, but decidedly American icons – the big idea and the common man. Roosevelt’s America did the impossible, building a canal through godforsaken jungle. The unthinkable, preserving vast swaths of American wilderness for future generations. And finally, the unexpected, breaking up trusts owned by industry titans with names like Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan.
Such a far cry from the cowering populism and crony capitalism of today. Rather than walls to shield us from the outside world, we built pathways to bring it closer. Rather than building barriers to trade, we knocked them down. Rather than viewing natural wonders as resources to be exploited today, we saw them as gifts to be preserved for tomorrow. And rather than cater to the whims of the powerful, we put the people first.
A return to the Party’s roots needs to begin with the understanding that America still does great things. It is evident every day. From Silicon Valley to the far reaches of space, from agriculture to water technology, Americans and those who have come to our shores seeking opportunity are doing things thought impossible, unthinkable, unexpected. We are on the verge of a new dawn driven by science and technology. We must embrace, rather than reject, what science, knowledge and the future can bring.
A return to the Party’s roots must include Roosevelt’s respect for the planet and the resources we’ve been given – not with an eye only on today’s pleasures and tomorrow’s profits, but for the health, safety and well-being of mankind for millennia to come. The universe is filled with limitless energy and resources, but we have only one home. Tapping the former, while preserving the latter takes only human ingenuity. Doing so can lead to a future unimagined. No nation is better suited to lead and deliver that future than the United States. Our Party must be the driver, rather than the naysayer, in pointing our nation and our planet forward.
A return to the Party’s roots must include a commitment to competition rather than cronyism, in both the private and public arenas. We must also recognize in our zeal for liberty, the paradox that unlimited freedom – laissez faire - inevitably leads to anarchy, which leads to tyranny of the strong. Roosevelt recognized this danger in the monopolies of the day, and we see it at work today as money begets influence, which begets more money. And so on. It is an insidious feedback loop that benefits the privileged at the expense of the many, done cynically in the name of liberty.
A return to the Party’s roots would value an even and predictable playing field where competition takes precedence over scale. Competitive markets ensure fair prices, efficient operations, innovation and distributed benefit. Conversely, today’s free markets are little more than crony capitalism that ultimately rewards only the connected via protection and patronage. The result has been a world of “too big to fail,” where the connected reap the lion’s share of the benefit, while the risk – financially, environmentally and otherwise – is borne by the people and society as a whole.
Furthermore, a return to the Party’s roots must recognize those same dangers in the public arena, where vast swaths of alienated citizens feel powerless as money buys both a voice and influence. That God and guns are the palliatives left to soothe the rank-and-file, as the establishment elite exchange cash for considerations, only makes the situation more volatile. Thus, the same commitment to competition must apply in the public arena, lest the voiceless rise up with guns on their hips and God on their side.
Just as Roosevelt broke the backs of big money trusts, so must we break the backs of big money donors. To libertarians who would decry such limitations as free speech violations, let us be reminded that the First Amendment makes no guarantee of an audience, only the right to speak one’s mind. Limiting cash in politics limits no one’s right to speak, only the opportunity to be heard. An equal platform means an equal voice. A renewed Republican Party needs to be committed to permitting the voices of all to speak, with the ultimate power being exercised via the ballot box, rather than the checkbook. Liberty and justice for all.
Reagan’s Optimism
Finally, Ronald Reagan’s optimism, most famously on display in his portrayal of the United States as the shining city on a hill, was a manifestation of Lincoln’s idealism and Roosevelt’s populism. He understood that America was as much an aspiration as destination because he understood fundamentally the ideal that Lincoln captured at Gettysburg. And he believed America capable of great things because he believed in the American people.
His optimism was also born of the understanding that the world is not a zero-sum game. That for one to win does not require another to lose. He thus saw America’s contributions to the world as mutually beneficial, which in turn fueled his belief in American exceptionalism. Exceptional in the liberty that pointed a way for countless oppressed. Exceptional for the wealth that worked to end poverty and disease on a global scale. Exceptional for the sacrifice that helped save the world from tyranny. And, exceptional for the belief that all men, and all women, of all colors and all creeds are equal. Reagan knew that sharing our liberty, wealth, sacrifice and ideals with the world did not make us poorer. It made us richer as a people by making us part of a richer, freer world community.
Conclusion
These prescriptions are sure to alienate parts of the Republican constituency. That is not only expected, that is by design. As our politics now lie, there are essentially four distinct parties in the United States – the Sanders Socialists, center/left Democratic technocrats, limited government, chamber of commerce Republicans and Donald Trump’s nationalist alt-right. If a return to the Party’s roots attracts centrist Democrats while alienating those who seek to exclude and divide on the right, we may find a new governing center that makes America both good and great. Let the socialists and nationalist reactionaries tug at the edges, but let those who believe in the goodness of the American people, those who trust in science, knowledge and our democratic institutions, those who know a better future awaits, work together to make that future a reality. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
That must be the Party’s creed. If not, may another party rise to proclaim it.
[Notes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/17/climate/trump-fishing-marine-protected-zone.html
12/06/2016
Ends and Means
George Will once called Thomas Jefferson the patron saint of limited government, which explains how my son came to be named Jefferson. Limited government, free markets and lower taxes also explain why I became a Republican. Today, however, those ideas also reflect why I now have such problems with the party, specifically that almost everything listed - just about everything the party stands for - is a commitment to the "means" rather than the "ends."
Free markets and limited government sound good and are good - up to a point. But unlimited freedom leads to anarchy, which leads to tyranny of the strong (interestingly, I spoke with a friend yesterday who's friendly with a Russian emigre, who said that is precisely what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union - unfettered capitalism led to corrupt oligarchy). But I digress.
When free markets are treated as an end, rather than a means, they tend to be left to their own devices because we are blind to their shortcomings in the belief that the nature of free markets makes them self policing. Not so, as we saw just eight years ago, when Alan Greenspan was shocked that bankers didn't police themselves to avoid the pitfalls of their actions. Problem was that he ignored human nature, which invariably chooses the short-term over long-term view. It's why we choose fries instead of steamed vegetables for our side - short term gratification over long-term good.
Economics are no different. Unfettered capitalism will have far greater highs than a moderated version, but also far greater lows. And without regulation, the true cost of free markets get passed on in ways that can be deadly (toxic waste, dangerous products, etc.), uneven (unemployment, dislocations) or in ways that lead to divides that are dangerous to democracy (hungry people gripe, starving people revolt).
So free markets need to be treated as a means to driving greater productivity, but as part of the goal (the ends) of creating the greatest common good for society as a whole (for the best example of ends and means, look at the U.S. Constitution - the preamble states the ends, the document outlines the means).
Supply-side economics is another issue where means have been confused for ends. Top tax rates exceeded 90% after WWII as we tried to pay down our debt from the war (that debt for war production is what pulled us out of the Great Depression, much like today's debt kept us out of another depression in 2008, but we do not seem to have the will to pay it down like our forebearers did). Again, I digress. Still, those rates were reduced to 70% by JFK, then 50% by Ronald Reagan, based upon Arthur Laffer's theory that there is an optimal tax rate that maximizes tax revenue by increasing economic activity - but that reducing the tax rate beyond that point begins to reduce tax revenues once more.
It is almost certain that tax rates already are at or below that point where revenues will fall with further tax cuts. U.S. corporations are sitting on nearly $1.8 trillion in cash, largely because keeping it in the bank or financial markets generates better returns than could be had reinvesting in their own businesses. Further tax cuts will only increase that stagnant cash horde, and thus, are more likely to fuel asset bubbles and inflation than they are economic activity, while also fueling further government deficits. This is why I argue that the GOP has ceded their right to claim they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
Finally, health care - this requires a book, but suffice it to say that there is nothing where we have neglected to agree on our goal (the ends) more than with health care. But I will say without equivocation that a free market approach will lead to millions being left without insurance and that the overall cost of providing healthcare in the U.S. will continue to rise. That is because it is nearly impossible to create a transparent market where consumers can knowledgeably price and shop their healthcare needs in order to control prices. Add to that our willingness to spend ourselves into bankruptcy over health concerns and it becomes clear that the typical market forces that hold prices in check do not apply to health care (if corn goes up too much, I’ll buy wheat instead, whereas if a hip replacement is my last, best hope for pain relief, they pretty much have me over a barrel).
Bottom line, the GOP has become so intellectually constrained by mantras of free markets and lower taxes that they are operating with blinders on. That they are being led by perhaps the least intellectual president in our history does not give any cause for relief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)