The Fiscal Cliff

This is the first in a series of posts regarding policy directions for the United States during President Obama's second term.  This post concerns the "Fiscal Cliff" facing the nation in January, 2013.  The other posts are found below.

Priority #2, Reducing the Federal Deficit 
http://debatablypolitical.blogspot.com/2012/12/priorities-for-obamas-second-term-2.html
Priority #3, Immigration Reform: 

http://debatablypolitical.blogspot.com/2012/12/priorities-for-obamas-second-term-3.html

Priority #4, Tax Reform

http://debatablypolitical.blogspot.com/2012/12/tax-reform-in-united-states.html

-----

Priority #1, Tax Reform

 President Obama, in his second term, must necessarily focus on different priorities than his first term.  The president must somehow run the American government in a fiscally responsible manner, despite the gridlock between the parties in Congress.  He must simultaneously deal with a failing economy, international crises, other pressing domestic issues, and deliver on the Democratic social agenda. 

 Cooperation from the Republican Party, which was totally lacking in Obama’s first term, is essential to resolution of national problems in his second term.  However there is no reason to believe that the opposition will work with Obama in the second term, any more than in his first term.

I wonder why Barack Obama wanted this job.

I.  Fiscal Cliff:

The “Fiscal Cliff” refers to simultaneous increase of tax collections and reduction in government spending.  The sudden reduction in spending by both consumers and government is believed to threaten the economy, at a time when the national unemployment rate is still about 8%. 

The situation is like a losing chess game.  You can move the knight, or you can move the bishop, but in either case you will be checkmated in three moves.  If Federal spending continues unchecked we will soon face the same debt crisis seen today in Europe.  If taxes are raised or government spending is cut, the frail economy will fall into recession.  There is no winning move.

The “Bush Tax Cuts” were originally enacted in 2001 and 2003, and were extended as an economic stimulus in 2010.  These are now set to expire on December 31, 2012.  A temporary 2% reduction in Social Security tax is also set to expire.

The expiration of the low tax rates would mean an additional 500 billion dollars in tax receipts, or about 20% over current collections.  The mandatory spending cuts are relatively trivial, amounting to 110 billion, or about a 3% savings out of a budget that is running 50% over tax receipts.   A large part of the non-defense spending comes as a cap on Medicare spending.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/08-22-2012-Update_to_Outlook.pdf

If all tax and spending changes occur as currently scheduled, 641 billion dollars of deficit spending remain, according the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline projection.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43539  (Excel table).

Projections by the CBO indicate that ”going over the cliff” (allowing automatic tax increases and spending cuts to occur) may be best for the long-term health of the nation.  However, the cost of a recession in 2013 is politically unacceptable to either party.  Obama and Congress must work quickly to adopt a solution which will maintain the strength of the economy without sacrificing the country’s long-term financial position.  

Significance of the 2012 Presidential Election

The significance of the re-election of Barack Obama  in 2012 is primarily that Mitt Romney (or any other Republican) was NOT elected president.  The election of Obama marks the continuation of the status quo, rather than a hard turn to the political right.  But the opportunities and challenges of the next four years will be different than the previous four years, and the ideology of the man in the oval office will have profound and lasting impact upon the country.

The Supreme Court

Four Supreme Court Justices are over the age of 74.  It seems likely that some of these judges will retire or pass away during the next presidential term. 

Supreme Court Justices                 Age                        Philosophy

Ruth Ginsburg                                   79                           Liberal

Antonin Scalia                                   76                           Conservative

Anthony Kennedy                             76                           Conservative

Stephen Bryer                                   74                           Liberal

Clarence Thomas                              64                           Conservative

Samuel Alito                                      62                           Conservative

Sonia Sotomayor                               58                           Liberal

John Roberts                                     57                           Conservative

Elena Kagan                                      52                           Liberal

The Court is currently relatively balanced.   The following graphic shows the voting record of Justices on cases heard in 2011.   Four justices nominated by Democratic presidents form a liberal  voting bloc, particularly on important and contentious cases.  The five justices nominated by Republican presidents form a conservative voting bloc, but with Anthony Kennedy occasionally voting with the liberals.

Modified from data presented here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_term_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Green and blue indicate judges voting with the court majority.  Red and purple indicate dissent.  Bold colors indicate written judicial opinions to be used as precedent by lower courts.

Future court cases are likely to involve abortion rights, health care and elder care, immigration, harassment of minorities, Influence by financial donors over legislators, environmental regulation, death penalty cases, police conduct, copyright law, and partisan actions of local governments.

Judges nominated by Obama will determine the philosophical leaning of the court for years, probably decades.   Given that judges can choose to retire when a president of their party is in power, control of these seats may persist even beyond the tenure of the new judges.  Obama’s power to nominate new judges will likely diminish corporate and big-money influence in politics; his nominees will be favorable with regard to women’s rights, minority and immigrants’ rights, public schools, environmental regulation and religious pluralism in America.

Foreign Policy

Obama has already demonstrated his direction in foreign policy.   Under Obama, foreign disputes are more likely to be handled through negotiation than confrontation.  Obama is willing to conduct covert operations in response to terrorist threats, but has been restrained in the use of military force.   By contrast, Romney would return to the aggressive polices of the G.W. Bush administration, confrontation with China, Russia, and the Islamic world, and unquestioned military support of Israel.    I believe the world will be a more peaceful place with Obama as president instead of Mitt Romney.

http://debatablypolitical.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-arms-race-against-world.html

Energy Policy and Climate Change

Republicans do not believe in man-made climate change.  Mitt Romney plainly declared “I like coal”.   By contrast, Democrats and Barack Obama believe that climate change is one of the most important issues facing mankind.   Under Obama, policies and taxes will be structured to favor renewable energy, and restrict the use of fossil fuels, particularly coal.

Immigration Reform and Minority Rights

The contrast between Obama and Romney is particularly striking in terms of immigration and minority issues.  Under Republicans, local governments would be given free rein to harass Hispanics and minorities in a variety of ways.  It is racism in the guise of law enforcement.  Under Obama, minority rights will be upheld.   Obama will also seek a resolution to the problem of ten million illegal immigrants living in the America.  Republicans have offered no ideas, no shred of a solution to the problem except to build a fence along our border with Mexico.   

Health Care

President Obama’s signature piece of legislation was the health care reform act extending health care insurance to thirty million Americans who had none.  With Obama’s re-election, Republicans will be unable to repeal the legislation before it is implemented and becomes part of how we live as Americans.

Taxation

Under Obama, the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans enacted under president Bush will be allowed to expire.   Tax rates for the wealthiest Americans are likely to rise, restoring these rates to levels considered reasonable in previous decades.

Barack Obama has been re-elected president of the United States.  The Democratic Party retains a majority in the Senate, and the Republican party retains a majority in the House.

Barack Obama

I am greatly relieved.  I believe that the people of the United States made the right choice about our leadership and direction.   I will write more tomorrow about the meaning of this election, and the challenges for the president and congress over the next four years.

Gun Control in the United States

This is the first of two posts about Gun Control in the United States.
The second post discusses recent events, and is found here:

http://debatablypolitical.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-control-in-united-states-2-this-is.html

My ideas about gun control formed at a young age.  

I was about ten years old.  My brothers were16 and 17.   They had a standard BB gun (hand-pumped air gun), and a more powerful pellet gun that used compressed air cartridges.  But what they really wanted was a real gun – the American boys’ dream, a 22 caliber rifle, and they persistently but unsuccessfully pestered my father for permission to own one.

As the youngest boy I had toy guns.  I was especially proud of a fine imitation of the Winchester rifle, “the gun that won the west”.  In fact, my brothers’ BB gun was also an imitation of the famous Winchester.  The two guns were practically identical.  And at ten, I was allowed to borrow and shoot the BB gun, though I barely had the strength to work the hand pump to compress the air.   I spent afternoon hours shooting at empty tin cans, hoping for a satisfying “ping” with each shot.

One day my mother called while I was shooting the air rifle.  We had to go on some errand; we had to leave NOW.  I left the BB gun on the couch, and went to find shoes or something.   My brother came into the room, saw the BB gun on the couch, and mistook it for my toy Winchester rifle.   He picked it up, jokingly pointed it at my mother, and said “pow”, as he pulled the trigger.  The BB knocked out her front tooth.  Instead of our urgent errand, my brother drove her to the emergency room with a mouthful of blood.

When my father heard the story that evening, sitting in shock, his only words were: “If that were a 22 (caliber rifle), you would have killed her!!” 

That was the last time I played with the BB gun.   We never owned a 22 caliber rifle.

And I learned that guns are not safe in the home.

---

Statistics:

There are over 100,000 shootings every year in the United States. 

In 2009, shootings resulted in 31,347 deaths.   

Annual shooting deaths in the United States are approximately double the worst single year of the Vietnam conflict.

About 23,000 shootings annually are accidental.  In 2009, these resulted in 554 fatalities.  There were 3985 accidental shootings of children in 2009, but only 96 of these resulted in death.

Every year there are about 11,000 shootings involving children (< age 18). 

In 2009, 1568 children died as the result of gunshot injuries. 

The great majority of firearm deaths are suicides, which account for 60 percent of all fatalities, and homicides, which account for 36 percent of all fatalities.  These are distributed differently by age, with homicides claiming more victims between the ages of 18 and 30, and suicide peaking in middle age.

Blacks are more two to three times more likely to die from firearms than the general population.  

----

In 1990, over 75 percent of the American public favored additional restrictions on gun ownership, and the nation was on the path to greater gun regulation.  However, the NRA (National Rifle Association) fought the regulations, directing millions of dollars into Republican campaigns for both national and local public office.  Control of congress passed from the Democratic party to the Republican party in 1994, in part due to campaign funding regarding gun control.  Public sentiment also gradually changed.  By 2012, the percentage of Americans favoring additional restrictions on guns had fallen from over 75% to under 45%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/gun-control-polls-aurora-shooting_n_1690169.html

Given the political history of gun control in the 1990s, Democrats have given up on this issue.  The Republican party continues to push for reduced gun regulation, including banning local regulation of guns, concealed gun-carry laws, blocking registration of ammunition sales, and blocking regulation of assault weapons.

The political battle over gun control has been fought and won by the Republican side.   

But the body count continues to climb.   

-----

References:

Vietnam war deaths:

http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html

Injuries data:

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2000.html

2009 Firearm fatality statistics:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Preliminary 2011 Firearm Fatality statistics:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

The Republican Platform, the Ten Commandments, and the First Amendment

Abstract:
The Republican Party 2012 platform supports public display of the Ten Commandments, in schools, courthouses, and state capitols.  But the first words of the Ten Commandments are entirely contradictory to the first words of the Bill of Rights.

First Commandment:  “You shall have no other gods before me.”
First Amdendment:   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

------------------

First words are important. 

First words focus our attention, they establish what is most important in what we are about to read.

In any list, you will find the most important thing in the very first words.

Let’s consider two important lists:  the Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights. 

Here are the first words of each list:

First Commandment:  “You shall have no other gods before me.”

First Amdendment:   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

These statements are entirely incompatible.

------------------

The Ten Commandments establish a Covenant between God and the Jewish people.  The Jewish people promised obedience to the commandments in exchange for support from God and liberation from slavery.

The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the Constitution.  These amendments declared certain rights of the people, and forbid the government to infringe on those rights.  Although these rights are not essential to the structure of government, America’s founders considered these rights necessary for a free society.  And so, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution immediately upon completion of the Constitution.

In recent years, conservatives have advocated public display of the Ten Commandments.  They wish to put the commandments in schoolrooms, in state capitals, in courtrooms, etc.  Notably, the Republican Party Platform of 2012 includes a commitment to public display of the Ten Commandments:  “We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and of our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage.”

When conservatives talk about the Ten Commandments, they always cite commandments 5 through 10, which deal with human relationships.  “You shall honor your father and mother, you shall not kill, you shall not steal”, etc.  The first four commandments are quietly neglected.   These define man’s relationship with God; specifically, the Judeo-Christian God. 

-----

An Indian woman ran a convenience store in the office building where I worked in Houston.  She had a small shrine in the corner dedicated to Shiva.  She wrote her prayers daily at the counter while waiting for customers.  At other times, in quiet ritual, she worshiped the statuette representing Shiva.   In the late afternoons, her daughter, about 11 years old, helped at the cash register after attending school nearby.  

Does this woman not have the right to raise her daughter according to her own religion?  Should the daughter come to school to face teachers and schoolmates under a placard which says “You shall have no other gods before me”?   If the woman goes into our courts, can she expect justice in halls that say: “You shall not worship any graven image”?

-----

There can be no question that the purpose for public display of the Ten Commandments is the intimidation and coercion of non-Christians.   An advocate of posting the Ten Commandments in schools wrote a very articulate essay on the topic, found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10ca.htm

*  Part of the essay appears below, in Addendum #2.

The Republican effort to post the Ten Commandments in public places is part of a larger effort to discourage religious pluralism in America.  The intent is to make America an exclusively Judeo-Christian nation, and to create a society aligned with the values of the conservative Christian movement.  These values include limiting the reproductive rights of women, eliminating homosexuality, rejecting science in favor of biblical literalism, supporting the expansion of Israel, and global confrontation with Islam.  A Republican victory in 2012 would be a blow against religious freedom in America, and would be deeply troubling with regard to our values as a nation.

http://www.reclaim7mountains.com/

If we are going to post a list of ten laws in the schoolrooms, courthouses, and capitals of our nation, I suggest that we begin with The Bill of Rights.

----------------------

Addendum #1  2005 Supreme Court Decisions

In 2005, a sharply divide Supreme Court issued two narrow and ambiguous decisions.  One decision allowed display of the Ten Commandments at the Texas State Capital.  The other decision forbade display of the Ten Commandments in two rural Kentucky courthouses.  The reasoning separating the decisions was the history of the display and local community standards.  If the display had been in place for a long time without local complaint, it was allowed.  If a new display aroused local opposition, it was forbidden. 

The decisions provide little guidance for local communities; it as if there had been no decision.  The legality of a display is now determined by whichever side clamors the loudest in a local community.

Addendum #2   Essay on Posting the Ten Commandments in Schools

*  Consider this essay, written by an anonymous advocate of posting the commandments in the schools:

 http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10ca.htm

A portion of the essay follows:

“The complete text of Exodus 20:1-17, where the Ten Commandments are delivered to Moses, must be posted and made clearly visible in every classroom of every school.  That way, God's Word will speak for itself to our children, and they will absorb the full meaning.  Take, for instance, the first two commandments:

 Exodus 20:2-6

The meaning here is unmistakable.  You had better believe in and worship the Judeo-Christian God, and only Him.  We must put down everyone who rejects our God, whether atheist or pagan, by having this posted.  The message here is that the one true God is extremely jealous, and will not tolerate any other gods being worshipped, so much so that if you commit the horrible sin of rejecting Him, your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will suffer.  Atheists and pagans must be constantly humiliated and brought to shame by seeing this message. It is their only hope of realizing the truth.

It is so important to God that you worship only Him that he orders the death penalty for those who do otherwise:   Deuteronomy 13:6-10

 Immediately after that, God orders the genocide of cities which do not worship Him.

 Deuteronomy 13:12-16

 Are you getting the picture?  God places exceedingly high importance on worshipping Him and only Him.  Absolutely no ignoring Him or turning to other gods is tolerated.  We must not allow anyone who does not worship our God to forget for one day what grievous sin they are living in.”

A Graphical Look at the United States Budget

This post shows the 2012 Federal Budget and Deficit in graphs.
------------------------------
This blog has previously looked at the 2012 United States Federal budget.   We'll now look at it graphically.
http://debatablypolitical.blogspot.com/2012/09/rome-didnt-fall-in-day.html

Current Federal spending is about 3.9 trillion dollars annually, whereas tax receipts are about 2.6 trillion.  This leaves an annual Federal deficit of about 1.3 trillion dollars.

The spending categories which have traditionally been considered sacred: Social Security, Defense, Medicare, and Interest, account for about 60% of Federal Spending.  It's simplest to look at the charts.

If we overlay the spending categories with the funding picture, we can see that current tax revenue barely covers the "sacred" categories.  

We cannot virtually eliminate all other functions of government to pay for defense and elder care.  To reduce the deficit will require tax increases, as well as cuts to the "sacred" categories of Social Security, Defense, and Medicare.

The Arms Race Against the World

Mitt Romeny's foreign policy advisors are from the same group of advisors which led the United States into war in Iraq.  The primary point of neo-conservative foreign policy  is to build military capability beyond challenge, but that level of military spending is unsustainable considering our current budget deficits.  It is an arms race against the world.
-----------------------

Maureen Dowd recently wrote a column about the Republican Presidential campaign and its advisors for foreign policy in the Mid-east.   Dowd received criticism for what some considered an anti-Semitic bias in her comments, and support from others who saw no bias. 

For my part, I think she was on-target.  Foreign policy under a Romney administration would be directed by the same group of Neo-conservatives that guided the Bush administration into Iraq.   I recall the Neoconservative vision that the Iraq war would cost less than $50 billion, and that pro-American democracy would spread from Iraq throughout the Middle-east.    You might say it’s funny how that worked out. 

The total cost of the war in Iraq to Americans is now estimated at over $3 trillion (not including costs to other nations, including Iraq).   As for the spread of pro-American democracy in the Mid-east, you can judge for yourself based upon recent events.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-neocons-slither-back.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/maureen-dowd-meets-antisemitism-charge-135700.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/the-critics-of-maureen-dowds-critics-135768.html

------

Let’s look at Neo-Conservative thinking with regard to foreign policy. 

Neo-conservative foreign policy is based on the idea that America is the world’s sole superpower, and should remain the world’s sole superpower.   The ideology is expressed as the “Bush Doctrine”, which is considered synonymous with Neo-conservative foreign policy.

There are four points to the doctrine.

1)  America should keep a military capability beyond challenge in the world.  Neo-conservatives believe that other countries will recognize America’s power as benign.  They believe that weaker countries will choose to align themselves with the United States, rather than opposing America’s military power.

2)  America holds the right to use pre-emptive (first-strike) military force, as considered necessary. 

3)  America will choose to act unilaterally as needed, bypassing the United Nations, bypassing the process of building an international consensus, and ignoring the opinion of the international community with regard to military action.

4)  America should promote democracy globally.   This facet of the policy was considered particularly important in the Islamic world, where democracy was considered a crucial element in combating terrorism.  Neo-conservatives believe that promoting democracy, by force if necessary, will create a safer and more pro-American world.

[Primary Source: The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War; http://www.aup.edu/pdf/WPSeries/AUP_wp61-WilliamsSchmidt.pdf]

The Neo-Conservative world-view ignores the realities of human psychology, the rights of other nations to self-determination, and the costs of carrying out this vision.

In considering a superpower with a commitment to pre-emptive military force and unilateral action, weaker nations are unlikely to consider America’s power as benign.  The Bush Doctrine creates fear, and provides every motivation to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, which may be the only weapons which could deter an American attack.  Thus every nation which might be potentially in opposition to the United States is motivated to build the greatest military capability as possible.  Further, neo-conservatives never considered the possibility that emergent democracies might be in greater opposition to America than the preceding dictatorships.

America’s military spending amounts to nearly 5% of annual GDP.    Our annual military spending is greater than military spending by China, Russia, Britain, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Brazil, combined (after adjustments for purchasing power).   In fact, America’s annual military spending exceeds the GDP of all but the top 18 nations on earth, at a time when we are running budget deficits which threaten to bankrupt the country.

Foreign policy under Mitt Romney as president would implement the same principles as foreign policy of the Bush presidency.   It would be directed by some of the same people who were involved in the Bush presidency.  And it would be informed by the same naïve beliefs that caused America to fail to distinguish between the secular, dictatorial government of Saddam Hussein with the theocratic religious fanatics of Al Qaeda. 

The recent events in Libya, and the responses by the presidential candidates provide a clear example of what can be expected from each candidate in the event of international crisis.   President Obama’s slow, careful, measured response produced the most meaningful results: Libyans themselves stormed the headquarters of the Islamist militias who killed the American ambassador.  Which is a more effective foreign policy than another American invasion.

-------
References:

I found criticism of the Neo-conservatives similar to Dowd’s piece in various places.   The Neo-conservative viewpoint is rooted in an arrogant idea of American infallibility, and American global military supremacy that we simply cannot afford.   Specific to the Mid-east, the Neo-conservative view supports the idea of Greater Israel.   Some suggest that we went to war in Iraq, not because Iraq posed a threat to the United States, but because Iraq posed a threat to Israel.

Views similar to Maureen Dowd’s can be found here:

Iraq:  A War for Israel; Mark Weber, Institute for Historical Review,

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

The Real Reason for the Iraq War; Lee Whitnum, author & congressional candidate

http://leewhitnum.com/Iraq_the_real_reason.html

The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War;

http://www.aup.edu/pdf/WPSeries/AUP_wp61-WilliamsSchmidt.pdf

Cost of Iraq War; Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html

Comparison of Obama's and Romney's response in regard to the crisis in Libya is found here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-world-were-actually-living-in.html?_r=0