Category: politics

Drive By Posting: Some Quick Political Thoughts

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Interesting: Pollsters are calling for Obama to drop out of the campaign, and for the Democrats to draft Hilary instead. The pollsters believe if President Obama were to withdraw he would put great pressure on the Republicans to come to the table and negotiate — especially if the president singularly focused in the way we have suggested on the economy, job creation, and debt and deficit reduction. Further, they note that Clinton would stand a better chance at winning in 2012 because she enjoys her best-ever approval rating and is favored over Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Perry in a Time magazine poll. ETA: Here’s the actual opinion piece from the pollsters.

ETA: Lest you think voting Republican is an option… I normally don’t tend to agree with Michael Medved, even though I went to school with his brother and they lived just up the street. However, in this opinion piece in USA Today, Michael Medved does make one correct point: Most non-Orthodox Jews are more turned off by politicians who state they put Christianity first, or that the US is a clearly Christian nation, they they are turned on by a politician who publically states support for Israel. That’s certainly true for me. All the Republican candidates out there who are fighting to be the most Christian truly scare me. I know the US will stand by Israel, because they are a reliable democracy in the Middle East. I don’t trust the strong Christian politicians to share my values, and let me live by my values, because their track record shows they want to impose their values upon me. [… and a note to my more Christian friends: this doesn’t mean I have anything against Christianity. I feel that everyone should have the ability to practice their religion, free from the interference of government imposing particular religious values.]

Share

When Secrecy is Appropriate

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

An article in today’s New York Times seemingly berates the “Super Committee” (Deficit Reduction Committee) for doing its work in secret. It appears those not on the committee want a window on the committee’s work, while the committee is still forumulating its proposal. Those on the outs say that they want visibility into the choices being made; those on the committee say they need their privacy so that they can honestly make budget decisions.

My opinion? There should be more secrecy. Let’s take the whole supercommittee and sequester them like a jury until they have a proposal. They can send out for food. They can request information. But they cannot interact with other congress critters or lobbyists until they are done.

The only reason I can see for those on the outs to want visibility is to try to influence the committee to be intransigent on a party line or for a special interest, not what it is the best interest of the country. This supercommittee should be like the BRAC: they make a recommendation, and it is either voted up or down, with congress knowing that the automatic cuts are a result of a down voice. That’s the only way that this congressional game of chicken can be resolved and the country can move forward.

(oh, you don’t believe me that it is a game of chicken? I suggest you listen to this Planet Money Podcast: When Congress Plays Chicken)

Share

Something to Chew On

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

I call my link posts “news chum” because I want them to be like chum in the water, drawing out commentors to fresh meat. Now, with that fresh in your mind, here’s some lunch-time news chum related to food, plus some other stuff to chew on…

  • Rethinking the Package. Everyday, when I get my salad for lunch, I make my own dressing: olive oil, balsamic vinegar, and mustard. Our cafeteria used to have squeeze bottles of mustard, but now only has those impossible to open packets. That may change. Heinz is redesigning the condiment packaging (specifically, for ketchup) to move from the squeeze packet to (a) something that holds more (3 x more), and (b) something that can be used to dip. Looking at the picture of the new packaging, I think this will be quite an improvement. Wendy’s will be introducing them later this year and they’re in the testing stage at McDonald’s and Burger King.
  • Rethinking the Burger. Burgers have also been in the news. Wendy’s has just redesigned their burgers to try to improve sales. The new burger, Dave’s Hot and Juicy, has lots of little tweaks. They switched to whole-fat mayonnaise, nixed the mustard, and cut down on the pickles and onions, all to emphasize the flavor of the beef. They switched to red onions and crinkled pickles. They also started storing the cheese at higher temperatures so it would melt better, a change that required federal approval. It also features extra cheese, a thicker beef patty, and a toasted buttered bun. Many suggestions sounded good but didn’t ring true with tasters. They tried green-leaf lettuce, but people preferred to keep iceberg for its crunchiness. They thought about making the tomato slices thicker but decided they didn’t want to ask franchisees to buy new slicing equipment. They even tested a round burger, a trial that was practically anathema to a company that’s made its name on square burgers. Wendy’s ultimately did not go with the round shape, but changed the patty to a “natural square,” with wavy edges, because tasters said the straight edges looked processed. They also started packing the meat more loosely, trained grill cooks to press down on the patties two times instead of eight, and printed “Handle Like Eggs” on the boxes that the hamburger patties were shipped in so they wouldn’t get smashed. And Wendy’s researchers knew that customers wanted warmer and crunchier buns, so they decided that buttering them and then putting them through a toaster was the way to go.

    Not to be outdone, Carl’s Jr. has introduced what they call the “Steakhouse Burger”. It features a Black Angus beef patty, smothered with A.1. steak sauce, Swiss cheese and crumbled blue cheese, crispy onion strings and the standard lettuce, tomatoes and mayonnaise. Commercials will feature the “god of hamburgers.” Dubbed Hamblor, the deity is, in true Carl’s Jr. fashion, surrounded by skimpily dressed women.

  • Rethinking Theater Snacks. Are you a popcorn eater when you go to the movie theater? Some eat because they like fresh popcorn. Some eat out of habit. A recent survey showed that regular theatergoers at the same amount of popcorn, whether it was fresh or stale. Specifically, in a project conducted and funded by Duke University, researchers sent 98 people to a theater on the pretense they were participating in a study about what draws consumers to movies. They gave everyone boxes of popcorn. Some boxes had popcorn made an hour earlier; others had the week-old snack. People who rarely or only occasionally eat popcorn at movies stayed away from the stale sample, eating much more of the fresh snack. The moviegoers who always eat popcorn in the theater, however, were different. They ate the same amount, irrespective of whether it was fresh or stale.
  • Rethinking the Cafeteria. Major remodeling is coming to Clifton’s Brookdale in DTLA (that’s “downtown LA”, for those not in the know). The cafeteria is closing for a $3mil, 3-6 mo remodeling. Although the dining areas will retain their kitschy forest-theme, there will be a new kitchen (where equipment dated from 1915-1949), a new cafeteria line layout, upgraded plumbing and electrical, a new facade, as well as adding a small, tiki-themed bar in the basement and a third-floor speakeasy reached via a hidden entrance on the main floor.
  • Rethinking Fresh. I mentioned this one yesterday, but fear it got lost. Fast Company has a very nice article on how Whole Foods convinces you their food is uber-fresh. What looks like chalk signs from the farmers who just pulled up are actually mass-produced signs from a factory. Ice is everywhere, and vegetables are dripping with water—all creating the “fresh from the field” impression (never mind the fact this makes the vegetables rot faster). Bananas are displayed at just the right color to get you to buy. Manipulation is everywhere, friends.

And speaking of manipulation and food for thought, two political things. USA Today has a supposed fact check about how the rich pay more taxes. Remember: there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The rich do often pay more money. Does this indicate a higher rate? Depends how you look at it. The rich do pay a higher rate on earned income, but a much lower rate on capital gains and investment income. So it all depends on how they get their money and shelter their money. Now, is it wrong for the government to want more income? Not really; your family would if they were in dire straights. The difference is that you know the efficiency of your family: you know you have cut to the bone, and therefore need more money. Given the size of government, it is impossible for them to convince people they have cut to the bone; therefore, there will be people who object to more taxes while more cuts are possible. This is why the political game is so hard.

Another political thing: Obama’s election odds keep slipping. I’ve already seen one editorial calling for Obama to withdraw as a candidate. It has happened before: Lyndon Johnson chose not to run for reelection in 1968 because he knew he couldnt’ win. The question is: If Obama withdrew and another Democratic candidate emerged, could the Democrats retain the White House? It is certainly an interesting scenario to think about.

Share

What I Want

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Today I got a letter from the Barack Obama campaign, asking me if I wanted to purchase an “Obama 2012” bumper magnet. I read this while eating lunch, and this is what I wanted to write back in response:

Dear President Obama:

Much as I would like to call myself one of your supporters in 2012, I can’t. Yet. This is not to say that I support any of the current crop of Republican candidates. I don’t and can’t, given their stances and statements. But although I like your ideas and proposals, you haven’t shown the leadership ability, the persuasiveness, and the political skills to get those who don’t agree with you to compromise for the sake of the country. You’ve moved in their direction with few concessions from their side, as opposed to moving both sides to the middle. We need someone with those skills.

So, Mr. President, what would like like to see in a candidate in 2012? Here’s a short list:

First, I’d like a Democratic candidate. I’m sorry to say this, but the Republican party of late has shown themselves as a party that is working (I want to say “pandering”) to specific special interests—the “Tea Party”, the religious right, the wealthy—and often subbornly putting those interests in front of the good of the rest of the country. The Democratic party does that to some extent as well, but at least they seem to be more willing to attempt to listen and compromise.

I’d like a candidate that recognizes that all must sacrifice equally in this present environment. I recognize the need to cut services and support due to the budget. But we can’t just cut; we need to work that second job and bring in more income. This means taxing the wealthy a bit more, and reworking the tax code to eliminate the games that Wall Street likes to play. The simplest solution might be to require Wall Street Corporations to pay tax on the earnings they report to the Street, not the earnings they report to the IRS.

I’d like a candidate that believes in fairness. Shared sacrifice is one example of this. It also means that folks near “the power” shouldn’t be able to get away with things just because they are near the power. We need the tax code to be applied fairly. Yes, that means we need a sales tax for sales on the Internet that goes to the states for sales that occur in those states. This was on the books as a “use tax” in the mail order era, but was hard to enforce. We have computers. We can easily do this, and it will help our states quite a bit.

I’d like a candidate that agrees with the values of the founders—formalize religion does not belong in politics. Religion is not something to be worn on the sleeve or talked about in a speach. It is a personal thing. It is not the place of the government to be legislating morality, other than to make the wide variety of choices believed by people in this great country legal.

I’d like a candidate that values the same things I do: Education. The Arts. Science. This doesn’t necessarily mean direct government support, but tweaking of the tax code could have equivalent effects, such as providing greater deductability for donations to Universities, Arts Organizations, and Scientific Foundations than for donations to religious organizations, especially those that do not use those donations for real charatible works, but rather use the donations to support staff and executives.

I’d like a candidate that believes in defending our country—in a smart manner. This means we invest our defense funds in modern technology for the next war, not approaches from the last war. This includes investments in space and cyberdefense. This means defending our borders not with fences and security theatre, but with techniques that work—and economic approaches that make people want to follow legal approaches to entering this country.

I’d like a candidate that recognizes and rewards hard work. With respect to those that have entered illegally in the past, I’m willing to be more leinent if they have been working, have been contributing, and plan to keep doing so. These are the values that made this country, and those are the people we want.

I’d like a candidate that believes we have a responsibility to repair our corner of the world. This means ensuring there is some form of a safety net for the poorest of our citizens. This means ensuring affordable healthcare. I’m not sure the current approach mistakenly called Obamacare is the best, but it is a start. Even more, the government needs to work on setting acceptable price ranges for medical services as a first step to controlling costs.

I’d like a candidate that recognizes the importance of our infrastructure. Whether it be the physical infrastructure such as roads and bridges—which are vital to commerce—or our electronic infrastructure—which is also vital to commerce: both need to be maintained and protected as national assets.

I’d like a candidate that recognizes the value of strategic investments. Education of our youth is just one. Appropriate emerging technologies is another, as is sciences. America’s greatness has always come from its innovations. More importantly, though, is that we need a candidate that can convince others of the value of those investments as well. Mr. Obama—that’s been one of your problems. You’ve got the idea to invest in the right places. You just can’t convince others to go along.

I’d like a candidate that believes scientific evidence. Yes, that means recognizing that climate change (mistakenly called “global warming”) is happening. Engineers know that anticipating the problem early and planning for it is much more cost effective than trying to reactively address the problem. We need to be ahead of the curve on this one.

Those are just some of the things I would like in a candidate. So, Mr. Obama, your email indicates you want my vote. Become the man we thought you would be.

Share

Nuances

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

A quick lunchtime news chum, based on some articles that keep sticking in my head:

  • Politics vs. Government. Last night, I read a nice piece in the LA Times about Obama’s recent speeches and how it may reflect his upcoming reelection strategy. One statement of Obama’s is really sticking with me:

    “You’ll hear a lot of folks, by the way, say that government is broken,” he said at his first stop in Cannon Falls. “Well, government and politics are two different things. Government is our troops who are fighting on our behalf in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s government. Government are also those FEMA folks when there’s a flood or a drought or some emergency who come out and are helping people out. That’s government. Government is Social Security. Government are teachers in the classroom. Government are our firefighters and our police officers, and the folks who keep our water clean and our air clean to breathe, and our agricultural workers. And when you go to a national park, and those folks in the hats — that’s government.

    “So don’t be confused,” Obama said, “as frustrated as you are about politics, don’t buy into this notion that somehow government is what’s holding us back.”

    I really agree with what he says. I work every day with government people, almost all of whom are hardworking defenders of our nation. They are trying to do the right thing. They are not the bad guy you hear about in the news. What we’re frustrated with is not government in general, but politicians and bureaucrats. It’s an important distinction to remember.

  • Credit Ratings. I’ve been reading a number of articles on the economic woes: articles on how Washington is destroying the economy. Articles on European woes. Articles on how people are selling stocks and abandoning stock funds. What’s killing the economy, plain and simple, is economic stupidity. People don’t think, and they don’t understand economics. They believe, for example, that countries should be debt-free (which isn’t the case — you want a managable level of debt). They believe that the debt limit is a spending limit (which isn’t the case, appropriations deal with what you spend, the debt limit just ensures you can pay the bills you’ve already said you would pay). They believe that the government’s credit rating somehow affects the credit of businesses, when there’s no connection (often businesses are more reliable than the government, although they can’t print money). They believe that one can reduce debt solely by reducing spending (when in reality, in their own homes, they’re getting second jobs in addition to spending cuts).
  • Who is a Jew. A really interesting article in the WSJ on the Jewish community in China. This community cannot overly practice Judaism because the Chinese government doesn’t recognize it as an official religion, and the Orthodox community in Israel doesn’t recognize them as Jewish because they didn’t follow halacha to the letter (they use patrilineal descent, for example). The people want to be accepted as Jews, but from both sides, the nuances of the law isn’t letting them.
Share

A Matter of When – A Lunchtime Musing

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

First: A disclaimer: In the 2008 election, I was an Obama supporter. I believed then that he was the stronger of the two candidates, which looking back, implied we really didn’t have much of choice by the time the field narrowed.

That said, I’m watching how things are shaping up with interest. None of the Republican candidates interest me, a moderate slightly over on the progressive side. They are either too tied to the Tea Party, or too tied to the religious right.

So this raises the interesting question: I saw, while looking at the LA Times over lunch, that Obama’s current numbers show a nationwide approval of 39%, and that historically, presidents don’t win re-election with that sort of approval rating. I can’t imagine the Democrats will be so tied to this course that they’ll stay on a sinking ship (but then again, we are talking the Democratic party here). So at what point do you think we might see challengers to President Obama emerge, and who might they be?

Share

Stirring Up the News Chum

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

It’s Friday at lunch, and you know what that means: Clearing out the links accumulated during lunchtime reading over the week:

Share

Meeting the Presidents

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Today’s lunchtime news chum bring a collection of articles about present and past presidents. Remember, those that don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it:

  • Herbert Hoover. Yesterday was the birthday of Herbert Hoover, one of our lowest performing presidents, but perhaps one of the smartest ones as well. The Atlantic Magazine has a nice article on his legacy, both on how his actions led to the Great Depression, as well as his role in spreading global humanitarianism. Quoting from the article:

    Liberals delight in using Hoover to demonstrate what happens when government does too little during tough times; for them, Hoover was the American Nero, playing the fiddle and refusing to dispense relief as more and more penniless Americans crowded into makeshift “Hoovervilles.” Conservatives, for their part, can use Hoover to argue the opposite: Because Hoover insisted on signing Smoot-Hawley, the tariff act that pushed an already ailing economy over the brink, he is the finest example of what happens when government falsely believes it knows best.

    Whichever is the case, Hoover is a great lesson on what a government should or shouldn’t do in hard financial times.

  • Richard Nixon. There are increasing calls (at least in some of what I read) for Obama to resign or to have an impeachment trial. What those advocates don’t realize is that Obama has done nothing to warrant his resignation or impeachment. We have had presidents who have done high crimes and misdemeanors (and I’m not talking about cigars here): Richard M. Nixon being a primary example. A judge has recently said that Nixon’s Grand Jury testimony against his political cronies must be unsealed. This is particularly significant in that it is the only time that Nixon testified under oath about what happened in the Watergate scandal.
  • Jimmy Carter. We’re seeing Obama’s popularity fall, and he is increasingly demonstrating that, although he is smart, he’s not the great leader we thought (hoped) he would be. Guess what? We’ve been there before. They once loved Jimmy, too. Most folks may be too young to remember, but Carter came into office with similar goals. Carter was hailed as the intelligent outsider who was going to clean up Washington and forever change American politics. Carter received over-the-top praise before entering office. Carter was presented as as the kind of smart, cool, new politico who was going to—fill in the cliché—”transcend politics as we know it,” “appeal across traditional lines,” “bring America together,” etc. What did we end up getting?
  • George W. Bush. Lastly, but not leastly, there’s good ‘ol George W. For all we are seeing our exploding decefit blamed on Obama and the Democrats, there is only one real source: George W. Bush and his policies. The debt was about $1 trillion when Reagan took office, and then it was piled on: Reagan, $1.9 trillion added; George H.W. Bush, $1.5 trillion added (in just four years); Bill Clinton, $1.4 trillion added; Obama, $2.4 trillion added. As for George W? He added $6.4 trillion in debt, nearly half of the total debt. He did it with little things: two massive tax cuts geared toward the rich (along with other similar measures, like slashing the capital gains and inheritance taxes), the off-the-books wars, the unfunded Medicare expansion, etc. So as much as the politicos want to blame the Democrats, it was the Republicans in office at the time that approved George W’s actions.

Four presidents. Four interesting records. Will we learn from them? We’ve got a presidental election coming up, and none of the Republican candidates look moderate or acceptable enough. So far, we only have one candidate on the Democratic side—it will be interesting to see what might happen if a Democratic challenger emerges. Don’t laugh. Incumbents have been challenged before.

Share