January 30, 2012 -- How a Republican candidate might do a stand-up comedy routine:
Things are bad. Oh, things are so bad.
How bad are they?
Things are so bad the 203 page tax return of Mitt Romney is being rolled up and burned for heat in fire places.
Things are bad, I tell you. So bad the Cayman Islands are offering Las Vegas style free junkets to hedge fund managers to entice them to bank their multi-million dollar bonuses there.
Things are so bad House Speaker John Boehner has been practicing the skills he learned mopping the floors in the family bar so when the country runs out of money and can’t pay for janitorial services he can pitch in and fill the gap.
Things are so bad everybody is scaling back. Senator McCain now feels invading Iran may be too expensive so for our next invasion we should pick a much smaller country, like Lichtenstein for example.
Obviously I should leave this kind of shtick to Jay Leno and his staff of writers, but this week, a week housing a State of the Union address with its Republican rebuttal, some fiery debates among Republican presidential want-a-bes about what is wrong and what they would do to fix it, a widespread discussion about fairness, seems a good time for some stock taking.
Taking a spin around the spin masters out of all of the opinions expressed I found myself weighing in on the view of economist Paul Krugman, expressed in his NYT column just prior to the State of the Union address.
“There are reasons to think that we’re finally on the (slow) road to better times” he wrote, surprisingly for the dour Mr. Krugman. “And we wouldn’t be on that road if Mr. Obama had given in to Republican demands that he slash spending, or the Federal Reserve had given in to Republican demands that it tighten money.” He notes that, “House prices are back to 2003 level,” as something of a good thing.
But on the down side he refers to the explosion of household debt during the Bush tenure. “Fiscal austerity, which is supposed to limit the increase in government debt, has depressed the economy, making it impossible to achieve urgently needed reductions in private debt.” The worry is how the fall election will turn out. Somewhat ironically it seems to me ideologists who decry European style governments seem so eager to adapt their severe austerity approach which is working out so badly for them, in which case our “nascent recovery might well be snuffed out.” So sayith the Nobel Prize winning soothsayer. And that’s the way it looks to me.
On the other hand, Krugman’s fellow NYT columnist David Brooks sees “soaring debt, lagging growth, wage stagnation, family breakdown, political dysfunction.” Gee, do I get a choice?
How you viewed the President’s State of the Union speech no doubt depended upon your partisan stance. Stand back and detach yourself from that condition and you would have to say it was a very good speech, well done, laying out the Administration’s view of where we are and how to move forward and as such was more or less the opening Democratic salvo of the campaign for the election in November. The President had a lot to say about economic fairness which seems to be the biggest divide between the parties. No matter what your politics are you can use this speech to weigh the differences between the parties in order to guide your vote in November.
The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson had this to say on fairness: “The American dream of upward mobility has been high jacked, that the rich and the powerful have rigged our economic and political systems to favor their interests over those of the average citizen.”
These words are telling: “Our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility.” Put that on a poster and hang it on wall, or at least on a T-shirt … all of our better thoughts go on T-shirts.
What to aspire to: “An America where the successful and fortunate lend a helping hand to those down on their luck, rather than coldly leave them behind.”
You did not hear words like that in the Republican rebuttal to the speech, given by Indiana governor and former Bush budget director Mitch Daniels, nor did you hear much from him on the radicalism that dominates his party. His was the pitch for individualism, for entrepreneurship unfettered by rules and regulations free from government interference and without its assistance, really laissez-faire policies.
Obama called for passing the “Buffet Rule,” based on multi-billionaire Warren Buffett’s call to change a system in which his tax rate is much less than that paid by his secretary. The President pointed out that 25 percent of American millionaires pay less in taxes than millions of families in the middle-class. That fairness thing. Governor Daniels, G.O.P. leaders, and Republicans in general are calling that class warfare, and the politics of “envy.” In a BBC interview, Bill Gates called it: “That’s just justice.” As Obama said later: “I promise you Bill Gates does not envy the rich.” He has a point.
The Progress Report had something pithy to say about this charge of “Envy.” “We’re not attacking the free enterprise system. We’re not attacking capitalism. We are attacking a broken economy where the game is rigged in favor of a privileged few at the expense of everyone else.” Certainly Republican policies favor the privilege few. That’s a given.
“Instead of an economy where someone can amass a quarter-billion dollar fortune — on which they pay a lower tax rate than middle class workers — by laying off workers, bankrupting companies, and foreclosing on homes, we need an economy that works for everyone.” I think we know the “someone” they have in mind here, but I don’t believe we want to trash the “someone” for making the money legally, we want to fix the system so it works more fairly.
Daniels, in his rebuttal, chose to pick the late Steve Jobs as a kind of a heroic John Galt figure and “job creator.” It should not detract from the greatness of Steve Jobs to express some reservations about Apple creating a lot of jobs. Paul Krugman presented this data.
Daniels made the claim that Steve Jobs created more jobs than did the stimulus money spent. Apple, not arguably the company now worth the most in the country employs 43,000 people, less than one tenth the number General Motors employed when they held that position. What about the 700,000 employed by Apple suppliers? Very near all of them are overseas. Daniels got a bad break on timing since stories have come out this week about working conditions in some plans in China supplying Apple, conditions so stressful that suicides are very common among employees. This is not to blame Apple, whose C.E.O. states Apple does and will make every effort to uncover those conditions and demand they be corrected. Just don’t use Apple, Daniels, to make false claims about creating jobs.
Low wages, says economist Krugman, are not necessarily the advantage of having that work done overseas. Some of it is due to “economic clusters” where the various part makers are down the street or around the corner from each other. Clusters helps Germany to remain competitive, along with programs of cooperation among businesses and the nurturing of skilled workers that can make $44 an hour. Not many suicides at 44 bucks an hour.
Thomas Friedman, writing in the New York Times says there is no more “outsourcing.” There no longer is an “out” to source to. Now, globally, everything is “in.” He discusses global supply chains “that seek to access the best quality talent at the lowest cost, wherever it exists.”
Friedman writes that “almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were made overseas.” The way it works? “ ‘Source everywhere, manufacture everywhere, sell everywhere.’ The whole notion of an ‘export’ is really disappearing.”
Friedman is afraid that we aren’t getting it, not our C.E.O.’s, not our politicians in either party. He ran a quote from Fidel Castro after the Florida debates: “selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is — and I mean this seriously — the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.”
Friedman’s comment: “When Marxists are complaining that your party’s candidates are disconnected from today’s global realities, it’s generally not a good sign.”
This stuff is germane to our State of the Union. It is the state of things that are. But Friedman sees no reason why we can’t stay on top if we only get our act together.
“If only — if only — we could come together on a national strategy to enhance and expand all of our natural advantages: more immigration, most post-secondary education, better infrastructure, more government research, smart incentives for spurring millions of start-ups — and a long-term plan to really fix our long-term debt problems.” As one chapel bell ringer pulling ropes says to the other “take it Andrew.” Take it to the polls in November.
One side of the political spectrum believes that economies succeed solely thanks to heroic entrepreneurs; the other has nothing against entrepreneurs, but believes that entrepreneurs need a supportive environment, and that sometimes government has to help create or sustain that supportive environment.
What Krugman states here is, I believe, the crux of the matter: “Some still believe that all governments can do is get out of the way. Others know there is a real role for governments in setting the right rules for future success.” We get to go one way or the other come November.
For me, trying to wrestle with economics is about as thrilling as thinking about the tax code but there is a person who can talk about matters like these with great passion and enthusiasm, Elizabeth Warren, who articulates as well or better what those on the Democratic side of the fence believe in. If you did not see her on the Daily Show this week where Stewart cut her no slack I suggest you invest in a few minutes of time to watch her in action on these to links.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-24-2012/exclusive---elizabeth-warren-extended-interview-pt--2
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, or rather back in Florida, the G.O.P. presidential nomination seekers continue their contentious debate jousts which grow ever more hostile, ever more bitter, ever more personal, good theater but some Republicans worry it results in fodder for the inevitable Obama counter campaign. I look at it slightly differently. In addition to gnawing on each other time after time the Republican candidates get to blast Obama as the worst president in history, his ruinous policies, his terrible record over and over again to millions of viewers with no opportunity for Obama people to give a rebuttal, correct the wild misstatements, the distorted facts, the loony character attacks. I see the RNC with a bird’s nest on the ground here. In fairness there should be post debate rebuttals from someone on the Democratic side. As independents hear this distorted stuff over and over it just slips into the category of given facts. As an old ad guy I would welcome an opportunity to repeat something over and over again like the jingles of yore (I still remember “One and two and, one and two and two good reasons why, Northern tissue, Northern tissue is your very best buy. One is for the softness and that is very nice, two is for the colors at the sensible Northern price,” a jingle on toilet paper from around 1952 which I wish could be erased from my mind).
It would appear there is a lot riding on the January 31st Florida primary, or maybe not. Newt Gingrich, who surges and slips, ebbs and flows like the Newfoundland Tidal Bore is dropping in the polls again, and has been lackluster in the last two debates, so would a strong win by Romney here bring this thing to a conclusion? Gingrich says no, and has an international multi-billionaire pumping up cash to help him continue, which is scaring the pants off of staunch G.O.P. leaders (a sight you don’t want to see) who are afraid of a Gingrich win. Bob Dole came out this week, of wherever a Bob Dole hunkers down, to endorse Romney and say how awful the Gingrich leadership was as Speaker of the House. Gingrich did pick up the endorsement of Herman Cain, so there you are, the wisdom of Cain or Dole, take your choice.
Of course the hundreds of pages of Romney tax returns finally released have gotten a lot of attention from commentators and fellow candidates alike. We knew the guy was rich, but I don’t know we knew he was that rich. Certainly blows his cover of being just an ordinary guy. Not when your tax policies could personally save you three or four million dollars a year. According to the several news outlets if he becomes president he will be one of the richest in our history.
We celebrate success like the mega-bucks of the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, but we care about how they made it and what they do with the money. Romney’s $46 million or so income from the last two years came from sitting back and collecting on investments for which he paid ridiculously low taxes of less than 14% and he squirreled away money in the Caymans and Switzerland. His opponents were quick to jump on him for make a ton of money by an investment in Goldman Sachs from which profits were derived from foreclosures on mortgages which does not play well in Florida where such foreclosures are extremely high, more so than in other parts of the country. As for me, I think its right and fitting that the standard bearer for the party that is the hand maiden for the wealthiest among us should be one of the wealthiest among us. The guy has such a compelling riches to riches story to tell. No log cabin in that one.
Gingrich captured the title California Governor Jerry Brown earned in 1978 when he was called “Governor Moonbeam” with a loony statement to a group of Floridians who are concerned about loosing their treasured Cape Canaveral space facility. Speaker Moonbeam said: “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the Moon. And it will be American.” And he said that he would push for the introduction of a “Northwest Ordinance for Space” so that when the number of colonists reached 13,000, they could petition for statehood. He is against the District of Columbia being a state, but the moon? Great idea. Wonder what it would do to designate a state bird?
There are oddities about the Republican race to choose the presidential nominee. The three leading contenders have come out strongly for the sanctity of marriage, one of whom is the grandson of a polygamist with 21 wives, another who seems to have practiced a modern day version of polygamy by moving from one woman to another at will, marriage be damned, and the third, Rick Santorum, is married to a woman who lived for half a dozen years with a much older man, the doctor who delivered her, before she moved in with Santorum. Now I don’t really care about their sex lives but isn’t there an element of hypocrisy here? Seems to me despite Gingrich line of blame it on the press, it is fair game to ask that question. And in the case of the Santorums, redemption is wonderful but you would think they would have a little understanding about fragilities of others and cut them a little slack. The Daily Beast found it unusual in the case of Gingrich to have a child of his first wife denigrate his second wife on behalf of his third wife. But other than viewing all of this like attending a performance of that old play La Ronde what I really care about is that Romney thinks the Roberts Supreme Court is his kind of court, Gingrich would have John Bolton Sectary of State, and Santorum would ban contraceptives.
If I miss anything about these debates once they are over it won’t be the debates themselves, but some of the commentary. It gives commentators of all sorts a platform from which to sling imaginative verbiage out into the atmosphere. Here are a couple of more comments from this week.
Chris Cilizza in the Washington Post. “The Debate Thursday: Romney won because Gingrich did poorly. Santorum did well giving good answers on immigration, religion, and his wife. Gingrich was just plain off his game.”
“… like some kind of Ayn Rand acolyte who believes that economic Darwinism must always be allowed to run its course.” Paul Krugman on the Republican attitude about entrepreneurs.
Columnist David Brooks: “This election is about averting national decline.” On the other hand, Brooks also wrote: “This whole race is now about manhood. Newt won South Carolina because he’s a bigger Alpha and Republicans want bellicosity, not politeness. Mitt looked soft and in the debates seemed unwilling to fight.”
As you may be aware, each week two New York Times columnists, Gail Collins (from the left) and David Brooks (from the right), banter in friendly fashion with wit combined with insight about the political scene. Their duet this week seemed to me to be particularly apt. Rather than try to sum it up for you, here is a link to the whole piece:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/state-of-the-republicans/?pa
It must be hard to know what to do with all of the money that comes rolling in, so in the spirit of bipartisan helpfulness here are some suggestions for…
10 WAYS THAT MITT ROMNEY COULD SPEND HIS $26 MILLION A YEAR INCOME
1. Pay off his five sons’ student loans.
2. Take trips to visit his money stashed in Switzerland, Iceland, and the Cayman Islands.
3. Grade up his lawn care by hiring more expensive legal workers.
4. Instead of hunting small varmints using little guns go on a big-game safari to Africa.
5. Purchase silk versions of Mormon underwear.
6. He only owns homes in four states, Massachusetts, Utah, New Hampshire, and California so that leaves him 46 more states to build mansions in.
7. The ten grand he wanted to bet Rick Perry was a picker’s bet. He needs to find a new high stakes game, perhaps a big Texas Hold ‘Em event, where Texas is really what you “hold ‘em.”
8. If he doesn’t win the presidency he might consider just buying his own country. Things being what they are in Europe he might be able to make a deal with cash-strapped Italy for the Island of Elba, except that’s kind of small potatoes having a population of only 30,000.
9. The next time he wants to take the family on a trip to Canada, instead of a station wagon with no room for the family pet except on the roof, couldn’t he afford a nice, roomy RV that would hold everyone inside, including Rover?
10. Hire a good comedy writer since his jokes go over so badly on the campaign stump. He might start by reviving the late Rodney Dangerfield about “I don’t get no respect.”
Comments