Our Centrist President

The 2011 State of the Union speech was well received and it struck a good note of unity, which we sorely need.  On the whole, it was a bipartisan, centrist speech with a slight nod to progressive convictions (let's make health care better rather than refighting the battles of 2010, the country cannot afford to make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the sacrifices need to be shared and not just demanded from our most vulnerable).

Politics has been described as the "art of the possible".  Given President Obama's pragmatic nature and the reality of Republican control of the House, I guess there was not much more we should have expected in his State of the Union speech.   It struck a conciliatory note with Republicans and left the Left standing in the cold.  The atmosphere of "bipartisanship" was symbolically represented  by the seating wherein the Elephants and the Donkeys sat with each other.  Whether the Elephants will compromise at all on their extremist agenda is yet to be seen.  Even Obama's concession to extend to 5 years the discretionary domestic spending freeze while making job-creating and forward-looking investments in technology, clean energy, education and infrastructure did not satisfy the Mastodons of the Right. 

One can only imagine what the Party of No will do in 112th Congress.   They effectively control the purse strings by virtue of their control of the House of Representatives.  And I foresee no meaningful change on the Senate filibuster rules so they effectively can block anything in that chamber.  Who will blink first - Republicans or Obama?  The Republicans have no problem shutting down the government if their demands aren't met - after all they don't believe the Federal government does any good.   (Given their record in the GWB years, the Republicans clearly demonstrated their ineptitude at governing, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy isn't it?) And with his track record on health care and Democrats' inability to effectively counter lies and control the issues, my money is on Obama caving in before the Republicans. 

The deficit is a serious issue that must be addressed and addressed by something other than the backs of the poor and middle class.  Approximately $400 billion was added to the deficit by the year-end tax cut compromise.  Taxes must be raised on the richest Americans.  No profitable corporation should be able to get away with zero taxes.  And the rest of us need to get back to work to pay our fair share of taxes for necessary services. 

The country is not yet out of the woods of the recession with official unemployment well above 9%.  So before we destroy the safety social net or institute regressive taxes (national sales tax, VAT) as part of an extremist agenda, we may want to look at other sources of revenue.  It's not just the most vulnerable who need to be asked to sacrifice.

America's Deadly Fascination

Martin Luther King’s birthday was celebrated earlier this week. His life was one dedicated to peace and social justice. It was ended violently by a gunman in Memphis, Tennessee in 1968. Coming on the heels of the Tucson shootings, MLK’s birthday gives us one more reason to reflect on America’s blind and deadly fascination with guns.

Unfortunately, the initial reaction after the Tucson killings was not so much reflection but a rush to buy guns of the same type used in the murders. Fear of violence or fear that more sensible gun legislation may be in the works... who knows?

The homicide rate in the United States is the highest among advanced industrialized nations. Not surprisingly the US also has the highest rate of gun ownership. Data from one of the numerous studies on the subject is given in the following graph.



How is this for an eye-opener? The most recent data (see nationmaster.com) show the United States to have a firearms per capita murder rate six times that of Germany and 27 times that of the United Kingdom.

Some may point out that other countries such as Switzerland and Norway have relatively high gun ownership (but not as high as in the US) and they do not have a high murder rate. That may be a very telling point – not so much that guns don't always lead to violence but that in the United States they certainly do. Gun advocates may want to look at the nature of the gun laws in those countries with low murder rates.

In a recent New York Times article, Bob Herbert wrote of the 2008 lecture at Virginia Tech by the gun dealer who had sold one of the weapons used in that tragedy. “His point: that people at Virginia Tech should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus.” Not that carrying a gun wll actually protect you...in a landmark study published in 2009, Universtity of Pennsylvania researchers found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.  Approximately 100,000 shootings occur in the United States each year. Since Martin Luther King was assassinated, more than a million Americans have died from gun violence (homicides, suicides, accidents).

There are a couple of other cautionary tales in Herbert’s piece and he rightly concludes: “We’ve allowed the extremists to carry the day when it comes to guns in the United States, and it’s the dead and the wounded and their families who have had to pay the awful price.”

So what is to be done about it? The silence since the Tucson shootings has been deafening. A Tea-Partier in Arizona did speak up though – he said we should wait until the dead are buried before beginning any discussion of gun controls. Wait, wait, wait – 3000 shootings and 34 murders a day while we delay. Politicians have been pretty gutless in standing up to the gun lobby led by the NRA. Fearing the impact of all that money attacking them for “betraying” our Second Amendment rights, politicians have generally kept a low profile in working towards sensible gun legislation.

One politician who hasn't kept silent is Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor. He has advocated consistently over the years for stricter gun control legislation. In a Huffington Post brief, he relates the results of a poll commissioned by  the 550-member Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Two of the key findings were:

• The overwhelming agreement (90%) among Americans that felons, drug abusers, and the mentally ill should not have access to guns and that more needs to be done to ensure that their records are in the federal background check system.
• The overwhelming agreement (86%) among Americans that its time to close the loopholes that make it possible for people to buy guns without background checks.

The results should give the average scared politician some cover. Not that I'm advocating governing by poll results – we should strive to do the right thing for our country because it is right not because it may help us get re-elected.

Bob Herbert concluded his article with some great advice: “We need fewer homicides, fewer accidental deaths and fewer suicides. That means fewer guns. That means stricter licensing and registration, more vigorous background checks and a ban on assault weapons. Start with that. Don’t tell me it’s too hard to achieve. Just get started.”

Over to you, Washington.

The Leader and the Demagogue

The Leader and the Demagogue

What a contrast we saw yesterday between the healing and unifying words of President Obama and the divisive and self-serving words of Ms. Palin.

No one is accusing Palin of being criminally culpable for the shootings in Tucson. That would be ridiculous. All they’re asking is that she tone down the rhetoric and not add to the crazy atmosphere. She failed miserably. As CREDO reports her response to the 250,000 signatures asking her to tone it down: “She released a video in which, carefully reading from a teleprompter, she lashed out at all of us who dared to question her use of violent imagery, calling us ‘reprehensible.’ Rather than signaling a willingness to change her language going forward, Palin controversially labeled our calls to renounce violent eliminationist rhetoric as "blood libel" — a term which itself invokes a long and violent history of anti-Semitism.”

In his speech at the Tucson rally Wednesday evening, President Obama asked us to remember the victims, live up to their expectations of us, and not turn on one another. It was one of the finest moments of his Presidency. We indeed must live up to what is the best in America and reject the divisive and sometimes violent rhetoric that is poisoning our political debate.

Here are links to three of the best of the commentaries.

Sam Stein’s “Obama Re-introduces the Human Element to the Giffords Tragedy”

Jeremy Rifkin’s “Will we heed President Obama’s cal for a more empathic society?”

Mark Green’s “Her Candidacy is Over --- Palin’s "Brainwashing" and “Joe Welch” Moment”


Finally, here is the link to the Huffington Post’s full coverage and analysis.

And after we've reflected on the tragedy and prayed for the victims and their families, let's have a reasonable discussion as a nation on what measures we can and should take to prevent this from happening again. 

Political Violence

This weekend’s tragedy in Tucson points out once again how hate speech and “Second Amendment” rights have distorted and are now on the verge of seriously damaging American democracy.

Yes, the murders and the attempted assassination of Representative Giffords were the actions of a deranged man…but the deranged man was legally carrying a concealed weapon, that had been legally obtained. Guns, concealed or otherwise, have been carried to political rallies before - including one where President Obama was speaking.

Until Saturday, these guns have only been used to attempt intimidation. A line was crossed Saturday.  In hindsight, it was bound to be crossed at some point. The right mix of permissive gun laws, virulent political speech and a mentally unstable person came together in Tucson and six people are dead.

Giffords was apparently the target from alleged findings at the killer’s home. She was also famously targeted by Sarah Palin’s cross-hairs as one of 20 representatives that needed to be defeated. In announcing the map, Palin issued a tweet urging her supporters "Don't retreat. Instead — reload!"

After the murders, a Palin aide denied that they were actually meant to be cross-hairs. Not sure how this is consistent with the tweet. A strong denunciation of violent rhetoric and an apology by Sarah Palin would help us believe it.  In fact, a strong denunciation of all hate-filled, divisive or violent speech by all political leaders would be a good start to regain civility in the national discourse.

In another twist of this sad story, "U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, who was killed in the Tucson shooting rampage, appeared to have been an innocent bystander Saturday, but was the target of death threats in 2009 when he emerged as a central figure in Arizona’s bitter disputes over illegal immigration." [Los Angeles Times article on Chicago Tribune website]

Marty Kaplan posted an excellent article yesterday. “The Vitriol in our National Bloodstream” shows some of the right-wing reaction to the sheriff in charge of the case decrying “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.”

Kaplan notes Reagan's quote that "Government is the problem" but concludes: "He was wrong. The problem is bad government, and the job of every generation is to make it work better, not to drive a stake through its heart….Killing government is the mission of an assassin. The vitriol in our national bloodstream is the crackpot notion that killing government is the mission of the rest of us.”

CORRECTION: This post originally indicated nine dead.  That was incorrect. Six were killed,

111th Congress' Accomplishments

With a flurry of activity in its closing days, the Democratically-controlled 111^th Congress closed its session with a record of accomplishment unmatched since the 1960’s. After the concession on high-end tax cuts and the 13-month extension of unemployment benefits, several pieces of long-delayed legislation made their way through the Senate: ratification of the New START treaty, repeal of DADT, and funding for the First Responders Act.
Earlier in its two-year term and often in the face of obstructionist tactics by Republicans, the 111^th Congress had already succeeded in pushing through:

$814 billion stimulus for the economy
Rescue of the American auto industry
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform& Protection Act
Health-care reform
Extension of insurance for a million children under SCHIP
Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention ActBloomberg News in an December 22^nd article noted: “The 111th Congress made more law affecting more Americans since the “Great Society” legislation of the 1960s.” The article summarizes the session’s accomplishments and points out the impact of the legislation - for example, 3.3 million jobs created or saved by the stimulus. Democrats realize that it will take years for the public to recognize the accomplishments. Perhaps Representative Louise Slaughters’ statement (quoted in the Bloomberg article), best sums up what happened in the November elections. “What we did was work, and our reward was, ‘Get out of here,’” said Representative Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat and outgoing chairwoman of the House Rules Committee. While Slaughter won re-election, five of her New York colleagues were among Democrats defeated.

With the Republicans now controlling the House and having a larger minority in the Senate, it’s hard to see the 112^th accomplishing much. I guess the good news is that Democrats still control the Senate and can block the more misguided of the Republican legislation coming to the floor. And, as a last resort, Obama can veto it. Hopefully there will be some bipartisanship over the next two year but the early signs aren’t encouraging.