Mid-Term Prep

It's time to Break It Down!


By the time I post again, you will have voted…or not. The pundits, the “talking heads,” and even a growing number of men and women on the street have been telling us for weeks, if not months, that there is an enthusiasm gap. That is a fancy way of saying, among the prospective electorate, it is anticipated that many more voters will opt for Republicans than for Democrats next Tuesday. In fact, if all goes as most analysts expect it to, the coalition of the GOP and the Tea Party movement will displace Democrats as the Majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, and threaten to do the same in the U.S. Senate.

One of the many beautifully brilliant aspects of our form of government is, as a felon-free adult, you have a choice, and are free to express it. Typically we think of that choice being shaped by the views, philosophies, ideologies, and voting records of candidates. Those are the main factors that tend to lead us to vote for one person or Party instead of another. However, in this election cycle, those elements, in conjunction with a case of prolonged economic doldrums, made worse by acrimonious, hyper-partisan debate in Washington and across the country, have served to discourage many would-be voters from going to the polls. This seems to ring true, particularly for those Democrats and Independents that supported President Obama and his progressive agenda in 2008.

At the end of the day, this discussion is not intended to tell anyone for whom they should cast their votes. However, I do believe, as a result of all the claims, insults, slurs, and stated aims to make this President fail, many of the facts about what the Obama Administration has accomplished in the last 22 months have been obscured, or quite simply lost in translation. Consequently, I want to spend a few minutes to reframe the discussion in a way that clarifies the record. I hope you will agree that regardless of your position on the issues, one is well served by knowing the facts, even when they do not support or complement the partisan rhetoric that so often carries the day.

Most often, I delve into and pull from a vast array of source material to develop my posts. I am deliberately taking an alternate tack today. I read a piece from Rolling Stone Magazine, at a friend’s urging. It is without question, the most compelling distillation I have seen of the various sides of the Obama accomplishment conundrum. The article discussed eight key areas in which President Obama has distinguished himself in historic and positive dimensions, through his legislative and policy achievements. Regardless of ideological bent, his work in these arenas is significant; made all the more impressive by the withering opposition from an opposition Party committed to defeat his every initiative.

You can read Tim Dickinson’s article in its entirety in the October 28, 2010 Edition of Rolling Stone. Here are the eight areas Mr. Dickinson detailed:

• Averted a Depression

The number that is most frequently used to pair President Obama with the concept of failure is 9.6. The trenchant unemployment rate that gives rise to the argument that Mr. Obama has failed to solve the nation’s most pressing problem.

And while that is a depressing number, consider the cavernous abyss we avoided, due to Mr. Obama’s conviction, commitment, and leadership. Based on analyses by economists from Princeton and Moody’s, more than 16 million jobs would have been lost without the interventions of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), the Recovery Act (Stimulus), and the Federal Reserve, twice the damage suffered. Unemployment would have soared to 16.5 percent, and next year, the federal deficit would have more than doubled, to $2.6 trillion. Given what amounts essentially to deflation in prices and wages, the economists concluded, “this dark scenario constitutes a 1930s-like depression.”

The President played a pivotal role in avoiding such a cataclysmic disaster.

1. Re-nominated Ben Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve

2. Backed the Central Bank’s use of record-low interest rates

3. Demanded transparency from the Fed (Federal Reserve) & Wall Street in administering “stress
    tests” (which restored confidence of panicked investors & allowed “zombie banks” to return to life
    without resorting to nationalization

Due to such deft stewardship, the Treasury now estimates the price tag for the TARP bailout has dropped from $700 billion (the equivalent of the Pentagon’s annual budget) to $29 billion (about one-fourth the spending on veterans). Moreover, Mr. Obama drove the passage of the Recovery Act, which the Princeton-Moody’s study concludes has created 2.7 million jobs.

“The stimulus did what it was supposed to do,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s, and a former adviser to John McCain. “It ended the Great Recession and it jumpstarted a recovery.”

Critics labeled the Recovery Act a failure because it did not hold unemployment to below eight percent, as the President’s economic advisers said it would. Alternately liberal economists accused Mr. Obama of failing to fight hard enough for a bigger stimulus that would have saved more jobs. Together, these positions reflect both the refusal to consider how much worse the situation would have been without any stimulus, and the fact that the bill just squeaked through in the form that was passed.

However, the President also won, subsequently, a series of stand-alone measures – including three extensions of unemployment benefits, the Cash for Clunkers program, a second round of aid for states and a package of loans and tax cuts for small businesses – that have infused another $170 billion into the economy. The Recovery Act itself has grown from $787 billion to $814 billion thanks to provisions pegged to metrics like unemployment.

In fact, should President Obama secure passage of two new programs he has proposed — $50 billion in infrastructure spending and $200 billion in tax breaks for investments in new equipment — he will have surpassed the $1 trillion stimulus that many liberal economists believed from the beginning was necessary. "As the need became more obvious to people, we were able to take additional steps to accelerate progress," Obama senior adviser David Axelrod tells Rolling Stone. The president, in effect, has achieved through patience and pragmatism what he was unlikely to have won through open political warfare.

• Sparking Recovery

The day to day assessment and evaluation of the Recovery Act tends to be big-picture and two-dimensional. Has the stimulus put us on the path to recovery – yes or no? The stimulus, however, was far more than microeconomic medicine. Yes, it was designed to deal with the economic catastrophe at hand, but it was also framed to make investments critical to reviving the middle class and improving the nation’s long-term competitiveness.

Quiet as it is kept, the law included the most progressive middle class tax cut ever enacted – delivering benefits to 95% of working families. It invested $94 billion in clean energy and $100 billion in education – unprecedented levels in both areas. In addition, it devoted $128 billion to health care and $70 billion to mending America’s safety net – including direct cash payments to the elderly, the disabled and impoverished parents, as well as billions invested in low-income housing, food stamps, and child care.

"If you passed each of those as separate pieces of legislation," says Norman J. Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, "that in and of itself would make for a very significant record of accomplishment." Seen through this prism, the stimulus alone represents a strikingly progressive presidential legacy — rivaling the biggest reforms of the Clinton presidency. And it passed on Obama's 24th day in office.

• Saving Detroit

The angry left paints President Obama with the brush of a corporate lackey unwilling to take bold action on behalf of average Americans. The fact is, this picture does not resemble the President who made a $60 billion bet on the future of the U.S. auto industry — and hit the jackpot.

Michiganders, auto workers, and their families aside, the prospect of recycling TARP funds to save GM and Chrysler from liquidation was wildly unpopular — a fact that Obama's top political counselors, warning against the intervention, vigorously impressed upon him at the time.

Politically unpalatable as it were, inaction was simply economically intolerable: Had the administration allowed GM and Chrysler to go under, it would have triggered a collapse of parts suppliers and dealerships nationwide, creating such collateral damage that even Ford would likely have gone belly up. The collapse would also have led to the loss of more than 1 million jobs, primarily in the devastated economies of Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, where unemployment is among the highest in the country.

Rather than bailing out the automakers by providing them wads condition-free cash, as the Bush Administration had proposed, President Obama went for broke and used the government’s leverage to set the companies on a more competitive course. Despite cries of "socialism" and "Government Motors," the administration bought a 61 percent stake in GM, ousted its chief executive, forced both bondholders and UAW members to make concessions and steered the company through bankruptcy in record time. Simultaneously, the administration invested $8 billion in Chrysler — a dowry, of sorts, to secure the company's shotgun marriage to Italian automaker Fiat.

It's difficult to overstate how effective and efficient the government's intervention has been. By risking $60 billion, Obama saved a third as many jobs as the entire stimulus package, which cost 13 times more. In fact, the auto industry has not only survived, it has roared back to life. GM is profitable and preparing to go public in an IPO that could allow the government to recoup its investment. Ford is prospering, edging out Japanese rivals for quality. Even Chrysler is expanding its market share. "The bailout of the auto industry protected against absolute devastation in the economies of the Midwest," says Ornstein. "And it is now turning out to be a huge financial boon for taxpayers."

• Reforming Health Care

Obama's crowning legislative achievement is health care reform. And true to Joe Biden's pithy and profane assessment, it's a Big F…..g Deal. "All progressives since Theodore Roosevelt wanted it, all Democrats since Harry Truman fought for it, and only Barack Obama got it," says historian Douglas Brinkley. "This is his huge accomplishment."

Obama's $1 trillion reform is neither simple nor elegant. But over the next decade, it will extend health coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans — the equivalent of New York and Illinois combined — by expanding eligibility for Medicaid and subsidizing insurance for low- and middle-income citizens. By the end of this decade, 95 percent of Americans will have health insurance. The law also:

1. Establishes a new bill of rights for patients

2. Bans denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, beginning in 2014

3. Precludes annual caps on benefit payouts, beginning in 2014

4. Prevents arbitrary revocation of coverage of those who get sick, beginning September 2010

5. Children with existing illness can no longer be denied insurance

6. Younger Americans can remain on their parent’s insurance until age 26

7. 1 million elderly citizens are receiving checks fro $250 to fill the gap in Medicare’s coverage of
    prescription drugs

8. All of the above is accomplished while extending the solvency of Medicare by twelve years, and cutting
    the deficit by $143 billion over the next decade

Historians rate President Obama highly for finding a way to push through health care reform even after the surprise election of Republican Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's former Senate seat in Massachusetts. "One of the most extraordinary moments of this presidency was the decision to go for broke on health care after Scott Brown," says Doris Kearns Goodwin. "Instead of deciding to pull back — we'll get half a loaf or whatever — Obama was willing to take a risk at that point. They could have lost that whole thing, and it would have been devastating for his presidency. Somehow, even though we saw the ugly process, it did work in the end."

In gaining passage of the health care bill, the President defeated the anti-government Republicans who sought to destroy him politically and created a program that will benefit Americans for decades to come. It was a costly victory. Many liberals and conservatives attack it from polar ends; conservatives because it costs too much, they say, while the left contends it does not go far enough without a public option, and single-payer apparatus.

The administration remains unapologetic. "We couldn't have gotten there with the public option," says Axelrod. "The choice was between letting the thing fail or taking a huge leap forward for everyone who will benefit from this now and for generations to come. It wasn't a hard choice to make."

• Cutting Corporate Welfare

Although Obamacare, as his critics call it, does not contain a public alternative to for-profit insurance, the President did succeed in dismantling a major corporate gravy train. The health care bill is paid for, in part, by cutting $136 billion paid out under Medicare Advantage — a Bush-era boondoggle under which private insurers were larded with subsidies for the dubious service of inserting themselves as middlemen between patients and government-run Medicare.

Simultaneously, President Obama also used the health care bill to end corporate welfare in an entirely different arena: student lending. For decades, megabanks like Sallie Mae have reaped billions by doing the paperwork on loans to college students — even though Uncle Sam sets the rates and assumes virtually all the risk. The president's Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which piggybacked to victory as an add-on to health care, kicked private banks out of the federal lending game. The unalloyed victory over corporate lobbyists will cut lending costs by more than $60 billion over the next decade — $36 billion of which is being reinvested to expand federal grants for low-income and middle-class students. The law also makes unprecedented investments in historically black schools and community colleges, caps student-loan repayment at 10 percent of a borrower's income and pays for a program to forgive the debts of students who make their careers in public service.

"We've stopped this incredibly wasteful practice where there was effectively no benefit for taxpayers, and we were able to recycle that for families and students," says Rep. George Miller, who spearheaded the reform in the House. "We've been fighting for this since the Clinton administration — and Obama had the courage to do it straight up."

• Restoring America’s Reputation

Senator Barack Obama was among the earliest Congressional opponents to the war in Iraq. His clearly articulated opposition was a key factor in propelling him past early favorite, Hillary Clinton, in Democratic primaries. As President, Mr. Obama has stuck to the timetable he laid out, withdrawing nearly 100,000 troops from Iraq — including the last combat brigade, which came home in August. The move meant quietly overruling his top general on the ground, Ray Odierno, who wanted to delay withdrawal.

"Obama gets credit for checking off that box," says Steven Clemons, director of American strategy at the New America Foundation. "Bringing Iraq to a resolution like this is a very big deal." Although 50,000 troops remain — ostensibly in an advisory and training capacity — they too have a date certain for withdrawal: December 31st, 2011.

While Obama has yet to put an end to the fighting in Afghanistan — a war that has now dragged on longer than Vietnam — he has managed to boost America's standing in the rest of the world. Despite the continuing loss of NATO troops, U.S. approval ratings in Western Europe have soared into the 60s and 70s — far higher than during the unilateralism of the Bush era. U.S. approval is up more than 10 points in Poland and Russia, 20 points in China, and 30 points in Indonesia, France and Germany. Overall, global confidence in America's leadership has leaped from 21 percent in 2007 to 64 percent today.

The President himself has shown a deft diplomatic touch: He has thawed icy relations with Russia and negotiated historic cuts in nuclear arms, re-establishing American leadership and credibility on nuclear nonproliferation. He has also convinced Security Council veto-holders Russia and China to back new sanctions to punish Iran's nuclear ambitions — a degree of international cooperation that was unthinkable during the Bush years.

"President Obama has already repaired much of the damage wrought during the eight years of the Bush administration," former secretary of state Madeleine Albright observed in September. "He has restored America's reputation on the world stage."

• Protecting Consumers

President Obama has taken heat from progressive critics — much of it deserved — over the weakest aspects of his effort to reform Wall Street. It remains unclear whether the new law — the most sweeping overhaul of financial regulations since the Great Depression — will do enough to rein in high-risk trading and end the era of Too Big to Fail. But the law does take bold steps to avoid a repeat of the current meltdown. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC now have the power to seize and dismantle firms like AIG and Lehman Brothers and to force the financial industry to pony up the costs of their liquidation. Banks can no longer gamble federally insured deposits on high-risk investments, and they are required to risk a portion of their own assets in the dubious investments they sell — a move designed to prevent firms like Goldman Sachs from profiting off of "shitty deals."

But the most significant facet of the legislation is the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. For the first time, a single regulatory authority will have the power to protect consumers from bad loans and credit deals, the same way the FDA protects patients from dangerous drugs. Armed with an annual budget of $500 million — exempt from congressional cost- cutting — the agency will police everything from payday loans to jumbo mortgages.

For a taste of the kind of regulations the consumer bureau is likely to deliver, look no further than your credit-card bill. Another measure pushed by Obama — the Credit CARD Act — has already forced Visa, MasterCard and American Express to include a box on your statement spelling out how long it will take to pay off your debt making only the minimum payment. It also bans credit-card companies from jacking up your rate without warning, and places stiff restrictions on luring college kids into mountains of debt with easy credit.

The consumer bureau matters not simply to individual borrowers but to the overall stability of the financial system. "Predatory lending played a very big role in the collapse of the financial system," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. The champion and acting head of the bureau, Elizabeth Warren, put it even more bluntly to Rolling Stone earlier this year: "Our financial crisis started one lousy mortgage at a time, one family who got fooled, tricked or cheated at a time," she said. "If nobody can build mortgage-backed securities on trillions of dollars of unpayable instruments, there's a lot less risk in the overall system."

• Launching a Clean Energy Initiative

The President’s failure to curb global warming by passing a comprehensive climate bill stands as his most glaring legislative defeat. But the absence of a cap on carbon pollution has been offset in large part by the enormous strides he has made toward a cleaner, lower-carbon economy. With the Recovery Act, the President effectively launched what greens have long agitated for: an Apollo-like moonshot on clean energy.

Consider that the stimulus targeted $94 billion for clean energy — making unprecedented investments in everything from weatherizing federal buildings to building solar thermal plants in the Mojave. Roughly half of the money involves direct federal spending. But the administration structured the other half — $46 billion — as matching funds and loan guarantees that are realized only when the private sector steps up with capital of its own. According to a report from the President's Council of Economic Advisers, every dollar of federal co-investment is attracting more than $2 in private capital. Add it all up, and the Recovery Act is driving more than $200 billion in public and private investment in clean energy — $20 billion more than the Apollo program would have cost in today's dollars.

"Everybody calls Obama the first black president," says Van Jones, the former green-jobs czar. "But if you were from Mars, and couldn't see race, you'd call him the first green President. That's what distinguishes him on a policy level from every preceding president: this incredible commitment he's made to repowering America in a clean way."

What is the country getting in return? The investment is on track to double the nation's renewable-energy generating capacity by 2012 — bringing enough clean energy online to power New York around the clock. It will also double the nation's manufacturing capacity for wind turbines and solar panels, driving down the cost of clean energy so it can compete with fossil fuels — even if Congress doesn't pass a carbon cap.

The President has also moved aggressively on other fronts to reduce carbon pollution. Cash for Clunkers retired nearly 700,000 gas guzzlers and replaced them with cars that, on average, are 58 percent more fuel-efficient. In the first-ever CO2 restrictions imposed on cars and light trucks, automakers are now required to boost fuel standards high enough to save nearly 2 billion barrels of oil and to reduce carbon emissions by 21 percent over the next two decades. In January, the EPA is expected to do what Congress refuses to: set limits on carbon emissions for large industrial polluters like coal plants and cement factories. And the president has already put America's biggest greenhouse polluter on a carbon diet: By executive order, all federal agencies are now required to reduce their carbon pollution by 28 percent in the next decade. That act alone is enough to scrub 101 million metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere — as much climate-heating pollution as Ireland and Hungary generate combined.

"We have running room to push this forward," says Axelrod. "We can hit the targets we want to hit in terms of reducing emissions, while hopefully spurring a whole lot of economic activity around these new technologies. We're going to keep pushing on that door."

Yes, “Mid-Term Prep” covered a lot of territory, but when the term is four years, you have to expect that. I certainly do not expect every GOP member/Tea Party activist to read this and go out and burn their membership card, or abandon their ultra-conservative views. Rather I would expect those who favor a progressive agenda to reflect on this substantial body of work, and consider the economic and political environment within which it were wrought, and to feel better, if in fact your sense of this Administration's accomplishment were flagging in the first place. Beyond that, I would hope moderates, progressives, and liberals would drop you enthusiasm gap, if you have one, and get to work, recognizing what is at stake.  The fact is, there are those who would like to pretend this President was never elected.  While hisorical records make that next to impossible to achieve, the next aim it seems is to roll back President Obama's accomplishments.

Your vote is a valuable commodity. It is yours with which to do with as you choose. I urge you to use it…early, and to encourage others to do the same.  After all, such a rollback will affect most Americans in more incidiously detrimental ways than it will President Obama's legacy, which is already quite secure.  He is number 44...that is what it is.  I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com/. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/220013?RS_show_page=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_J._Ornstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Kearns_Goodwin

We Have A Winner!

It's time to Break It Down!

This year's mid-term election is shaping up to go down in history as one for the ages. As usual, in order to maintain a reasonable handle on the claims and counter claims of the various candidates, one would do well to keep http://factcheck.org/ and http://snopes.com at the ready. But as the SNL (LivSaturday Night Live) phrase goes, “Really,” the depths of devolution and despair brazenly displayed by some candidates this season is, well, shocking! In fact, there are a few instances, which the only things more unsettling than the candidates’ pronouncements are the fervor, passion, and apparent genuine sincerity with which their supporters defend them, and in some cases, their erstwhile indefensible assertions.

In the 2008 Presidential Campaign, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin distinguished herself as a media magnet with a unique ability to coin a phrase and garner attention from the press, and an often spellbound public. Mrs. Palin, who stepped down early from her position as Governor, is not a candidate in 2010. It is widely debated whether she will run for President in 2012, in the meantime, her influence is apparent across the country. She has affected numerous races through endorsements, fundraising, and appearances at rallies.

Moreover, her legacy is evident in the rhetoric of several candidates. So much so, until, it is only fitting that the candidate who most embodies Mrs. Palin’s “spirit and spunk (as her most fervent supporters might call it), should be recognized for the accomplishment. I’ll return to that later.

A myriad number of candidates qualify for inclusion in this post, by virtue of their public pronouncements. I will note a few, to provide a baseline upon which to frame the discussion. These candidates are noteworthy for the way in which they stand out in a crowded field:

• Jan Drinkwine Brewer, Governor, Arizona
Governor Brewer, running against State Assemblyman Terry Goddard to retain her seat, has uniquely qualified to be included in this conversation. In July, the Governor claimed, audaciously, on local television, "Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert either buried or just lying out there that have been beheaded." Washington Post, July 9, 2010

This revelation seemed to catch the local media by surprise, as they had no knowledge of such events. After numerous efforts by local news outlets to persuade the Governor to tell them what she knew and when, about these mysterious beheadings, the Governor finally relented and told them what she knew…that it didn’t happen.  I am not sure whether her maiden name offers any clues here. 

• Sharron Ott Angle, Nevada Assemblywoman, candidate for U.S Senate
Mrs. Angle is challenging Harry Reid, current Senate Majority Leader for his Senate seat. Late last Friday, in a meeting with a group of Hispanic students at Rancho High School in Las Vegas, during which she intended to quell concerns about an ad that prominently featured three Hispanic men as shadowy, threatening figures, she responded. First, she suggested that maybe the men in the photo weren't Hispanic at all. She went on to say, "You know, I don’t know that all of you are Latino. Some of you look a little more Asian to me. I don’t know that. To make it clear just how hard it can be to tell who is Latino and who is Asian and who is white, I’ve been called the first Asian legislator in our Nevada State Assembly. NYMag.com, October 2010

It would be interesting to poll the members of that student group to see if any of them bough that. I can’t fathom what it might have been like hearing her say that. In reading it, the almost inescapable feel is that has to be the most thinly veneered spin imaginable. But I digress; next!

• Joe Miller, candidate U.S. Senate, Alaska

Mr. Miller is facing Scott McAdams, a Democrat for the Alaska Senate
seat currently held by Lisa Murkowski, who succeeded her father, Frank,
who when he became Governor of Alaska, appointed her to his vacated
Senate seat. Yeah, it’s like that! Murkowski is also running for the seat
as a Write-in Candidate. She was defeated in the Republican Primary,
largely because Sarah Palin endorsed and raised funds for Miller.

Miller has taken positions on a number of issues that diverge not just from
Democrats, but from those of most Republicans as well. For example, he
believes:

1. There should not be a federal minimum wage (The federal minimum wage was established by the Fair
    Labor Standards Act in 1938)

2. Federal powers should be scaled back to only those listed in the Constitution

3. Federal unemployment insurance is unconstitutional

4. Social Security should be phased out

5. Medicare should be eliminated

In Joe Miller’s version of limited government, it is easy to see a trend of retrenchment of many of the protections that the average American has been taught to think of as God-given and inalienable rights. The ones above are just a few of those that have been articulated already. Think about that for a moment.

• Carl Paladino, Republican nominee for Governor of New York


Mr. Paladino is facing-off against Andrew Cuomo, currently, New York State Attorney General. He has carved a niche fro himself by becoming a wealthy businessman in that state that includes the epicenter for world-wide commerce. Along with his can-do spirit has come a flair for controversial statements, positions, and actions. Mr. Paladino has:

1. Promised to "take a baseball bat to Albany" -- the state capital

2. Railed against plans to build an Islamic community center near ground zero in lower Manhattan -- even 
    suggesting that the state take control of the area through eminent domain

3. Steadfastly opposed abortion, even in cases of incest and rape

4. Rented property to Planned Parenthood (The center provides services including the RU-486 pill, which 
    Planned Parenthood calls "medication abortion.")

5. Staunched opposed homosexuality

6. Rented property to gay bars

7. Sent pornographic and racist e-mails

All-in-all, Mr. Paladino has demonstrated that he is fully capable of articulating high standards for others to follow. At the same time, if reports are accurate, he has also shown that when his own financial interests are at stake, he knows when and how to be, shall we say, “flexible.”

OK, those have all been interesting, cute; even compelling samples of what has made Campaign 2010 noteworthy for its zaniness factor. From headless bodies that did not exist, to Hispanics who looked Asian to a certain Senate candidate, to proposals to turn back the clock, to being trapped in a “Deal or No Deal” spin cycle, it’s all stuff that will make you say Hmm. But, if Sarah Palin is the Gold Standard, it takes more than that to earn the Prize.

The final candidate stands out, not just because of the “quality” of her body of work, but because of its depth, volume, and frequency of newly added layers and improved features. Just when you think you seen the zenith, new vistas emerge.

• Christine O’Donnell, candidate for Senate, Delaware

Ms. O’Donnell is vying against Democrat Chris Coons for the seat currently held by Senator Ted Kaufman. Mr. Kaufman was appointed to serve in former Senator Joe Biden’s seat until a 2010 Special Election. He is not seeking election to a full term.

O’Donnell has garnered an impressive array of endorsements, including that of the Tea Party Express, which called her a “strong voice for conservative constitutionalist principles,” the Susan B. Anthony List, the National Rifle Association, the Family Research Council, Sarah Palin, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin.

Ms. O’Donnell has amassed quite a list of assertions, positions, and general statements, open for consideration by the voters of Delaware, the pundits, and the group she proudly refers to as, “We the people.” The list includes, but is certainly not limited to the following:

1. “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" Coons-O’Donnell Debate, October 19, 
    2010, Widener University School of Law

2. “America is now a socialist economy. The definition of a socialist economy is when 50% or more your
    economy is dependent on the federal government." - Campaign Speech

3. “A candidate said several years ago, 'I'm not concerned the reason you vote for me as long as you vote
    for me.'" - Press Conference, in response to a reporter asking if she'd send out bikini photos to gain
    votes.

4. “You know, these are the kind of cheap, underhanded, un-manly tactics that we've come to expect from
    Obama's favorite Republican, Mike Castle [..] Mike, this is not a bake-off, get your man-pants on." -
    Talking Points Memo regarding Castle's allegation that she illegally coordinated campaign activities with
    the Tea Party Express. (Ms. O’Donnell appeared to imply Castle is gay, but denied that point. However,
   an ad company that previous worked with O’Donnell created ads along those lines.  O’Donnell later
   had to distance herself from the company and disavow the ad)

5. “American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with
    fully functioning human brains." - Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor, 2007

6. “During the primary, I heard the audible voice of God. He said, 'Credibility.'" - News Journal, 2006

7. “I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven." / "One of my first dates with a witch was on a
    satanic altar." - Politically Incorrect, 1999

8. “I would have become a Hare Krishna but I didn’t want to become a vegetarian. And that’s honestly the
    reason why. ‘Cause I’m Italian, and I love meatballs. - Politically Incorrect, 1999

9. “You can't masturbate without lust." / "I'm a young woman in my thirties and I remain chaste." - MTV's
    Sex in the 90s, 1996

10. “It is not enough to be abstinent with other people; you also have to be abstinent alone. The Bible says
      that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can't masturbate without lust." - MTV Interview

In the past, I have created Top Ten Lists for a variety of posts. This is not represented as the Top Ten; just ten things Ms. O’Donnell has said during the course and context of her public life, including this Senate campaign, a previous Campaign for the Senate, and earlier. She is funny, she is charming, she is quick-witted; she has a level of media savvy that many observers underestimate. Ms. O’Donnell certainly holds a number of views that many of her fellow citizens deem “unconventional.” And yet, she has found a way to strike, consistently, a resonant chord with a “certain segment of the American population.”

Yes, it is clear, “We Have A Winner!” Christine O’Donnell has shown that she has the mettle, grit, determination, charm, dynamism, intellect, and world view to be deemed a Sarah Palin-in-Training, 2010. Congratulations!

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com/. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O'Donnell

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/19/odonnell-gets-coons-for-constitutional-law-101/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/27/christine-odonnell-craziest-quotes_n_718328.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Krishna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Coons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaufman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widener_University_School_of_Law

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101902501.html?wpisrc=nl_pmheadline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Brewer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902342.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Goddard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharron_Angle

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/10/sharron_angle_tells_hispanic_s.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Miller_(Alaska_politician)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_McAdams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Murkowski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Paladino

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo

http://www.factcheck.org/about/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019924-503544.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101004/el_yblog_upshot/alaskas-joe-miller-states-opposition-to-federal-minimum-wage

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/17/carl.paladino/index.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/carl_leases_to_abortion_clinic_BiaEmJzmSgnQONtOxZUR1H

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/post_293.html

"An Epic Story: Free At Last!"

It's time to Break It Down!

Twenty-three hundred feet beneath the earth’s surface; that is a representative depth for workers mining precious metals, such as gold and copper. More pointedly, that is the depth at which miners were working in San Jose Mine, Chile, when the structure collapsed August 5th. On August 22nd, seventeen days later, it was determined that all 33 miners assigned to the crew were alive, and in reasonably good health.

Although by the time it was discovered the crew was alive and in tact, any number of minor miracles had occurred, including surviving seventeen days on rations allocated for 48 hours, developing a revised social structure to accommodate the needs of 33 men in a confined space, and taking into account their individual phobias and or anxieties. More challenges awaited both the miners and their would-be rescuers.

Two huge concerns were alleviated immediately.

• The men knew they had been found, which precluded continuing notions that officials may have given up on
  finding them; after two and a half weeks, a real possibility.

• Family members, friends and officials recognized that they had an opportunity to ensure the negative
  consequences of the event were confined to harrowing experiences, instead of devolving into a tragedy of  
  immense proportions.

But then the serious work of envisioning, designing, implementing and fully executing a successful rescue mission began in earnest. Initial estimates suggested that it may take until Christmas or the New Year to extricate the miners; which would mean the miners would spend more than four additional months underground, after they were found. This possibility was so chilling, the miners were not told for several days. The list of issues known to be a factor, aside from general health concerns, included anxiety, depression, and fear of the dark.

One of the finer balancing acts entailed ensuring the men were properly and amply hydrated and nourished, yet, in a way that did not cause them to gain too much weight, or girth. These considerations were directly related to the unavoidably tight squeeze some would face as they prepared for their exit from the mine. The dimensions of the 22-inch cage that would have to travel the twenty-three hundred feet up the 24-inch shaft were uncompromising givens. Thus, the size of the miners had to be a variable factor, adjusted accordingly.

As might be imagined, the collapse of the mine resulted in a distress call heard ‘round the world. Fortunately, it not only attracted media attention, but also the interest and concern of problem-solvers. Eventually, heavy-duty drilling hardware and apparatus capable of piercing and penetrating the hard rock surface, yet not causing further collapse had to be found and deployed.   In the end, collaboration emerged that leveraged knowledge, skills, abilities, tools, and equipment from numerous sources, including:

1. Codelco, the state-owned mining company the Chilean government ask to take the lead on the rescue project
2. Geotec Boyles Brothers, a U.S.-Chilean company asked to manage the Plan B drilling effort, one of three run simultaneously
3. Schramm, Inc., a Pennsylvania company which makes the T-130 drill, that bore the hole through which the miners escaped  
4. Center Rock, Inc., another Pennsylvania company which makes the drill bits that penetrated the rock
5. American contractor, Jeff Hart, of Denver, who flew in from Afghanistan to operate the drill that eventually enabled the miners to be freed
6. NASA, which furnished the pod

All were vital to, and integral in forging a plan for the successful outcome.

After several revisions, estimates of the time required to reach and free the miners was shortened. Over the weekend it was concluded that sometime between Tuesday and Thursday of this week was a sound and viable goal.

Last night, just prior to beginning the effort to remove the miners, two additional men, Manuel Gonzalez, a mine rescue expert, and Robert Ros, a paramedic were lowered into the mine to help prepare the men for their rescue. It has been projected that it could take up to 36 hours to return every one to the surface. Officials planned to bring one person to the surface each hour.

At approximately 11:12 p.m., EDT (12:12 a.m. Local Time), Florencio Avalos, 31 was born…again, or at least that is how he may have felt. Avalos a Chilean miner, who along with his 32 colleagues had been trapped for ten weeks, became the first to be rescued. Mr. Avalos, who was second-in-command, was preselected to be the first miner out.

An assessment was made that a group of three men, Mario Sepulveda Espina, Juan Illanes, and Carlos Mamani, because of their advanced skill sets, would be the next to be retrieved. Officials believed if any of the three encountered problems, they could resolve them in the process of their rescue.

Next on tap for rescue are the ten miners who are the weakest, or who suffer from a variety of debilitating ailments, such as hypertension, diabetes, or respiratory infections. Presumably, they may be too weak or enfeebled to get out, if they were nearer the last to leave.

Finally, the last of the miners scheduled to leave is shift foreman, Luiz Urzua. Mr. Urzua is credited for ensuring the miners’ survival during the initial period of seventeen days, when no one outside knew whether they were dead or alive.

This is indeed a good news story; a rare incidence for the news these days. There will be more time for drama, politics, and intrigue. Today, join me in celebrating Chile’s Epic Story: Free at Last!

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/12/workers-begin-to-rescue-trapped-chilean-miners/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/12/world/main6951753.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/12/world/main6951753.shtml?tag=topnews

http://www.livescience.com/environment/underground-mining-process-dangers-100830.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700073162/First-of-33-men-rescued-from-Chilean-mine.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/chilean-mine-rescue-underway-capsule-pulling-men-10/story?id=11865814

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/2-months-later-Chile-mine-rescue-begins/articleshow/6739451.cms

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/chile/8060657/Chile-mine-rescue-final-phase-begins.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101013/wl_afp/alert

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013143440_miners13.html?syndication=rss

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/09/jeff-hart-chile-mine-dril_n_757060.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codelco

What's On Buffett's Menu? Higher Taxes For The Wealthiest Americans!

It's time to Break It Down!

Warren Buffett; second wealthiest man in America (Bill Gates is the wealthiest), has a reported net worth of $45 Billion, that’s billion with a B. Mr. Buffett made three salient points recently, in an interview with CNN’s Poppy Harlow, at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit in Washington, D.C.

In response to questions from Ms. Harlow, Buffett said:

1. The nation’s tax code is broken and needs to be recalibrated.

2. The middle class, upper middle class, and lower middle class should receive a further cut in their
    respective effective tax rates.

3. The government should raise taxes on the richest 2 percent of the country.

In framing his argument, the mega-investor posited that taxing the rich is the best way for government to raise the level of income coming into government coffers. To laser in on his point, he added, “The question is, Do we get more money from the person that’s gonna serve me lunch today, or do we get it from me? I think we should get it from me.”

Not surprisingly, there is vigorous opposition to this argument, which coincidentally happens to serve as the foundation for President Obama’s proposal to permit the so-called Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy to expire at the end of this year. Key opponents to this idea include the Republican Congressional Leadership tag team of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, and House Minority Leader, John Boehner, Ohio. Both contend tax hikes, such as proposed by Mr. Buffett and the President would negatively affect half of all small business income.

In formulating his response to that claim, Buffett observed that the government is faced with the challenge of closing the deficit, and basically has two choices:

1. Tax the rich

2. Delay repaying the debt

In essence, he is saying the money will be taken from the economy either way. It is just a question of whether it is obtained through taxing or by borrowing. In “Breaking It Down,” Buffett says, “If you get a hundred billion more of taxes – just pick a number – from people like me at the top, it means you borrow a hundred billion less out of the economy. Somebody’s gonna come up with a hundred billion.”

On its face, this debate poses an interesting logic gap for the Republican and Tea Party talking points. They consistently present a full-throated roar trumpeting the ideal that reducing deficits, they say, Democrats perennially expand by continuing to implement a variety of costly programs. In turn they maintain that they resist many programs, not because they oppose the programs themselves, but because they are conservative guardians, fundamentally opposed to adding programs without also concurrently providing the revenue to pay for them.

Here’s the rub; since the advent of the Bush tax cuts, the deficit has spiraled. In effect, the tax cuts are and have been a significant factor in driving the deficit. They are the equivalent of adding expenses without countervailing revenue. In plain English, they contribute to increasing the deficit.

The proposal suggested by Mr. Buffett and proposed by President Obama has the intended consequence of slowing the bleeding, by spurring the following outcomes:

• Stimulating the economy by putting more money back in the hands of people most likely to ignite the
  economy by spending

• Counteracting the growing deficit trend by generating more revenue

However, we should not lose sight of the fact there are both long term, as well as short term consequences to consider. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan agency, has released a report that suggests proceeding with caution on the matter of extending any of the cuts. The CBO’s research concludes extending the cuts, except those the President proposes allowing to expire, would provide a net benefit in the immediate future, but if permanently retained, would result in pushing the public debt, 53% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to nearly 70% of GDP by the year 2020, a level not seen since the 1950's, the Post World War II era.

Douglas Elmendorf, CBO director, made clear policy-makers face a difficult choice, and a delicate balancing act. There is public and political pressure at virtually every point across the spectrum. From the public’s point of view, almost no one, regardless of income, wants to pay more taxes. The fact that only two percent of earners would pay more taxes under the President’s proposal seems to be perpetually “Lost in Space.” The aforementioned full-throated roar appears to successfully drown out that rather significant point.

On the political side of the equation, we are reminded that, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” While Republicans have been seeking for an avenue to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, for years, many Democrats facing a tough mid-term election season have suddenly converted to the position that now is not the time to propose, support or vote for any new taxes…on anyone.

Given the multiple considerations that affect outcomes in the near future, as well as a decade from now, it seems the appropriate course is to eliminate the cuts for the most wealthy now, monitor the economy for sign revitalization and recovery, and devising a mechanism to revisit and phase out the remainder of the tax cuts, as the economy rebounds and is better able to sustain itself. Such a strategy, while prudent, will not be politically expedient. In that light, it is unlikely to be implemented.

On July 29th of this year, Michael Linden and Michael Ettlinger, writing for the Center for American Progress, articulated “Three Good Reasons to Let the High-end Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year.” In enumerating their points, they included the following:

1. Billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthy is just about the least efficient use of that money....

The Congressional Budget Office evaluated a variety policies earlier this year based on their ability to boost overall economic growth and employment. The number one thing Congress can do, according to the report, is to increase aid to the unemployed.

2. The Bush tax cuts didn’t deliver what they promised

Overall, the six years following the Bush tax cuts saw a 4.8 percent increase in jobs.....President Clinton, after raising taxes in 1993, oversaw an economy that (saw) an increase of 16.2 percent, and more than three times better than under the Bush tax cuts.

3. The tax cuts for nearly all Americans and American small businesses would stay in place

A recent report from the Joint Committee on Taxation points out that less than 3 percent of all taxpayers with any positive business income at all—big or small—would be affected by the increase in rates.

Just to put this discussion and the ensuing debate in a somewhat more level ground perspective, for those who are neither economists, nor prone to eat, sleep, and drink the particulars of this subject, consider this:

• President George W. Bush and a GOP-led Congress proposed and enacted a series of substantial tax
  cuts from 2001 to 2006

• The cuts reduced everyone’s taxes, but were slanted in favor of the wealthiest Americans

• This year more than half the tax cuts will accrue to the richest 5% of Americans

• At the same time the middle 20% of Americans will derive only 7%

• All of the cuts are slated to end December 31, 2010

• The entire Congress is in virtual agreement that the cuts should remain for those who earn less than
  $250,000; 98% of Americans

• That leaves the 2% Mr. Buffett suggests and President Obama proposes eliminating, and which the GOP
  and Tea Party insist continue receiving the cuts

That is a fairly concise synopsis of the pertinent details about this debate. Yet, somehow, I feel I don’t have your full attention. OK, how about this. According to Princeton Economist, Paul Krugman, in an Op-Ed piece that appeared in the August 22, 2010 Edition of the New York Times, if the so-called conservatives have their way, the check paid out to the richest 120,000 Americans would average $3 million. Understand, that is not their income, nor their tax refund, but the difference they would see in their tax refund (or taxes paid) due to retaining the Bush tax cuts. The headline for that particular Op-Ed was, “Now That’s Rich.” Indeed!

Few people would argue that Warren Buffett knows more than most about the intricacies involved with acquiring and building wealth. Certainly one could disagree with his politics, and as a staunch supporter of President Obama, many no doubt do. But his expertise in this area of wealth building trumps exceeds that of the 99.9 percentile. His theories on social programs might be suspect. He may not be an expert on developing education policy. Geology, astronomy, and/or astrophysics are probably not his strong suits. But when the question is money; how to make it, save it, and yes, even spend it, he’s likely one of the folks whom we should consider among the ultimate Subject Matter Experts (SME).

Many years ago, Albert Einstein, a guy we now think was pretty smart, had this to say about insanity:

• Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

President Obama has made a similar observation related to this discussion. He uses the metaphor, Republicans drove the car in the ditch, and are now asking for the keys back, all the while pledging to remain committed to the same practices that resulted in driving the car into the ditch. Based on his presentation of the subject, it sounds as though Mr. Einstein would have considered doing that insane. What do you think?

What’s on Mr. Buffett’s Menu? Higher Taxes for the Wealthiest Americans! It’s time to serve it up.

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/10/05/f_mpw_buffett_taxes.fortune/?hpt=T2

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/05/buffett-says-cut-taxes-for-the-poor/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/05/warren-buffett-tax-cuts_n_751503.html

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/10/05/f_mpw_buffett_economy.cnnmoney/

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/10/05/f_mpw_buffett_administration.cnnmoney/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081906102.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=2

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/116295-savings-in-boehners-spending-cuts-would-be-canceled-by-tax-cut-extension

http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html