November 2016 Unemployment Numbers

No matter which side of the aisle you're on, this is good news for all of us.  But, given that it's an NPR promotional piece, it should be viewed with moderated optimism.

In order to have a legitimate recovery...one in which less fortunate Americans participate...we have to add between 225,000-250,000 jobs per month.  That's not a Rick Number...that's what the current administration said when they pushed for the $700,000,000...which grew to 1Trillion+... stimulus package in 2009.  So please view the 178k adds in that light.  Additionally, the raw number isn't adjusted for seasonal hiring, though the rate is.

And, as others have pointed out, for political reasons the administration still seems slow to acknowledge, and focus on, our fellow Americans who have become so discouraged that they have resigned from the labor force, and those limited to PT roles though they seek FT employment.  They compose the more important (IMO) unemployment metric known as U6.  Of the estimated 0.3 improvement in Nov. unemployment, fully 0.1 of that drop is attributed to our fellow Americans giving up...226,000 of them.  Compare that to the 178,000 new jobs created and you get a more detailed picture of what's happening.  (The numbers seem off because some folks move from the U3 group to other groups 'short' of the U6 category)  And while it is true that U6 includes individuals who have 'retired' earlier than we anticipate, and that could be a great thing depending on the circumstances, there's another number we should weigh when we talk about our economy - the number of Americans receiving means-tested transfer payments ('welfare') in order to make ends meet.

We have 79 federal means-tested programs that fall under the 'welfare' umbrella, so it's nearly impossible to determine exactly how many Americans fall in the category, but the most reliable numbers I can find are somewhere between          90 -100,000,000 people.  That includes all ages.  It doesn't include anybody who is receiving State or local 'welfare' but not receiving Federal.  My guess is that number is insignificant, though.  It also doesn't include anybody receiving 'entitlement' programs like SS retirement and similar benefits individuals paid into over their working career.

Again, falling unemployment is a good sign.  Just remember a LOT of people aren't seeing the benefits of the recovery.  And a LOT of people are only getting by because of our social safety nets.  Safe to say some of them made up the Trumpsters who have had enough of being marginalized by what they see as a corrupt system.

Bush Lied - People Died

...is a favorite meme of the left.  Bush lied about the WMDs and thousand of people died because of it.

For the last 5 years or so I've asked the BLPD crowd a simple question and have never received an definitive response;  "When did Iraq cease to have WMDs"?

Bueller?  Bueller?  Bueller?

Pro-Choice?

A recent report out of India tells of sex-selection abortions...abortions conducted because the family didn't want a girl, and mom was carrying a female fetus.  http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

For my pro-choice readers, is there anything wrong with this practice?  If woman has ultimate control over her reproductive system, is it ok for her to get an abortion based on the sex of the fetus?  Since sex can be determined at about 16 weeks, and in the US you can get an abortion up to the 24 week mark with few questions asked, it could happen.  In fact, how do we know it hasn't happened?

And if it's ok to abort based on the sex of the fetus, what about the race?  What if a women had consensual sex with more than one partner in a short span of time, and they were of different races.  Could a white women get an abortion because she didn't want a mixed race baby?

Research indicates that up to 92% of all Down syndrome pregnancies are medically aborted at the request of the mother.  http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_ParentingResource/down-syndrome-births-drop-us-women-abort/story?id=8960803
Given the fantastic pace of medical technology, it won't be long before a host of other physical features can be predicted in utero.   I wonder if the pro-choice folks will still feel the same way.

I need to see your green gun, please.

If you want to buy a gun or ammo...
1.  Every two years you head down to you local police department and take the "Federal Ammunition & Gun Safety" (don't say it) test.  It's a 20 question test that is easily available on-line, as are the answers.  But you have to take the test with no notes.

2.  Assuming you pass the test (if you don't know how to handle a loaded weapon we don't offer OJT) you get a little green gun sticker to put on your government issued photo ID.

3.  Next time you want to buy ammo or a gun, the cashier has to verify you have the sticker.

The reason you have to go to the police station for the test is pretty simple, they're going to run a background check on you for outstanding warrants.  If you're dumb enough to walk into the police station knowing you have a warrant out for your arrest, you're too stupid to be trusted with a gun or ammo.  If you have a warrant out but don't know it....well consider it a public service announcement when they tell you why you are being handcuffed.  If you're too dense to pass the test, you're definitely too dense to own a gun.

Now just because you pass the test and get your little green gun, that doesn't mean you can buy a gun or ammo...you still have to pass the NICS test at the dealer.  One of the key difference between the NICS test and the Federal Ammunition & Guns Safety test is that if you fail the NICS there's nobody there to arrest you, if you should need arresting.  If you come up hot for a warrant while you're in the police station taking the Federal test, you're getting arrested.  Another key difference is that you need the green gun in order buy ammunition.

Obviously folks can buy guns and ammo on the street...if the supplier can pass the tests.  But if they're caught with either a gun or ammo by the police, they better have the green gun sticker on their ID.   Absent the sticker, the assumption is that you stole the gun\ammo.

Beef up the NICS

Keeping guns away from folks who shouldn't have them is one of the common sense desires expressed by just about everybody in the gun debate.  There's been lots of talk about the quality of data in NICS (National Instant Crimminal back-ground check System) with the NRA recently pointing out the disparity between the number of people institutionalized for mental health reasons compared to the relatively lower number of people in the NICS.  For a detailed explanation of the NICS, click here.

From the site:
Federal Categories of Persons Prohibited From Receiving
A delay response from the NICS Section indicates the subject of the background check has been matched with either a state or federal potentially prohibiting record containing a similar name and/or similar descriptive features (name, sex, race, date of birth, state of residence, social security number, height, weight, or place of birth). The federally prohibiting criteria are as follows:

• A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
• Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
• An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
• A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
• A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
• A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
• A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
• A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
• The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
• A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
• A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Besides the current criteria, the following people should also be added to the NICS
1.  If you owe back-taxes at any level
2.  If you have been cited by a court for being delinquent on child support payments
3.  If you have a suspended hunting license
4.  If you have a suspended driver's license
5.  If you're on the TSA No-Fly list

#1 & #2 are simple economic propositions...if you can't pay your bills you shouldn't be spending money on a gun. 
#3 & #4 prevent people who have already show an inability to follow the law regarding potentially deadly "weapons".
#5...well, shouldn't this already be on the list?        

Of course if the data isn't being maintained and kept current, then the NICS is of little value.  I saw a report showing less than 2% of applicants were denied via the NICS.  It could mean that crimminals know the exclusion criteria and decide not to even try to buy a gun.  Or it could mean that the data in the NICS is so bad that people who shouldn't pass the check, actually are passing.  My inherit lack of faith in the federal government's ability to manage a database pushes me towards the latter.

Justice Hillary Rodham Clinton

Lot's of speculation regarding HRC's future and the presidency.   She's going to move up, up to the bench, not the WH, though.

Chelsea, married and in her early-30s, has publicly stated she wants children.   HRC knows, as well as anyone, the demands of running for POTUS and then, if you're unlucky enough to win, being the POTUS.  If there's something beyond 24/7, being the most powerful person on the planet probably calls for it.  Compare that to a lifetime appointment to the USSC.  Though a term lasts 12 months, the only time your work schedule isn't incredibly flexible is May-June.  Ten months out of the year, you're pretty much free to do whatever you want.

HRC has been in public service for the majority of her adult life.  We're all familiar with her ups and downs, her successes and failures, and her contributions to the nation.   Recently her health has taken a turn for the worse and she turned 65 in October.  Perhaps you've noticed how BHO has aged over the years...it's a grueling job emotionally and physically.  Who needs that...certainly not somebody who has already demonstrated her abilities on multiple occasions.

HRC on the SC solves a lot of problems.  It rewards her for her loyal and faithful service.  It gives her more time with her (probably growing) family.  It's less taxing on her health.  She will be able to influence the nation for years to come.   She'd have to answer to no one for her decisions and be able to say (or not say...Justice Thomas) exactly how she feels without worrying about the political repercussions.  There are other reasons it would be appealing to her, but let's not leave BHO out, because there's lots in this move for him, too.

Liberals would simply go wild over this nominations...and R's would be helpless to stop it.  A dynamic President Obama seems to cherish.  True, HRC has no judicial experience, but that didn't stop 40+ men without judicial experience from climbing on the bench.  What else are they going to derail her with...Monica...Benghazi?  BHO gets mad props, keeps the Clinton's in the game (what if HRC runs but loses a POTUS run?) and, probably most important to his followers, replaces a liberal justice (RGB?) with another stalwart (and female) lib.  Genius.

Aim at the Real Problem

Much has been written about how to prevent mass shootings like we recently experienced in Newton...and I boldly proclaim...all of it is wrong.

After every massacre - and that's what these are - we line up along party lines to bicker and fight over the wrong issues....high capacity magazines, mental health, "assault rifles", background checks, violence in entertainment,and the greatest battle of all...the Second Amendment.  Emotions run high, calls for action are passionate, legal scholars weigh-in and politicians give speeches on the graves of the innocent.   The pitched battles and party loyalties prevent us from identifying the real problem, so here it is....

>>>   The discharging of a weapon in the wrong place at the wrong time.   <<<

That's it. That's the problem we need to focus on.  While there may be other related issues, the only thing that actually causes the loss of life is the discharge of the firearm within the range of others.   If some psycho walks into an elementary school with an assault rifle that has a high capacity magazine and squeezes off 30 rounds, people die.  If the same pyscho walks into an elementary school with an assault rifle that has a high capacity magazine and pulls the trigger - but nothing happens - nobody dies.  The key is whether the weapon fires or not.  Nothing else is as important.  

If we can't round-up 12,000,000 illegal aliens who have to interact with society every day just to survive, we're not going to round up 300,000,000 guns sitting quietly in a safe from 80,000,000 law-abiding citizens who believe they have the right (and the backing of the SC) to own their guns.

If we can't get criminals to follow a law that says "Don't murder people" we're not going to get them to follow gun control laws.

Additional gun control laws may be needed...or they may not be, but they won't solve the problem of mass shootings and I'm not even sure they will minimize the number of casualties.  But even if we do reduce the number of casualties, is that our goal....smaller body-counts in elementary schools?

We put a man on the moon >40 years ago. We have functional spacecraft leaving our solar system. We developed artificial organs, artificial intelligence and cheese in a can. Certainly we can develop technology that prevents the discharge of a firearm in the wrong place, at the wrong time by the wrong person.

We should commit to developing technology that allows us to establish a "no-fire net" so that when a trigger is pulled within its range, nothing happens.  Think of the technology used in a wi-fi hotspot except instead of allowing an action (surfing the net) it prevents an action, the discharge of a weapon.  When the signal is received by the weapon, the firing mechanism is inactivated.  Yes, there are lots of technical issues to overcome and you'd need to design the system so that it couldn't (easily anyway) be defeated.  I get that, but isn't it worth it?

Headed for Disaster

Received this e-mail today from the Romney campaign;

**************************

Richard, President Obama's foreign policy is a foreign concept to Americans.  His policy is one of passivity and denial, which places America and our allies at the mercy of those who mean to do us harm. Despite all the recent catastrophes, President Obama continues to show that he does not grasp the gravity of what's occurring -- and he has no strategy to protect and advance our interests. He has downgraded our relationship with Israel, failed to develop a strategy that protects and advances our interests in the Middle East, and put our  nation on track for massive cuts to the defense budget. In a time of testing, an American president must demonstrate strong leadership. Mitt Romney will provide the leadership needed to shape world events and protect our interests and our  ideals. Mitt Romney will call terrorism what it is; he won't abdicate American leadership; and he will never apologize for America. Mitt Romney will offer a stark contrast between his vision for a strong foreign policy and the failed record of President Obama. Where President Obama has shown weakness, a Romney administration will demonstrate strength and resolve. Where President Obama has shown equivocation, a Romney administration will demonstrate clarity and never hesitate to speak out for  American values. Whereas President Obama insists upon making devastating defense cuts, a Romney administration will prioritize national defense and never  leave our troops and military families without the resources they need to keep our nation safe. In a dangerous world, we can't allow indifference to undermine security. Only strength and clarity can keep the peace. A strong America  equals a peaceful world. We can't afford four more years of foreign policy failures. Donate $25 to help Mitt Romney get elected as our next commander-in-chief. It's time for a real recovery -- our country and our world depend upon it. Thank you, Lanhee Chen, Ph.D. ************************ My response to the e-mail: I support Gov. Romney and will vote for him.  I actively campaign among my friends and acquaintances for Gov. Romney and spend a good  deal of time on NPR and other news outlets fighting for the RR ticket.  I listen to a wide-range of talk radio shows including Air America,  Democracy Now, Rush and Sean.  In short, I'm a political junky.  And yet I've failed to find anybody who thinks President Obama is as  vulnerable on FP as he is on the economy.  I've yet to find anybody who thinks Gov. Romney's FP experience is superior to President Obama's  execution.  Hell, BHO has simply followed GWB...so there's not much to complain about.  What I have found is a lot of people who roll their  eyes when we start talking about Gov. Romney and FP.  What the hell makes you think this is a good move?  MR won the first debate - which  was the most important one.  He's gained in the polls.  He's getting fence sitters in swing states to move his way because he seemed decent and  credible in the economic debate.  Why jeopardize the momentum by attacking a sitting President on FP when the majority of voters either don't  care about it as much as they do the economy, or think BHO has done a decent job? http://oldguy12.blogspot.com/ So, while I will continue to give to the RR ticket, I'm not going to endorse the idiotic notion that going after BHO on FP is going to help the  campaign at all....it will simply come across as excessively partisan politics.  PLEASE don't take this tack in the upcoming debate.  Go for  Mr. Niceguy who has a few difference on FP than BHO does and then get back on the economy....stupid. Rick

Romney - How to Dodge the Foreign Policy Bullet

Governor Romney should become an expert at delivering some version of the following comments whenever he's asked about President Obama's record on Foreign Policy, what he would have done differently or when asked about a specific, current, FP issue;

"Overall, I think President Obama has a done better on Foreign Policy than he has on the economy.  There are some aspects of his foreign policy that I agree with and then there are others that I think I would have handled differently.  But, it's important to remember that, even as a presidential candidate, I don't have access to all of the classified information nor do I receive the same quality of intel briefings that he does.  Finally, until President Bush's administration, we used to have a long standing practice of not attacking the President on foreign policy issues to ensure America spoke with one voice.  So, regardless of whether I agree with President Obama's foreign policies or not, I'm not going to second guess him for political expediency."


Why?
1.  President Obama is much more vulnerable on economic issues than on foreign policy.   Time and resources spent attacking him on FP are time and resources not available to remind everybody that "it's the economy, stupid"

2.  Let's be honest, Mitt doesn't have a FP record to brag about.  In fact, he doesn't have any FP experience at all, except for the Olympics.  That's kind of like bragging that your experience as a community organizer is proof you're ready to lead the free world.

3.  Speaking about a lack of FP experience...Paul Ryan is a little lite on that one, too.  At least BHO could point to Joe Biden in 2008.

4.  These responses leave very little room for counter-attack or even further digging because MR isn't really saying anything negative about BHO's record nor is he saying anything specific about his own FP plans or beliefs.   Mitt can control the conversation while appearing to stay above partisan politics.  He can play the  "I don't have enough information to really comment"- card, implying that his access to the intel is insufficient compared to what the President has and that commenting without knowing all the facts would be inappropriate.   If the facts are publicly known he can play the "I'm not going to second guess the President for political gain" - card.

5.  President Obama does have a pretty good record on FP.   Iraq wound down just like President Bush set it up to so it's hard for conservatives to blame President Obama for whatever happens.  He tried the "surge" strategy in Afghanistan and gave the commanders most of what they asked for.  It's pretty clear that we aren't going to accomplish much more in Afghanistan, regardless of who the CINC is, so setting a withdrawal date is fine with me....just wish it were sooner.  Additionally, whenever liberals start bragging about P. Obama's FP, conservative frequently respond that BHO is simply following in GWB's footsteps...doing the same thing GWB did.  If that's the case, then there really is very little for conservatives to complain about.  Yes, we don't know how the "Arab Spring" is going to play out and the evidence seems to be pointing more and more to a failure of leadership regarding the terrorist attack on our embassy in Libya.  And Iran is still trying to develop a nuclear weapon, but what, specifically, would MR do differently?

6.  MR needs some of the voters who supported BHO in 2008 to either stay home or come to the R side.  The best way to do that isn't to make them feel stupid for voting for BHO in the last election.  MR needs to tacitly imply that voting for BHO in 2008 wasn't completely stupid, and by giving him his props in FP, Mitt is giving the swing voters an out...they can feel good about BHO's FP performance, (especially compared to GWB's in their mind anyway) and that will legitimize their 2008 decision.  Now they can feel good about voting for MR in 2012...BHO was the right guy in 2008 and MR is the right guy in 2012.  "People hate to be sold, but they love to buy."  


MR is riding a wave right now because of his performance in the first debate.  Now is not the time to get cocky and to go on the FP attack.  FP isn't that important to voters right now and, in general, President Obama's record on FP isn't nearly as susceptible to attack as his economic record is.  Stay on message and don't give the press or BHO an opening on what is, right now anyway, a sideshow of the election.

Presidential Leadership...RR vs. BO

There's a certain degree of circular logic engulfing discussions about today's economic conditions and it goes something like this...

President Obama inherited the worst economic situation any president has inherited since FDR, so it will naturally take longer to dig ourselves out of the Great Recession than it did to dig ourselves out of any economic downturn since The Depression.   Certainly, the economic turmoil in late 2008 and the ensuing collapse in 2009 were much more severe than your average cyclical downturn.  The problem with claiming President Obama inherited the Great(est) Recession is that the standard economic metrics of GDP loss, the gap between real GDP and potential GDP, inflation rates, and unemployment *at the time he was sworn in* simply don't support the claim.  But it is certainly true that President Obama walked into the early stages of a recession, and the factors that drove the recession elude standard economic metrics.  For instance, how does one compare the deregulatory environment that helped fuel the financial\housing crisis in this recession compare to the regulatory changes that helped fuel the savings and loan\commercial real estate crisis of the early 1980's?  Or how does one factor in the global interdependency of the highly complex (and sometimes illegal) financial instruments of today compared to the wild-west (and sometimes illegal) mentality surrounding the introduction of digital technology to the financial markets of 1980?  

Where the standard, objective, economic metrics may demonstrate that the situation President Obama inherited was short of earning the Great Recession moniker, our inability to measure the subjective factors that worsened the recession shouldn't preclude us from admitting\allowing that it was much worse than the objective metrics indicate.  Yet there is measurement that should receive a great deal more scrutiny than it does, because it leads to circular logic....the length of the recession.  It seem absurd to say that the longer a recession lasts, the deeper the recession the president inherited was.  So the duration of a recession isn't influenced, either positively or negatively, by economic policies implemented by the president or congress?  Either government policies can, or can not, influence a recovery, but as soon as you implement those policies you begin to own the length and depth of the recession.  

Let's take a look at what is probably the single most important metric going into the 2012 election, unemployment, and compare it to the recession of 1980-1982.  I picked that one for two reasons, first, it shares many of the same underpinnings that caused our current recession and second, because a different set of economic policies, but more importantly a different style of presidential leadership, were used to turn the economy around.  Below is a graph demonstrating the percentage change in employment (the inverse of U6) in the 3 years immediately after the recessions ended based on GDP growth.

As you can see, there's a marked difference between the Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery, and while it is tempting to debated the dynamics of the recessions, the political climate of the times and fiscal versus monetary policy, I think those debates, while important, miss the most important element - presidential leadership.

President Obama has, and so did President Reagan, unique speaking skills that set him apart from every other political leader in the US...probably the world at this point.  Both presidents were elected based on deep and widespread disappoint with the previous administration's handling of the economy, and won by tapping into a theme of change and prosperity.  President Obama has to, and so did President Reagan,  deal with a hostile congress that fervently believes his policies are destroying the country while enjoying the full backing of their own parties.  Finally, both presidents were personally (though not politically) popular with the vast majority of Americans.  Yet there are important differences between President Obama and President Reagan...differences that I believe explain the dismal recovery of today compared to the remarkable recovery of the '80s.

1.  President Reagan embraced his political opponents, like Tip O'Neal and Ted Kennedy while President Obama doesn't even embrace leaders of his own party like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  President Reagan routinely invited democrat leaders to the White House for both formal and informal events, eventually wearing down their hostility and making it virtually impossible for them not to compromise with him.  There's a national meme that the Republicans are the party of no and have refused to compromise with President Obama, as if this was the first time in American politics the minority party didn't roll-over for the majority.  President Reagan initially had to deal with the exact same dynamic and he did, by killing them with kindness.  When was the last time President Obama invited John Boehner, Mitch McConnel or Eric Cantor to the WH for anything other than a public scolding?  One can debate whether each of these individual's behavior is adult like or not, but in the end, we only have one President, and he (she someday) has to provide leadership.

2.  When democrats blocked key economic initiatives, President Reagan simply went around them and addressed the nation directly on prime-time TV.  By doing so he both ensured the American citizens that things were going to get better (FDR's fireside chats) and gained their support by pressuring congress to pass his economic recovery plans.  And it worked.  In contrast, President Obama seldom speaks directly to the public and, when he does, he usually complains about the problems he inherited, misrepresents Republicans' positions in order to draw false dichotomies and comes across in condescending,  professorial know-it-all manner.  This infrequent, antagonistic approach has proven ineffective in rallying any meaningful pressure on congress to compromise with him.  Though personally popular, his policies remain unpopular.  Some may argue that's because Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others misrepresent President Obama's positions, and there are ample examples of that happening.  But does anybody believe the New York Times, CNN, CBS or NBC were fair and balanced in their reporting on President Reagan's policies?   The only way the "far right media" excuse works is if you believe guys like Michael Savage are more persuasive than the President of the United States - a role we used to refer to as the "most powerful man in the world".

Policy differences aside, President Obama has failed to offer the leadership and inspiration needed to drive compromise or instill consumer confidence.  And until the consumer perceives government is competently working to address our economic malaise, they won't participate in the recovery.  And complaining about how great the Great Recession is...and using it's duration as proof...isn't going to instill confidence in President Obama's leadership nor economic policies.

"Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

So asked then-candidate Ronald Reagan during the 1980 Presidential Debate with Jimmy Carter. Today's Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, is trying to use the same tactic. I think it's the right idea, but the wrong time-frame.
Let's ask a different question, are you and America better off today than you were on Jan 3, 2007?

Unemployment was holding steady at 4.6%, following 52 consecutive months of job growth.
The Dow Jones Industrial closed 2006 12,621.77...up 19%
The S&P 500 was up 15.70% for the year
The 2006 GDP was +4.92%
The deficit was about $400 billion
The debt limit (ceiling) was $9T
Our S&P credit rating was AAA

Jan 3, 2007 was the day Democrats took control of both houses of congress. That's the day America was introduced to the "leadership" of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Democrat control of all the committees. Things have been horrific since then, and that's not just a inconvenient coincidence, it's a very convenient (for Romney anyway) truth.

President Obama enjoys wide personal popularity among the electorate, and going directly after him isn't going to win many votes for Mr. Romney. Besides, the fact is the economy was in terrible shape...and heading south quickly...when BHO took over. A more effective approach is to associate President Obama's policies (and by extension, him) with the widely unpopular Reid-Pelosi tandem of failure. By using Jan 3, 2007 as the reference date for "are you better off?" Romney can point to a time when our economy was in great shape and ask Americans to compare their lot today with how it was before Reid-Pelosi-Obama gained control. Remind people, subtly, that Senator Obama was part of the cabal of ineptness that wrought economic ruin to America, and as President these same policies have simply failed to fix the problems they created. Whenever the defense of "he inherited" pops up, the Republican response should be "he inherited it from Pelosi, Reid and himself. Until the Democrats took control of Congress, everything was fine. It's been a disaster since then."

Much like candidate Obama successfully associated John McCain with the 'failures' of GWB, Mitt Romney needs to associate President Obama's failed economic policies with his Reid-Pelosi association...which ushered in economic calamity in the first place.

And for the record...no I'm not better off today than I was 4 years ago.

Iraq and WWII

WWII is frequently looked upon as a just war with a clear and definitive victor - the Allied Forces led by the US.  Nazism was defeated and the world (well the Western part anyway) was saved from tyranny. Since WWII the US has been engaged in a number of conflicts, none of which were "wars" as expressed by the US Constitution, though to those fighting they probably felt pretty war-like. Out of the two dozen or so "conflicts" we've been engaged in since WWII, Vietnam alone holds infamous verb of "lost" as part of its pop history. But to hear pundits talk of Iraq one would think we "lost" that one as well.

If you look back to WWII, what were the objectives of the Allies? How did we measure success and why, looking through the forgiving lens of history, do we consider this conflict, above all others, to be the epitome of a "good and just" cause?


Regime Change
Well, one could hardly argue that getting rid of Hitler wasn't a huge, positive achievement. Removing him from power and holding him accountable for his actions was one of our primary goals of WWII. Yet the same could be said of our goals in Iraq with regards to Saddam Hussein. According to the New York Times, “he (Saddam) murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the physiological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants – friends on friends, circles within circles – making an entire population complicit in his rule.”  To be clear, Hitler's actions resulted in more people dying than did Saddam's, and if a large body count is the prime metric of evilness, Hitler should be ranked higher than Saddam. But Stalin and Mao's actions resulted in more people dying than did Hitler’s, so trying to parse degrees of evil seems a bit untenable since the world allowed those two to operate unabated. Suffice it to say that getting rid of Hitler and Saddam were equally compelling goals and metrics of success for their associated conflicts. If that is the case then, our performance in Iraq was equal to that of our performance in WWII. Hitler was removed from power and committed suicide before being held accountable for his actions. Saddam was captured and, in some bizarre manner, held accountable for his actions. Both ended up in the grave as a result of US-led actions.


Post-War Governance
Besides toppling these dictators, another goal of these conflicts was to ensure that a stable democracy flourished in the post-war years. On this metric the Iraq conflict is already ahead of WWII. Nation-wide elections in Germany weren't held until 5 years after the war concluded. Iraq held nation-wide elections before the war was even over, and has consistently held them ever since. Additionally, it's important to remember that well over half of Europe fell under communism post-WWII.  For 60+ years eastern European countries that had suffered under Hitler lived under the suffocating and deadly tyranny of communism. There simply is no good, reliable account of how many millions died under Soviet rule, but it is undeniable that had the western forces prevailed and democracy was instituted instead of the Iron Curtain, millions more would have lived. Now compare post-WWII communist Europe to Iraq. Except for Joe Biden, nobody is seriously considering breaking Iraq up into separate countries. And even if that is what eventually happens, it is highly unlikely that any of those new countries would fall under the control of a modern day Joseph Stalin. By this metric, ensuring a post-war stable democracy, we've done far better with the Iraq war than we did in western Europe, and infinitely better than eastern Europe, following WWII.


By the Numbers
While there is some subjectivity to how successful the Iraq war was in regards to the above metrics, there is no subjectivity if we look at some often talked about figures;
Number of people liberated
Civilian casualties
US casualties
Cost
Length of conflict

Here are the figures for WWII. Cost is adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2010 dollars
Number of people liberated - 120,000,000
Civilian casualties - 40,000,000
US casualties - 416,800
Cost - $5,000,000,000,000.00
Length of conflict (days) - 2,189

Here are the figures for Iraq. Cost is adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2010 dollars
Number of people liberated - 30,000,000
Civilian casualties - 108,904
US casualties - 4,475
Cost - $800,000,000,000
Length of conflict (days) - 3,185

In tabular format;
     Metric                                         WWII                               Iraq
# liberated                                   120,000,000                      30,000,000
US cost                                 $5,000,000,000,000          $800,000,000,000
cost per\lib                                     $41,667                           $26,667
US deaths                                     415,000                               4,475
civilians liberated per US death         289                                 6,704
duration in days                              2,190                                3,185
us deaths per day                             189                                   1.4
civilians liberated per killed                3                                     275

Putting aside the domestic politics of how we got into the Iraq war, by what yardstick did we lose the conflict? The fact that WMDs weren't found? While there is very legitimate concern over the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, that concern has no bearing on the results of the conflict. Compared to WWII...and every other American conflict save the Revolution and Civil War, our conflict with Iraq was a stunningly subdued victory.

Dead Mandate = Checkmate?

The most contentious part of "Obamacare" is the individual mandate, requiring that everybody either obtain HC insurance or pay a fee.   It is also the central issue the SC will decide on later this month.  The rationale for the mandate is that, without it, too many folks won't buy insurance until they actually need it, and since another portion of the act essentially does away with pre-existing conditions, the economics simply don't work out for insurance companies.  Insurance isn't profitable if it becomes "on demand care" without any prior premiums being paid.  And so, conventional wisdom is that if the SC strikes down the mandate, Obamacare is dead.


But what if President Obama announced, prior to the SC decision, that he was going to pull the mandate out?  That people wouldn't be required to either obtain insurance or pay a penalty?  Then what?  Exactly what would the Republicans' response be?  "Oh no, you have to have the mandate or else folks won't buy insurance?"  Ok, so they don't buy insurance until they need it.  Who looses with that proposition - the insurance carriers or their customers?   If the mandate is removed but the ban on pre-existing conditions stays, you still get a huge number of folks covered but at a huge financial cost to carriers.  Their only response will be to either raise rates on the insured, thereby encouraging them to join the uninsured until they need care, or go out of business.  And if they fold, it will send more customers to either the insurance exchanges or what will inevitably develop if the exchanges are deemed insufficient, a government plan for those who don't qualify for CMS coverage.


I don't support the PPARA, in large part due to the mandate.  But the reality is that if the SC strikes down the mandate but leaves the rest standing, or the President removes the mandate, Republicans and conservatives are going to win the battle but lose the war.

Let's hope the President doesn't realize he's only a few moves away from checkmate.

Buffett Rule

Republicans seem at a loss as to how to respond to the President's call for an additional tax to previously taxed income that is passed on to investors in corporations.  While it's clearly double-taxation of the same dollar, and will encourage folks to invest in other more tax friendly instruments, you simply can't convey the down side of the BR in a sound-bite.  Unfortunately Republicans also don't have the organs needed to simply say "You already take too much from Americans and then waste it...see GSA for the latest proof of your ineptness.  You don't get another penny until you prove you're good stewards of what you already take from us."  So here's my recommendation for the Republicans....

Agree to an increase in the income tax paid by those with an AGI over $1,000,000 under the following conditions;

1.  We use the Alternative Minimum Tax as the mechanism for increasing the taxes these folks pay, after all, that's why we have the AMT in the first place - to ensure the 'super-rich' pay 'their fair share'.  Now one might be inclined to ask why dividends are excluded from the AMT in the first place - good question.  Look no farther than DC to understand how Congress uses the tax code to punish or reward different folks for different strokes.   Regardless, it's a lot easier to implement and explain if you simply include dividends in the AMT calculation.

2.  100% of the 'extra' revenue raised by including dividends in the AMT calculation *must* be used to pay down the debt.  It can't go to any other line in the budget but the one that says we have too much debt and need to reduce it.  So our financial credit rating for further details.

3.  Insist that the AMT, which was introduced in 1970(?), be adjusted for inflation and that it keep being adjusted for inflation.  In typical DC dishonesty, Congress implemented the AMT to catch an incredibly small number of tax filers who were 'cheating' the system...something like 155 filers or so.  However, Congress decide to not index the AMT level with inflation, thereby guaranteeing more and more Americans would be subject to the AMT as inflation naturally inflated income.  While adjustments have been made over the years to ease the hit on the non-super-rich, they've hardly made a dent in the number of Americans who are now ensnared by the AMT.  In 2008 almost 4,000,000 files paid the AMT...a tax that was originally intended to ensure that 155 filers who were apparently getting over on the system would 'pay their far share'.  Now where have we heard that BS line recently?