- Image via Wikipedia
I am, I admit, a registered Democrat. This is for three reasons. First, I agree with many of the classic Democrat views of social issues. Second, I generally disagree with Republicans. Third, and most importantly, I like being able to vote in a primary. However, my primary political loyalty is to the United States. As such, I will side with the Republicans should they do what is best for the general good. Now that they have control of the House, I would like to see them focus on the general good.
One thing I would like to see the Republicans do is re-evaluate the Bush era tax cuts. To be specific, the tax cuts for the majority of Americans should be left in place. However, the tax cuts for the extremely wealthy should be reduced. After all, we are in a time of crisis and it seems reasonable to call on those with so much more to give a a bit more back to the country that has enabled them to become fabulously wealthy.
I would also like to see a reform of campaign finances. The current system is focused on gathering money from special interest groups, corporations, and such. This system leads to serious problems ranging from keeping the politicians constantly on the money hunt as well as making them beholden to those who be holding the money bags. Of course, the current system favors the current politicians and hence change seems unlikely.
I would actually like to see the health care legislation reviewed once more. To be honest, I am not sure what is in all those pages and I think it would be a good idea to review them. I suspect that there are some things in there that need fixing or change. I am, however, in favor of health care reform. While we do have the best health care that money can buy, many people simply cannot buy this care.
I am, which might shock some folks, a fiscal conservative. Until I got married (and later divorced) I was a cash on the counter person. After all, going into debt (or into a deficit) has a multitude of negative consequences. While federal spending is not perfectly analogous to personal spending, the basic principles do seem to apply. As such, it would be an excellent idea to reduce spending and cut the deficit.
My concern, of course, is that the Republicans will cut education and social spending while protecting the sacred corporate and defense cows. As such, I have little hope of any meaningful deficit reduction.
Speaking of defense, I would like to see a proper evaluation of our intelligence and defense strategy. Our current model seems to be to dump cash on problems without a clear and focused overall strategy. We are also stupidly obsessed with tiny foes such as the minuscule terrorist groups. We should, rather, focus on those who have armies, tanks, planes, and significant political and economic clout. In short, while we piddle away with Al Qaeda and their ilk we are allowing China, India and other countries surge ahead on the world stage. As should be obvious, I am not against defense or using our power in the world to ensure our safety. I am against squandering our power, piddling away our resources, and serving the short term selfish interests of contractors at the expense of the general and enduring good.
While I have a huge wish list remaining, I’ll close with a final hope. The Republicans and Tea Party folks talk a good game about getting government off our back. I do agree with that sentiment: I prefer having the government off my back, too. However, I want the government to have my back when it comes to things like pollution, dangerous products, and so on. But, getting back to my original focus, I would like to see the Republicans make good on all their small government and freedom talk.
Of course, getting government off our back does seem to directly contradict their social agenda-which is largely about getting government on our backs about things the Republicans don’t like. But, I think they should have the chance to put their laws where their big freedom mouths are (of course, their mouths are big enough so that they can say “liberty” with one side while demanding intrusive government impositions with the other). So, for example, they can lift the federal laws against pot, they can stop talking about opposing Roe vs. Wade, they can shut up about their defense of marriage proposals (talk about getting big government into the bedroom), and so on. It is time to put up or shut up about getting government off our backs.
“My concern, of course, is that the Republicans will cut education and social spending while protecting the sacred corporate and defense cows.”…Well there’s the rub, ain’t it? Why is defense a “sacred cow” but “social spending” isn’t? Without defense, you don’t have a country. Yes, the budgeting is a matter of degree and we shouldn’t just throw money at defense. Absolute-ism is for absolute fools. But priority-wise, why should the party that is traditionally strong on defense (though see R’s feelings about defense spending pre-WWII) adopt the social spending attitudes of D’s? Especially as the R’s are moving more to the idea that social spending is not the Federal government’s job.
And why must education money travel all the way to Washington before it gets back down to where it’s needed? Unless of course it’s needed in DC…I jest. Yet look at what happened when sane, rational (I believe) Democrats tried to straighten out DC’s education mess. Why should we trust the more looney elements of the D party to control education money?
“In short, while we piddle away with Al Qaeda and their ilk we are allowing China, India and other countries surge ahead on the world stage.” Aside from grounding a US spy plane about 10 years ago, China has not posed a serious military threat to the US. Now I do have concerns about them, but given the standard position of D’s on far more unstable countries, yours is a rather interesting position regarding China. And WTF with India? Are you afraid they’re going to call-center us to death? AQ killed 2000+ Americans, plus significant lethal attacks in Spain and the UK. They repeatedly call for “Death to America” and they follow up their words with more attempts.
Here’s what I’d like to see the Dems do…Stop pretending that they have all of the answers and think they can control the economy through centralized planning. Respect people’s right to make their own decisions and expect people to be accountable for the decisions that they make. Imagine! They tell me I’m a dreamer, but apparently I’m not the only one…
I’m concerned about China because China is a potential superpower. They have a large economy, have a significant military, and are working hard to expand their sphere of influence. India is also a growing power. The terrorists can kill a few people here and there, but they do not present a fundamental challenge to our political and economic operations in the world.
Take a look at China’s role in Vietnam and the Korean war. Also, look at the spreading influence of China in the world. We might not go tank and gun against China, but we are going up against them in dollars and diplomacy.
I am not claiming that we should simply ignore the terrorists. But we should be looking more at the folks with a real military, a huge economy, and growing diplomatic influence. We should also keep an eye on Russia, Iran and North Korea. While terrorists might get a nuke someday, Russia can still nuke our cities.
The war on terror is a distraction from the real conflict and the obsession with terrorists is wasting our resources and eroding our liberties (full body pat downs at airports, for example).
I don’t know where to begin, Mike…OK, perhaps top down…
If you are concerned about other countries exerting more influence on the world stage, you need to take a critical look at Obambi’s policies. He wants us to step back from our leadership role in the world. He even went so far as to bow way, way down to the Emperor of Japan. The son of the man who attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Japan. The country that had China on the ropes until we stepped in.
BTW, don’t know if you remember but Vietnam sent a couple hundred thousand Chinese invaders packing. “We might not go tank and gun against China, but we are going up against them in dollars and diplomacy.” Well then why not use our tanks and guns against the terrorists? Don’t see where that supports your point.
China has a huge economy. You say that like it’s a bad thing. We have a huge economy. Europe has a huge economy. Difference is, China’s is not all that well diversified and a significant chunk of it depends on manufacturing and exporting the products conceived and designed in the West, US and otherwise. We stop sending them ideas and their economy, which is quite shaky BTW, is in deep moo goo. In spite of what you may read in the media, we do have leverage. Of course, this assumes Obambi knows how to use it.
And again with Russia, we should be firm with them. Their economy isn’t all that great either, and Putin, as much as I admire his political skills, seems to be oblivious to the damage his politics do to the Russian economy. And Obambi’s all about the reset button.
Iran…Who is tougher with Iran, D’s or R’s? Same with NK. And Obambi missed a prime opportunity to offer at the least, moral support to the people of Iran against The Mullah and The Dinnerjacket.
Careful, Mike, if you’re serious about the diplomatic issues…well, so long as it lasts, you do get to cast your vote in private…
Obama has kept up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has stepped up drone attacks. I am critical of those policies. True, fascist Japan did have our ally China on the ropes. But, beating Japan was the right thing to do. However, having China fall to the Communists turned out to be a serious problem. Perhaps we could not have changed this, but perhaps we could have.
As I have said on many occasions, we should counter the terrorists. However, we should match our efforts to the level of threat they present. Also, tanks are not much use against terrorists in most cases.
Oh, China having a big economy can be good for us-they buy our products, we buy theirs and they shore up out deficit spending. But, they are a competitor. We should be willing to work with them, but we should not be blinded by the vision of KFCs dotting the Chinese landscape. Right now we are sort-of-semi-friends. But, that could change rapidly.
“Oh, China having a big economy can be good for us-they buy our products….” Since when? I give 50-1 we buy their products over theirs.
They do buy our stuff. Even Apple has stores there. Of course, the Apple computers are made in China.
I didn’t say they di not buy our stuff. I would say dollar amount goes to China hands down. Look at where everything that is bought here is made and everything that is bought in China is made. They like Buicks too Mike.
Let’s not forget the Dems still control things for the most part.
Just not everything.
I’d like to see action on agreement to cut entitlement spending (Social Security and Medicare) and at least substantially eliminate the Bush tax cuts. We will be facing a budget crisis partially due to the deep gap were in as part of stimulus and such.
What kind of economist are you Bruce?
What kind of economists am I?
Large economy size!
Seriously:
My specialties are monetary economics, Industrial Organization and economic history.
I work power contracts today.
If economic history is one of your specialties then why would you want to get rid of some tax cuts or substantially eliminate them?
Well said. 🙂
I read an article today in teh washington Post that outlined the problem with Paul Krugman’s idea that the bailout was not big enough. The author stated that if Krugman’s idea was correct, no amount of money the government ever dumped in to the economy would be enough. Thus, Krugman’s thinking was fatally flawed. The only way out of this mess is the long hard road of spending less than than the government gets in taxes and everyone will have to bear the burden. We just can’t have everything at once. If that means cutting my position in the Army and me having to find another job, so be it. At least if we take these steps, other jobs will finally be available.
I did want to give Obama a chance, I really did. You can go back and read my blog posts from when he was first elected. He’s been called the Manchurian Candidate, and I think that’s very appropriate. People saw a talented, charaismatic, yet naive person, and many people tried to push their agenda though him, using his likeability and speaking ability. But these people were far, far to the left. I don’t think he’s a horrible person, but he was very naive and in my opinion, just not qualified for his position. He got used by ideologues and we have to pay the price.