Two items of what I will call "political malpractice" occurred in the past 14 days. First, the "Komen for the Cure" foundation ignored the politics of related to the complicated morality, sensibilities and realities related to sex and the rights to choice and life. By falsely cancelling Planned Parenthood funding based on a political investigation, the previously non-partisan organization hurt its brand by failing to see that clear political impact of a manifestly partisan decision.
Later, the Obama administration committed Political Malpractice by ignoring the advice of its Catholic Vice President and Catholic High administration officials, who advised against such a plan without taking Catholic sensibilities into account.
These two episodes of political mis-stepping highlights my favorite expression from law school, which is "even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and being tripped over." Of course that means that even when a person cannot articulate the reason why, people (and even intelligent animals) know the difference between accidental error and intentional injury.
While the Komen malpractice appears to this observer to have been intentional, and the supporters of Planned Parenthood clearly believed it to be intentional, President Obama's Political Malpractice appears to have been accidental. Of course, that is was accidental makes it even worse, because this means it was unnecessary and avoidable.
America is a Uniquely Religious (and Secular) Nation
This raises two important points - 1) America is a uniquely religious nation; and 2) there is a growing divide between the parties based on religious practice that is bad for America.
The fact is that America occupies a unique place in the Western World. America is both the first nation in the West to have disestablished religion and is also perhaps the most religious nation in the West. Indeed, 43% of Americans regularly attend a church (23% every weekend).
This amount of regular attendance is bested only by two European nations where the Catholic Church had been historically persecuted by former authorities: Ireland (54%) and Poland (63%).
Separation of Church and State Protects both the Church and State
While America is among the most religious, it is also the most disestablished. (Indeed, America is most likely religious exactly because of our disestablishment). The idea of Separation of Church and State is a uniquely American invention. It was invented as a Christian Doctrine, by Baptists in Rhode Island and Presbyterians in Connecticut well before our revolution.
The purpose for this doctrine was to protect the Church from the improper influences of politicians who would use the church as a basis to support political power and personal ambition.
For example, the Baptist Minister Roger Williams left Puritan Massachusetts and founded the religiously tolerant colony of Rhode Island, naming the Capital Providence, because he was certain that God wanted believers free to choose their own church based on conviction and not coercion. The resulting American adoption of disestablishment has produced a legal doctrine on the Separation of Church and State that has kept American religion vibrant because Americans are free to follow their conscience.
Of course, there is little doubt that the absence of religious test, incorporated into the Constitution produces a better government.
Recent Political Trends
Recently, there has been a growing divide among the political parties as to the religious experience of each party's supporters. According to recent Gallup survey, one can predict church attendance by party affiliation as follows:
Attend Worship Weekly: GOP-43% Dem-29% US Avg. 33%
Attend seldom or never: GOP-38% Dem-52% US Avg. 46%
No Religious Preference: GOP- 9% Dem- 19%
The 52% of Democrats that seldom or never attend church in 2011, is an increase of 2% since the identical 2008 Gallup poll. "The slight two-point decrease in Democrats who attend church weekly is similar to the one-point decrease in the national adult sample," Gallup said. The survey also reported a decline in Catholic representation from 26% percent of Democrats in 2008 to 24% in 2011.
As of Noon Tuesday, February 7, 2012, there are few things clear, and many more things unclear, about the status of Texas electoral calendar and the maps for Texas' U.S. Congressional and State legislative races.
THE SAN ANTONIO COURT HAS REJECTED PARTIAL COMPROMISE
First, it appears clear, as reported by detailed articles in both the Dallas Morning News, and the Austin American Statesman, and as discussed yesterday afternoon in Michael Li's 4:45 update on this story, the three Judge Panel in San Antonio is not accepting the "proposed settlement" offered by Attorney General Abbott and some, but not all, of the Plaintiffs suing the state to enforce the Voters Rights Act.
Specifically, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia has appeared to reject any partial deal as satisfying the Court's prior order and instead issued a court Order notifying the parties that "in the absence of a general agreement between all Plaintiffs and the State of Texas, the parties are reminded that they must follow all prior deadlines."
UNCERTAINTY REIGNS AS NEXT HEARING FOR MAPS IS 8 DAYS AWAY
Second, under the court's previously announced schedule, the next hearing on interim maps is not scheduled to occur until Wednesday, February 15, at 8 a.m.
Third, as many parties had previously stated that settlement was the last best hope for an April Texas Primary, the above items places the currently hoped for April primary in jeopardy and places the calendar for the future Texas 2012 primary in a total state of uncertainty.
This Seven Days between Tuesday January 24 and Tuesday January 31, mark a pivotal point in the 2012 Presidential Election Cycle. First, if recent polls from Quinnipiac and the Miami Herald are accurate, it appears that Speaker Gingrich is falling and can't get up. In Hollywood you expect the villain to come back to life after the first attempt. But make no mistake, after Mitt Romney's second series of knockout punches (first in Iowa and now outspending Gingrich in Florida $15 million to $4 Million), it is clear that Speaker Gingrich's presidential aspirations are down for the count. Governor Romney is finally sealing the deal, even if by eliminating the opponents from a less-than-stellar field, and this looks like the two-man race that most experts predicted 12 months ago. If tomorrow's Florida primary goes as advertised, Romney wins by at least double-digits, and the run for Tampa becomes a mere formality.
More importantly, within the past week both President Obama and Governor Romney have begun to cement their core economic messages. President Obama's message will stress Fairness and Capitalism with Rules. Romney's message is to call Obama a socialist, and demand unrestrained Capitalism. If both campaigns stick to these messages, we can look to four more years of Obama, because Obama's message is backed by solid evidence, and Romney's message is not.
On Tuesday, President Obama's State of the Union Address presented a clear vision of the future of American Capitalism and the role of Government in Capitalism.
President Obama:
"To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce common-sense safeguards to protect the American people. That's what we've done in this country for more than a century. It's why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe. It's why we have speed limits and child labor laws. It's why last year, we put in place consumer protections against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies and new rules to prevent another financial crisis. And it's why we passed reform that finally prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients."
Thursday night's GOP Presidential debate, the 19th in this election cycle's non-stop Debate-o-Rama since this Presidential election season began, saw Mitt Romney find his groove. In taking the fight to Newt Gingrich, his resumed his front runner status. He also restated his major economic theme:
"This is a time where we're going to decide whether America will remain the great hope of the 21st century, whether this will be an American century, or, instead, whether we'll continue to go down a path to become more and more like Europe, a social welfare state. That's where we're headed.
Our economy is becoming weaker. The foundation of our future economy is being eroded. Government has become too large. We're headed in a very dangerous direction.
I believe to get America back on track, we're going to have to have dramatic, fundamental, extraordinary change in Washington to be able to allow our private sector to once again reemerge competitively, to scale back the size of government and to maintain our strength abroad in our military capacities."
These two economic themes, along with the release of Romney's taxes, have presented a clearer view of what Election 2012 will have in store - This election will be about defining the future of American Capitalism.
On the right, Romney is asserting that Obama's policies will amount to the American adoption of European Socialism. On the Left, Obama is asserting that Romney is seeking to return America to the failed policies of unregulated Capitalism that brought us the Great Recession and the Great Depression.
If Romney makes this into a fight of "Capitalism versus Socialism" he wins as Americans, according to recent polling from the Pew Research Center, highly favor Capitalism, with independents having a net +20% favorable view of Capitalism.
If Obama, however, makes this fight into a question of what kind of Capitalism we want - a heartless, soulless, brainless Capitalism, or a thoughtful, studied, intelligent Capitalism, then he wins because the same Pew poll found an increasing ability of Americans to see the flaws of Capitalism, even while still prefering it to Socialism.
(Note - As a current judicial candidate, this article is solely a summary of mathematical analysis, not legal or Constitutional analysis.)
Today former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman dropped from the GOP Presidential race. In doing so, he called the Obama administration's policies and rhetoric "Class Warfare."
The question is does that oft-repeated GOP attack stand up to the mathematical analysis?
Let's look at the current tax proposals of the remaining GOP presidential field to see if their proposed tax policies exhibit good math skills, and what relationship those policies, and the mathematical impact of those policies on average Americans have to accusations of "Class Warfare" if any.
Summary of Proposed GOP Tax Plans
Mitt Romney: Romney's features enormous tax cuts, larger than George W. Bush's; 57% of these reductions benefit the top 1% of Americans and 78% benefit the top 5% of Americans; and 40% of Middle Class families with children will pay higher taxes.
Newt Gingrich/Rick Perry: Both candidates propose Flat Tax plans that lower top tax rates to 15% and 20% respectively. Perry's plan removes tax loopholes, but Gingrich's plan does not. So those with more than a million in income save an average $500,000 in taxes a year under Perry's plan and even more under Gingrich's plan.
Rick Santorum: Santorum's tax plan contains a two-tiered "flatter tax" that lowers the top tax rate to 28%. Santorum attempts to pay for it with $5 Trillion in reduced social spending.
It is important to note that 40% of our current deficit is based on the Bush Tax cuts depleting federal revenue according to an analysis of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities .
So here is my question: does standing up against these tax policies that benefit the richest 1-5% of Americans at the expense of the working poor, the middle class, and the deficit amount to class warfare?
First of all, despite the TDP computer glitch that temporarily listed me as a United States Senate Candidate, the reality is that I am a candidate for Justice of the Dallas/Fifth District Court of Appeals. Which is something until a few weeks ago, I would never have considered would be happening at this time.
Like most of you who love politics and our wonderful American system of self-governance, you care deeply about our state and our nation. After running for Congress in 2008, I licked my wounds, swore I would never do it again (at least not against a tough gerrymander) and set out to make enough money to be able to make a difference sometime in the future without having to beg for money to do so.
So three years, two months-long jury trials, and 30 million dollars of verdicts after running for Congress, I was minding my own business, enjoying being a family man, writing posts on this website, and preparing for my next major trial. My political itch was allegedly being pacified by taking care of my desires to improve our politics through providing economic and policy analysis for Burnt Orange Report.
Then, a mere 3 weeks ago, while listening to Martin Frost give a speech on the future of the Democratic Party in Texas, the chair of the Collin County Democratic Party leaned over and asked me to consider a run for the Court of Appeals. In 2008, he said, of a million votes, we were within a 24,000 vote swing of winning, yet there were going to be places on the ballot without filed, qualified candidates.
I have always said that the place for one's life is the intersection between humanity's needs and your own desires. But, I had never really wanted this job, and certainly not in this timing. I mean, I have 2 major out-of-state trials scheduled to cover four months between now and November, and I can not even campaign. Even so, despite my better judgment, and despite the trepidation of both my wife and my law partner (that is both of my worldly bosses), I decided to and was allowed to place my name on the ballot for this court.
The reason I am running is simple - Justice is too important to not have qualified, unbiased, fair judges. Even though it would mean a huge pay cut, as a 17-year attorney, who has represented both business and individuals, in jury trials and appeals, I believe we need better judges in this state, and I believe I cannot complain if I do not do something about it.
The funny thing about democracy is that you have to put up or shut up. Having done so in the past, I can assert that running for office is no walk in the park. Even so, it is a necessary responsibility for those who wish to preserve democracy. We still need four qualified and experienced judicial candidates for the Dallas Court of Appeals. We still need candidates for the Texas Supreme Court, with three open seats and not a single candidate, and for the Court of Criminal Appeals, with 2 of 3 seats without a candidate.
Until we as a party have the ability to present qualified and viable options to govern this state effectively, from the courthouse to the statehouse, to the White House, and all options in between, we cannot complain when one party rules the state in a manner we find less than just. So, despite the TDP's computer glitch, I am not running for Senate (and doubt I could be talked into it either - not that anybody would seek to do so). I am running for Justice of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals - Place 11. My temporary website is at www.ericroberson.webs.com
Due to the rules for judicial candidates, I will not be able to write on this website as freely as before. However, I am allowed to ask if any of you out there who are likewise qualified to be a fair and unbiased judge care to join me in running for this bench or for other judgeships? Democracy and Justice are worth it.
Today the Congressional Budget Office release another report report (PDF) as required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly known as the Stimulus, to score the effectiveness of the Act. The highlights of this report include the following:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Stimulus' Scorecard for 3rd Quarter of 2011:
Raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.3 percent and 1.9 percent,
Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.2 percentage points and 1.3 percentage points,
Increased the number of people employed by between 0.4 million and 2.4 million, and
Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 0.5 million to 3.3 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)
Of course, despite the data that old-fashioned, formerly bi-partisan stimulus packages work in times of recession to soften the economic blow and speed up the recovery, we can expect more denial of the Stimulus' effectiveness from the far right.
As the GOP Presidential primary continues, the amount of Tea Party infused, economic Dogma that is mandatory for GOP candidates to accept, but that is wholly unrelated to economic reality, continues to grow like Pinocchio's nose. In saving Capitalism Part 2, we discussed how the Stimulus actually worked and saved between 2-3 million jobs.
This week, we will discuss how TARP and the bailouts of GM, Chrysler, and AIG, literally saved American Capitalism as we know it, prevented the loss of over 1 million jobs, stopped a depression from occurring, and since the loans are being repaid with interest, will make the taxpayers a profit.
In this entire Light of Truth series, my goal is to frame good economic policy in accordance with Mainstream Capitalism, not by the current misguided notions of Tea Party driven Laissez Faire Capitalist Dogma. Mainstream Capitalism is defined by what works in the real world, not by what is good dogma. GOP Dogma today is that Capitalism is always good. Therefore, any government interference with Capitalism is bad. The historical reality is quite different. Smart government actions can save jobs, save industries, and if done properly make taxpayers a return on investment.
Recent GOP Statements Against Bailouts
Mitt Romney: "They [GM/Chrysler] needed to move into a managed bankruptcy process rather than getting money up front by President Bush or President Obama. They wasted a lot of money."
All 8 GOP Candidates at recent debate: Answered in the negative "Is there anyone here who, given that prospect, and President Bush started the program, given that prospect, anyone here who would have stepped in and said, 'I don't want to do this, but this is the backbone of American manufacturing, I'll do something?'"
L.A. Times: AIG on schedule to repay all loans with a profit for taxpayers.
Capitalism is Not Divine; Government Intervention is a Part of Mainstream Capitalism
Even though Capitalism is the best economic system the world has ever known, it is merely a man-made system. It is not divine The reality is that the flaws of Capitalism are many, and well known. The goal of a government in a Capitalistic economy must be two-fold.
First, in a Capitalistic society, it is the economic and moral duty of government to create the infrastructure needed by Capitalism that Capitalism cannot or will not provide for itself in an efficient manner (roads, justice, police, education, fire, social safety nets.
Second, it is the economic and moral duty of government to intervene in the market place to prevent the unnecessary and socially unwanted extremes of unregulated or Laissez Faire Capitalism. These extremes include boom and bust cycles, depressions, banking instability, monopolies, trusts, and yes- entire industries facing economic failure when the business cycle has temporarily failed.
Past and Current Bailouts Were Effective, Saved Jobs, Turned Profits, and Were Bi-partisan
What is most amazing about these bailouts is that although being initially bipartisan, and are successful by almost any measure (often making a profit for taxpayers), they remain politically unpopular in many circles - especially in the Dogma-driven GOP. Indeed, despite savings jobs and industries, and despite a past history that shows they have become necessary about once a decade in the past 50 years, future bailouts appear to be politically untenable unless Mainstream Capitalists start speaking the truth.
(Below the fold is detailed data on how the current Auto and AIG bailouts, and the past bailouts of Airlines in 2001, of the S&L industry in 1989 and of Chrysler in 1979 were succesful and often made money for taxpayers).
In light of the recent GOP debate on International Policy, I wanted to take a slight break from economic policy to discuss torture.
I know it is amazing to me, but in 2011 America, somebody has to stand up against torture as an instrument of foreign policy. But somebody does, and I think it should be military people who do. So being a veteran, and being somebody who believes that the Democrats need to be strong on foreign policy, I think it is even more important to stand up against torture, especially torture in the form of "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Even military people know that might is not always right. Sometimes being strong is simply wrong, especially when the purported means of being strong is being uninformed by using means and methods that are immoral, illegal, and ineffective. As someone who has been waterboarded, I can testify it is both ineffective and constitutes torture.
Michelle Bachman: Waterboarding is "very effective" and "[i]t gained information for our country."
Herman Cain: Against torture, but does not consider waterboarding torture.
Rick Perry: stated that Enhanced interrogation techniques "save young American lives. This is war. That's what happens in war. "
Rick Santorum: Enhanced techniques had been successful in gathering information, and "critical" in the war against terror.
Not surprisingly, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman came out against waterboarding and other forms of torture (and Romney avoided taking a position on the issue).
But more importantly the statements by Perry, Bachmann, Cain and Santorum are all demonstrably false.
Indeed, while as a Christian I oppose these policies because they are immoral, as believer in personal liberty I oppose these police because they are so dehumanizing that they corrupt the foundation of our national government's foundation for governing, but equally as important, as a military man I am opposed to these policies because they simply do not work - except to provide false information.
Specifically, both GOP Senator John McCain and CIA Director Leon Pentta have made it clear that the use of waterboarding was not successful , and had not assisted the war of terror in capturing Al Qaida or stopping terror in its tracks." Indeed, waterboarding "produced false information" according to GOP Senator McCain.
The fact is that waterboarding was not invented to gather good information. Rather waterboarding was invented to break the will of prisoners. Waterboarding goes all the way back to the Spanish Inquisition. Any student of interrogation techniques will tell you that waterboarding simply does not work at providing valid intelligence information.
For example, contrary to GOP exaggerations, waterboarding did not work did not work against al Qaida terrorists, and waterboarding simply does not work against anybody.
With just over a year to go from the 2012 election, and less than 5 months until the Texas primary, the University of Texas and Texas Tribune have released a series of polls related to the Texas race for 2012 United States Senate seat and the 2014 Lieutenant Governor's race, the GOP presidential race in Texas and what Texans think is the reason why the the Texas economy has outperformed the U.S. economy.
Texas 2012 Democratic U.S. Senate Race: Chris Bell - 15%
Ricardo Sanchez - 11%
Chet Edwards - 9%
Another Democratic Candidate - 10%
Don't Know - 55%
Texas 2012 GOP U.S. Senate Race: David Dewhurst - 22%
Ted Cruz - 10%
Michael McCaul - 5%
Tom Leppert - 5%
Elizabeth Ames Jones 2%
Another GOP Candidate - 7%
Don't Know - 50%
Texan's View of Why the Texas Economy Has Outperformed the U.S Economy: Long-Standing Policies and Natural Resources - 22%
Rick Perry's Leadership - 10%
Don't Know - 14%
Texas 2012 GOP Presidential Race: Herman Cain - 27%
Rick Perry - 26%
Ron Paul - 12%
Mitt Romney - 9%
Newt Gingrich - 8%
All other GOP Candidates and "Another GOP Candidate - 6%
Don't Know - 11%
ANALYSIS
Senate Race Still Wide Open
What is surprising about these polls is not that undecided is in the lead with so many essentially 5 months to go before Texas' May 22, 2012 primaries, but that 2 relative newcomers in both races have been able to build any name recognition without spending any real resources yet.
As we approach another Presidential election cycle, it is quite clear that the GOP wants to make the economy the albatross thank hangs around Democrats' necks, sinks a second Obama term, and delivers the GOP the White House and the Senate, to add to the House.
In doing so, GOP leaders are engaging in wholesale economic sophistry. The key GOP attack against President Obama and Democrats in Congress is that the stimulus packages that were part of the post-recession recovery efforts have failed.
Mitt Romney discussing President Obama's economic policies,
"The president came in, and he didn't cause the recession, as you know . . . but he didn't make it better, he made things worse," Romney said, speaking at Bayside Grill & Tavern in Wolfeboro. "And he made things worse through a series of actions which hurt the economy at a time when it needed to be taking off. The recovery is extraordinarily anemic, again, because things he did made that recovery worse."
The fact is that the Obama Administration's recovery policies, just like the Bush Administrations responses before them, used Mainstream Capitalism to provide a pretty basic form of economic stimulus.
There were two main economic recovery programs - both maligned by the GOTea Party - but both worked, and together they saved American Capitalism.
Framing the STIMULUS and TARP as Mainstream Capitalism
These two programs as well as the bailouts of specific businesses - GM, Chrysler, AIG, and banks naitonwide - are the usual suspects for specific GOP attack.
Last week we discussed that Americans believe in Capitalism. This week, I want to discuss how these programs saved Capitalism and why history will view current Tea Party driven attacks on these Mainstream Capitalism programs as a misguided attempt to redefine down what Capitalism means.
To be clear, to win the hearts and minds of middle Americans, independents, and unaligned voters, we have to be understood not only as the party that saved Capitalism, but as the party that understands Capitalism better. To do so, we have to name what we understand Capitalism to be, and we have to explain why the GOP versions of Capitalism fail.
Democrats are fighting for Mainstream Capitalism.
There is more than one category of Capitalistic thought. Democrats need to be clear that we represent the largest and most reasonable stream of Capitalism.
The Tea Party wing of GOP wants to regress to failed Laissez Faire Capitalism, that is bound to create more recessions and actual depression.
The Establishment wing of the GOP wants to protect Crony Capitalism, favoring big business over hardworking small business and workers.
Only the Democratic Party is willing to accept Capitalism for what it is, and admit both its strengths and weaknesses, and by studying it scientifically use those strengths and avoid the weaknesses.
Indeed, throughout most of American academia and among European economists, the use of government stimulus to prevent the negative impact of Capitalism's predictable recessions and depressions is the educated use of stimulus. The British weekly "The Economist" - hardly known as a liberal rag and a long-term supporter of Conservative British politics - is on board with straightforward pro-CapitalismStimulus pakages.
Given that economic stimulus is a common feature of Mainstream Capitalistic thought, it is amazing that the current GOP defines itself as the defender of Capitalism, when they often did, and in hindsight with new Tea Party pressure consistently claim that they will never again vote for governmental economic stimulus.
The numbers are in and the economic stimulus worked.
According to Economists Alan Blinder, a Princeton professor and a former Federal Reserve official, and Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, as reported in the New York Times, as of July 2010, without the stimulus and TARP programs, the nation's gross domestic product would be about 6.5 percent lower this year, there would be about 8.5 million fewer jobs, on top of the more than 8 million already lost; and the economy would have been experiencing deflation, instead of low inflation.
