Armed Insurrection?

But when a long train of abuses … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration of Independence

After Thursday’s decision by the United States Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act, there has been some talk from our brothers on the right that armed insurrection is the only way to deal with this development. Some of our friends on the left have responded with levity suggesting that those violently opposed to health care reform are in need of mental health services or that if they don’t like it they should move to some other country. This maven, however, cannot treat these things lightly. For one thing, advocating armed insurrection against the United States might be considered treasonous. On the other hand, perhaps the Federal Government is tending toward tyranny and we should not ignore it. After all, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

To sort all this out, I thought it would be useful to compare American grievances in 1776, when we actually did engage in armed insurrection (at least as the British saw it), with the grievances of today. I include only some of the British offenses set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

            British offenses of 1776                                  Federal Government offenses of today

Forced us to quarter troops in our homes	Forced us to buy health insurance
Cut off our trade with other parts of the world	Forced us to buy health insurance
Imposed taxes on us without our consent	Forced us to buy health insurance
Deprived us of trial by jury	Forced us to buy health insurance
Took away our charters, abolished our laws and altered our form of government	Forced us to buy health insurance
Suspended our own legislatures	Forced us to buy health insurance
Plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns and destroyed the lives of our people	Forced us to buy health insurance
Introduced armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny	Forced us to buy health insurance

Trusted reader, although it is close, I am sure you will agree that the complaints of our forebears in 1776 were slightly more serious than of those who are willing to overthrow the government in order to eliminate health care reform. So what is this totally out of proportion reaction to a court decision upholding a statute enacted by the Congress?

This maven lays the blame at the door of the Republican leadership in the Congress and their tea-drinking allies. These gentlepeople are so intent on recapturing control of the Federal Government that they will do or say anything to make President Obama appear to be an illegitimate president. Thus the accusations that Obama is not a native born American. On top of that they must show that even Obama’s legislation is illegitimate. So, after Health Care Reform passed, the Republican leadership refused to acknowledge that it was actually a Public Act, passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Immediately, they declared it not only to be terrible legislation, but invalid. They declared it to be the single-most dangerous expansion of federal power in history. They declared it to be a CLEAR violation of the constitution. They declared it to by tyranny and thus its removal as essential to the country’s survival. They declared it to be the end of life as we know it. In short, they declared their battle to destroy Health Care Reform to be Armageddon.  

Unfortunately, our Republican and Tea-Party cousins believe their own rhetoric. And worse than that, there are some pretty volatile, armed people out there who have come to believe it too. When you repeat that message over and over again, is it any wonder that people start suggesting that only armed insurrection against the Federal Government will save us?

It seems to this maven that those who opened this Pandora’s box and let the crazies out need to be the ones to recage them and lock the door. I call on John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul and Mitt Romney to make it clear that although they consider the Health Care Reform Act to be bad policy they do not consider it to be grounds for rebellion against the Government. Let them each announce that even suggesting armed insurrection as a solution for disagreeing with government action is not patriotic but rather is un-American. John, Eric, Mitch, Rand, Mitt it is time to call their dogs off and to declare that we are a country that resolves political dispute at the ballot box, not at the point of a gun.

The Abysmal Republican Congress

A new poll reported in the July 26 Washington Post, More Americans unhappy with Obama on economy, jobs, indicates that more than a third of those polled believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy and that confidence in his ability to create jobs is eroding among his base. The poll also found that as many people blame Republican policies for the poor economy as they blame the president. But, on the issue of jobs, the poll shows that more people disapprove of the Republican performance (65 percent) than they do of the president’s performance (52 percent). Which sort of makes me wonder why the Post headline centers on President Obama.

Despite the perception by political pundits that conservative philosophy is now dominant in our country and that liberals are a dying breed, the results of the Post poll indicate clearly that the American people expect the government to fix our ailing economy. I see no indication in the poll that anybody blames businesses—whether large or small—for the state of our economy. Likewise, nobody faults business for failing to create more jobs.

I assume from the article that the designers of this poll phrased their questions in terms of policies (e.g. Do you believe that the policies of X are helping or hurting the economy). Yet policies can have no real effect on the economy. It is only actions that can make a difference. And, dear reader, under our Constitution it is the Congress, rather than the President, that must take action. Only the Congress can enact legislation. The President gets to vote on legislation only if and when the Congress passes it.

Congressional Republicans won a significant victory in the 2010 national elections. The Republicans, with John Boehner and Eric Cantor as their leaders, now control the House of Representatives. Further, the Republicans, with Mitch McConnell and John Kyl as their leaders, now have sufficient votes in the Senate to maintain a filibuster and thus block legislation they oppose. You would think that with as many votes as the Republicans have they would have been able to enact some significant legislation in this the first session of the 112th Congress. If that’s what you think, reader, you are thinking wrong.

In the nearly seven months that the 112th Congress has been in session it has enacted only 23 public laws. This compares with 283 public laws enacted in the 110th Congress and 205 public laws enacted in the 111th Congress during the first seven months of those congresses.

Among the 112th Congress’s laws you have such significant legislation as 1- a law naming the federal courthouse in Yuma, Arizona, after John M. Roll; 2- a law naming the federal building and courthouse in Martinsburg, West Virginia, after W. Craig Broadwater; 3- a law providing for the appointment of Stephen M. Case to the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; 4- a law naming the United States Postal Service building in Inverness, California, after Specialist Jake Robert Velloza; 5- a law providing for the reappointment of Shirley Anne Jackson to the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; 6- a law providing for the reappointment of Robert P. Kogod to the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; 7- a law naming the United States Postal Service building in Rootstown, Ohio, after Marine Sgt. Jeremy E. Murray; and 8- a law naming the United States Postal Service building in Cary, Mississippi, after Spencer Byrd Powers, Jr.

After subtracting these eight pieces of landmark legislation, that leaves 15 public laws of substance that the 112th Congress has enacted. Or, has it? Three of those laws were temporary extensions of the continuing resolution providing funding for the federal government. Two laws extended two programs of the Small Business Administration first from January 31, 2011, to May 31, 2011,and then to July 31, 2011. Another law extended two programs under the Patriot Act from February 28, 2011, to May 27, 2011. Three public laws extended the taxes and authorization of the Airport and Airways Trust Fund first by two months, then by an additional month and finally by an additional 22 days. One law extended the entire Patriot Act by five years. Another law extended the operation of the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission by seven months. And, one law extended programs under the Surface Transportation Act through September 30, 2011. So, twelve of those public laws did nothing but extend the expiration dates of certain programs.

This leaves us with three significant public laws enacted by the 112th Congress between the beginning of January and the 26th day of July. These three laws are: Public Law 112-9, which makes three minor changes to the Internal Revenue Code; Public Law 112-10, which provides funding for the federal government through the end of fiscal year 2011; and Public Law 112-18, which authorizes appropriations for the intelligence activities of the Government.

That’s all folks.

The Republican dominated Congress has passed no laws addressing our troubled economy. The Republican dominated Congress has passed no laws creating jobs.

What has the 112th Congress done? The Republican controlled House of Representatives, led by John Boehner and Eric Cantor, voted to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, voted for a budget that would eliminate Medicare and has held the country hostage for months by refusing to pass legislation enabling the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the government’s lawful obligations after next Tuesday.

What a wonderful Congress!

Will Dems Take Their Eyes Off The Ball?

Yesterday, former Governor Tim Kaine announced that he would be running for the Senate seat that Jim Webb will be vacating at the end of 2012. Zillions of Virginia Democrats let out a yell of relief and pledged to get Kaine elected. The election to fill Webb’s Senate seat will be held November 6, 2012.

Earlier in the week, President Barack Obama announced that he will be running for reelection. Zillions of Virginia Democrats let out a yell of relief and pledged to get Obama reelected. The election for president will be held November 6, 2012.

It is a fact of Virginia politics that we have elections every year. In even-number years, just like the rest of the country, we elect federal officials—the president, senators and representatives. In odd-number years we elect state officials—the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and members of the General Assembly. I don’t know whether it is good or bad that we have elections every year, but it is a fact. That means that the next Election Day in Virginia will be November 8, 2011, a full year before Mr. Obama and Mr. Kaine will be on the ballot (assuming they are on the ballot).

Running for office these days requires lots of money and lots of volunteers. So the new campaigns of Mr. Obama and Mr. Kaine will, in the days and weeks to come, be seeking donations and people to work on their campaigns. I assume that there are probably enough political dollars and political volunteers in Virginia to allow both Mr. Obama and Mr. Kaine to run effective campaigns.

The election that Mr. Obama and Mr. Kaine are concerned about will take place in 2012. However, the launching of their campaigns now will inevitably divert the attention of voters from this year’s state elections. It will also draw away both money and people power from the campaigns of state senators and delegates running for (re)election this year.

Just after the 2008 election, this maven expressed concern about the ability of Democrats to maintain their momentum and win the 2009 state-wide elections. Dems Heading For A Big Fall? I expressed my concern in these words:

“So why is the maven so discouraged when everybody else is so upbeat? For one thing, I am trying to avoid complacency. It is vital that Virginia Democrats not get into the mindset that the Commonwealth will become a permanently blue state by means of some inevitable historical development. That will not happen. Nothing is inevitable. Virginia will become a blue state only if lots of people put in the kind of time and effort they did this year to get Obama and Warner elected.”

I also pointed out that the Republicans were already mobilized and determined to win the 2009 elections. Unfortunately, I was right. For Democrats the 2009 Virginia elections were a disaster.

Because of our losses in both 2009 and 2010 the question for Democrats this year will not be how to turn Virginia permanently blue. Rather the question is how to avoid Virginia becoming a solidly red state with the agendas of McDonnell, Cuccinelli and the Republican majority in the House of Delegates becoming the laws of the Commonwealth. This year it is absolutely essential that Democrats maintain control of the state senate and increase their majority there. It is also essential that we capture seats in the House of Delegates by retiring some of those ultra right wing delegates who tried to impose their Neanderthal philosophies on the rest of us.

I am concerned that it will be very difficult to push Obama and Kaine temporarily to the background and keep our eyes only on this year’s prize. It will be difficult to raise money for local races because donations will be gravitating to the Obama and Kaine campaigns. It will be difficult to get volunteers for the local races because people who want to work for good government will be jumping into the presidential and senate campaigns. It will be very easy to take our eyes off the ball and drop it.

So if you’re really enthused about the Obama and/or Kaine campaigns, you need to curb your enthusiasm for now. We have far more pressing needs. Find yourself a local Democratic senator or delegate and volunteer either your time or money for their campaigns. If you live in either a senate or house district in which the incumbent is a Republican, contact your local Democratic committee to see how you can help with the 2011 campaign. (Click here to find your local committee). If you are concerned that this will hurt the Obama or Kaine campaigns, don’t be. Any work you do for democratic state candidates this year will benefit both Obama and Kaine in 2012. On November 9 of this year switch your efforts to those campaigns.

So, trusted reader, if you are a Democratic or if your political philosophy leans in the direction of those of President Obama and Governor Kaine, get out there and make your maven proud. Electing Democrats this year will make it so much easier to elect Obama and Kaine next year. We cannot afford to drop the ball.

It’s The Turnout, Dummy!

Do you remember voting on November 4, 2008? I sure do. That was the day my name was on the ballot as a candidate for the Richmond City school board. It was my first (and probably last) time as a candidate and I intended to make the most of it. I got up early to get to the polls before they opened so I could vote early and then do some last minute electioneering. I live in Richmond’s precinct 402, which votes at the Forest Hill Presbyterian Church. Guess what? I did not get to vote early. When I arrived at the intersection of Forest Hill Avenue and W. 44th Street it was 5:45 AM. I saw a huge line of voters circling around the church parking lot and then proceeding west down Forest Hill Avenue. It looked like the whole neighborhood was out there waiting for the polls to open.

Do you remember voting on November 3, 2009? I do. That day I was covering the 402nd precinct for my friend Betsy Carr (now Delegate Betsy Carr). I got up early to get to the polls and introduce myself to the election workers as the precinct captain. When I arrived at the intersection of Forest Hill and 44th it was pretty quiet; just a few people in line. And it stayed that way for most of the day. The voting line never got outside the doors to the church.

So, what’s this about, beside the memories of a not-so-young man? Well, it’s about all those voters in line in 2008 who found things to do other than voting on Election Day 2009. Those voters won the election for Barack Obama (and lots of other Democrats) in 2008. Those non-voters won the election for Bob McDonnell (and lots of other Republicans) in 2009. And, they did so without leaving the comfort of their own homes.

We in the Commonwealth elect our governors and other state wide officials in the year after the national presidential election. Although this partially immunizes our statewide elections from national trends, it also results in a significant drop in voter turnout in these odd year elections. The smallest turnout drop—from 77.6% to 66.5%, a drop of 11.1%--was from 1988 to 1989. The largest drop—from 74.5% to 40.4%, a drop of 34.1%--was from 2008 to 2009. (Hey, weren’t these the very elections I was talking about above?)

So, from 2008 to 2009 voter turnout in Virginia dropped 34.1%, the largest one year decrease since at least 1976. Why is this significant? It wouldn’t be if the drop in turnout was evenly divided between the two major parties. If the drop in turnout had been 34.1% of those voting Republican and 34.1% of those voting Democratic, then Creigh Deeds, Jody Wagner and Steve Shannon would be the top elected officials of the Commonwealth. However, the drop in turnout was not even close to being even. (At this point, I need to move from turnout percentages to raw numbers. Since we don’t register by party in Virginia we cannot know the turnout percentage by party.)

In 2008, Democrats Obama and Biden drew 1,959,532 votes in the presidential election, the most ever cast for president and vice president in Virginia.* The second most votes ever cast for president and vice president in Virginia was 1,725,005 for Republicans McCain and Palin in the same 2008 election.

A year later, Republican Bob McDonnell received 1,163,651 votes for governor. This was about 560,000 votes less than cast for McCain and Palin the year before. Democrat Creigh Deeds received only 818,950 votes in 2009, a drop of over 1.1 million votes from those cast for Obama and Biden in 2008. (The votes received by Deeds were the lowest for any candidate for governor since the 1997 election.) In percentage terms, Mr. McDonnell received about 33% less votes than the top of the Republican ticket in 2008. Mr. Deeds, however, received about 58% less votes than the top of the Democratic ticket in 2008. Looking at it another way, Creigh Deeds’ drop in votes from those voting Democratic in 2008 was about 540,000 more than Bob McDonnell’s drop in votes from those voting Republican in 2008.

So, dear reader, where were these 540,000 voters (who voted for Obama and Biden in 2008) on November 3, 2009? First, as I pointed out after the 2008 election, it was the Obama campaign that won the election, not the Democratic Party. Dems Heading For A Big Fall? That means that the Obama campaign did not attract a large number of new people who would vote Democratic in the future. Second, the Democratic Party in Virginia was very complacent after the 2008 election. As I pointed out then, the talk was of how easy it was going to be to capture the House of Delegates and make Virginia a fully blue state. Nobody even considered that the Democrats might lose the governorship. Third, the hard fought Democratic primary campaign in the Spring of 2009 produced a lot of anger in the losers that was not dissipated before the election. Further, many of those who voted for Moran or McAuliffe in the primary were personally loyal to either of those two but not necessarily to the Democratic Party.

So what does this mean for the upcoming election? If you voted for President Obama in 2008 but you stayed home last year, you need to remember that you helped elect the current crew in Richmond. If you voted for President Obama in 2008 and you stay home this year, you will assure that the Democrats you elected to the House of Representatives will be one term wonders. You will also assure that President Obama will face a hostile Republican-controlled Congress for the next two years and will have almost no chance of getting any more of his agenda accomplished. It’s up to you because this election will be all about turnout.

My thanks to former Richmond Commonwealth Attorney David Hicks for enlightening me about these turnout issues.


*The most votes ever cast for any candidate in Virginia was 2,369,327 for Mark Warner for United States Senate, also in the 2008 election.

It’s No Longer Bush’s Debt, Mr. President

On December 11, 2009, on this blog, I wrote an open letter to President Obama and to my three representatives in the Congress urging them to show some fiscal restraint and to start dealing with our gargantuan national debt. It has been less than two months since I wrote that letter. Yet our national debt has increased by nearly $197 billion, more than three billion dollars per day. And, as the late Senator Everett Dirksen would have said, “That’s real money!”

How, you may ask, can this be happening? Why is the United States borrowing so much money? Well, the simple answer is that each year we are spending far more than we are receiving in revenue. But, that answer doesn’t tell you, my loyal reader, why this is happening. The more complicated answer has two parts.

First, there is mandatory spending. Over the years the Congress has enacted so-called direct spending or “entitlement” programs. Each of these programs contains permanent appropriations. Therefore, the amount that is spent on these programs each year is not controlled by the Congress in the annual budget cycle. Rather, the amount spent in these programs depends on the per-person benefit amount of the program and the number of people who are entitled to benefits. The only way that the Congress can reduce spending in these programs is to amend the basic program legislation to reduce the amount of benefits paid per person or to raise eligibility requirements so that fewer people receive benefits. Politically, this is very difficult.

Second, there is discretionary spending. These are programs which require annual appropriations in order to operate. These programs are normally funded by the thirteen appropriations acts that the Congress enacts each year. Spending on these programs is more easily controlled. All the Congress has to do is to reduce the amount it appropriates for these programs each year. Of course, this is also politically difficult to do because voters expect their representatives or senators to bring more federal dollars to their district or state. No member of the Congress is elected or reelected on a campaign promise to reduce federal spending in his/her district or state.

Although our national debt nearly doubled during the administration of George W. Bush, members of the Bush Administration were unconcerned. They argued that we could take care of our debt through growth of the economy. So, every year of his term, the President sent a deficit budget to the Congress and the Congress appropriated funds at a deficit rate.

The near collapse of the nation’s credit system in 2008 resulted in two major jumps in the national debt of the United States. The first was caused by the bank bailout of fall 2008. The second was caused by the economic stimulus package of last spring.

Both during his campaign and since he has taken office, President Obama has stated that, unlike Mr. Bush, he is deeply concerned by the magnitude of our national debt. In his recent State of the Union speech to the Congress, Mr. Obama said, “We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration or the next generation.” In the same speech Mr. Obama announced a spending freeze for part of the discretionary spending side of the annual budget, but not to begin until next year. This week Mr. Obama revealed his fiscal year 2011 budget. It projects a one-year budget deficit of more than $1.5 trillion.

In his speech the president said that he was creating a bipartisan commission to study the debt problem and recommend solutions to our generation-long spending spree. Now, this maven spent the bulk of his adult years in and around Washington, D.C. and I know that usually president’s propose bipartisan commissions so that they can delay having to deal with a problem. I certainly hope that this is not Mr. Obama’s motive.

In my opinion there is no need for a bipartisan commission. Mr. Obama knows how to balance our budget. We need to drastically cut our spending and increase our revenue (i.e. taxes). There is no other solution. A partial freeze on discretionary spending is only a drop in the bucket. Nor will Mr. Obama’s campaign promise to go through the budget page by page and eliminate programs that don’t work have any significant effect. Like President Reagan’s promise to balance the budget by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse, eliminating only those programs that don’t work is like treating cancer with Band-Aids. Our national debt disease is so serious that drastic treatment is needed.

Mr. Obama must tell the American people the truth. The truth is that our monumental national debt is a serious threat to our economy and our national security. The truth is that we can no longer afford many of the federal programs that we have grown accustomed to, unless we are willing to significantly increase taxes to pay for them. We need to start cutting even those programs that work. If Mr. Obama is seriously concerned about deficit spending by the Federal Government, he must stop proposing new programs unless they are paid for in the budget (either by tax increases or elimination of other programs). He needs to reconsider his fiscal year 2011 budget and significantly cut the projected $1.5 trillion one-year deficit. Mr. Obama says that we must not leave the hard choices for “the next budget.” However, his fiscal year 2011 budget does exactly that. (See today’s Washington Post lead editorial that reaches the same conclusion. 1

I voted for Mr. Obama because I believed that he would make a better leader then would Senator McCain. To me a leader needs to be totally honest with the people (within the bounds of national security) and to make the hard choices necessary to maintain the United States that we all love. A leader does not set up a commission to make those choices.

During his first year in office President Obama has often deflected criticism by reminding everybody that he inherited a significant debt and annual deficit from President Bush. That was a good excuse for year one. Now Mr. Obama is proposing a one-year deficit significantly higher than any proposed by Mr. Bush. By doing so, he is transforming Bush’s debt into Obama’s debt.

Mr. Obama recently said that he would rather have one good term in office than two mediocre terms. The implication of that statement is that he intends to make the right decisions even if they are politically unpopular. Now is the time for him to start.

You Just Can't Trust Him

Well, I've read the release of the president's proposed speech to America's children. Clearly, we were absolutely justified in fearing this man talking to our vulnerable young 'uns. From beginning to end, the entire address is a socialist manifesto. You just have to read between the lines.

He says: Hello everyone - How's everybody doing today?
He means: Greetings comrades.

He says: When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn't have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school.
First, this is a clear admission that he is not an American. Second, he is trying to justify his socialist plot to make everyone in American poor.

He says: I'm here because I want to talk to you about your education and what's expected of you in this new school year.
Clearly his tone is dictatorial.

He says: But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world - and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work to succeed.
This one is really devious. He is trying to blame the failure of public schools on the students rather that on the true villain - public education itself.

He says: Every single one of you has something you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer.
That guy Marx-Lenin would have loved this socialist drivel. Obviously not everyone is good.

He says: What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you're learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.
What he means: Your skills and talents belong to the government.

He says: We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don't do that - if you quit on school - you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country.
What he means: Workers of the world unite!

He says: I did some things I'm not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have.
I told you not to vote for him!

He says: Young people like Jasmin Perez . . . Andoni Schultz . . . Shantell Steve . . .
He only uses foreign kids as examples. What about John Smith and Mary Jones?

He says: I'm thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who's fought brain cancer since he was three. He's endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries.
What he means: Lobby your representatives to pass socialized medicine.

He says: I know that sometimes you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality show star; when chances are, you're not going to be any of those things.
What he means: Don't believe the American dream.

He says: If you get in trouble, that doesn't mean you're a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave.
Clearly, he's soft on crime.

He says: Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.
More socialist drivel.

He says: It's the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution.
What he means: Start planning the socialist revolution.

He says: So today, I want to ask you, what's your contribution going to be?
What he means: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

So dear reader, you can see how fortunate we are that school boards and superintendents throughout our land will protect our children by not letting them watch the prez today.

Who Slipped Up, Mr. President?

A funny thing happened to Tom Daschle on his way to being the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Apparently, much to everyone’s surprise, staffers on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions actually checked out Mr. Daschle’s background and discovered that he owed beau coup bucks to Uncle Sam in back taxes. I say “to everyone’s surprise” because I can think of no other reason why Mr. Daschle’s nomination would have been sent forward by President Obama. Somebody on Mr. Obama’s transition team must have believed that because Mr. Daschle is a former member of the Senate club his nomination would be confirmed without anyone checking him out. It turns out to be terribly embarrassing for Mr. Daschle and for the president. (I guess Mr. Daschle will cry all the way to his banks).

And, let’s not forget about Timothy Geithner our new Secretary of the Treasury. A few weeks back when his nomination came up before the Senate Finance Committee we discovered that he too wasn’t exactly paid up at the IRS. Again, I assume that someone on the transition team didn’t think that Senate staffers would ever discover something as insignificant as a bit of back taxes. Again it was terribly embarrassing for Mr. Geithner and for the president.

We also have the case of Bill Richardson, who was nominated by Mr. Obama to be the Secretary of Commerce. Before his name ever reached the Senate, Mr. Richardson had to withdraw because an investigation in his home state might prove embarrassing to the president.

Three cabinet nominations screwed up. Well, maybe not for Mr. Geithner because the United States Senate Finance Committee is so forgiving. (Or else they don’t really expect the rich to follow the tax laws they write.) But as far as the president is concerned these are all terribly embarrassing and they necessarily cost him a good part of the political capital he earned on Election Day. How do things like this happen?

Well, people do make mistakes.

After Mr. Daschle withdrew his name from consideration, President Obama used the politician’s second favorite tool—I screwed up; I’m sorry; I won’t do it again. Of course, this is better than the politician’s number one tool—I didn’t do it and I dare you to prove that I did. But, after a while, apologies don’t work that well. It’s like my granddaughter. At two she is quite adept at using “Sorry.” She goes over and bops her sister on the head, then says, “Sorry”. She kicks the dog because it is in her way and then says, “Sorry.” I tried to explain to her that saying sorry doesn’t change the fact that she did something she shouldn't have. In time she will learn. I hope that Mr. Obama also learns that being sorry is not the same as doing things right the first time.

Mr. Obama ran for the presidency on a slogan of “Yes we can” and promised us meaningful changes in Washington. So far, I haven’t seen it. If President Obama cannot get his staff to understand that stupid errors like these will not be tolerated, there are going to be millions of Americans really angry when his honeymoon is over.

So Help Me Dog

Okay, I’ll admit it. It probably is not as easy as it looks. For one thing, you gotta be careful to use the President Elect’s name rather than your own. It would not do for Barack Obama to start his oath with “I, John Roberts.” And then, there was the crowd. Mr. Justice Roberts is used to speaking before a few hundred people at the Supreme Court. Now he was facing more than a million. It could get one a bit nervous. Of course he could have read the oath rather than reciting it. Or, if he has difficulty reading in public, he could have printed it on a piece of paper and handed it to Mr. Obama to read. Perhaps it was the cold; perhaps it was the wind. Perhaps it wasn’t a mistake at all. Maybe it was Justice Roberts zinging one at the man for whom he mostly likely did not vote.

Was administering the oath to Mr. Obama the most important thing Justice Roberts has done so far in his career? Nope. Is it the most important thing he is going to do in the many years he will serve as Chief Justice of the United States? Nope. Is it the one mistake for which he will always be remembered? Yep. If this were a hundred years ago, in all likelihood no one would ever know of Justice Roberts’ gaff. Back then, only the people in attendance would have witnessed his mistake and only the few close enough would have even heard. But, poor Justice Roberts screwed up with hundreds of millions of people watching and listening. What’s worse, his blunder was recorded and will always be there to be viewed in generations to come.

Well, all’s well that ends well. President Obama is at the White House trying to get us out of W’s disaster. Justice Roberts is back at the Court just waiting for the opportunity to strike down Obama’s major legislation as unconstitutional.

Too Inexperienced

Fellow Americans. Troubled times lay before us. Our nation will be challenged like it never has before. Can we afford to have a man in the White House who has not been tested in crisis? This is no time for on the job training. The man from Illinois is too inexperienced to be president. He has only served in the Illinois legislature and briefly in the Congress. Never has he had to face what lies before us. We cannot afford to take the risk. Therefore, on Election Day you must reject Mr. Lincoln and vote for Senator Stephen A. Douglas for President of the United States.

Fear And Loathing In The Extreme

I was behind a pickup truck as I turned from Huguenot Road onto Buford Road last week. The truck stopped at a traffic light and I pulled up behind it. On the back window was a large sign that read “Be Afraid” at the top. Then there was a drawing of Barack Obama in an angry pose. Below that were even bigger letters reading “Be Very Afraid.” I was impressed by the deep level of hate expressed by whoever designed and marketed that sign.

Last night the maveness called my attention to an anti-Obama ad she saw on the tube. Tonight I saw the same ad. The ad was sponsored by the ultra-conservative group, Let Freedom Ring. It was entitled “Never Find Out” and it basically painted the disaster to the world that would ensue if Barack Obama is elected president. It’s filled with some pretty outrageous and unsubstantiated claims. Or course, it is not the purpose of Let Freedom Ring to tell the truth. Rather, its purpose is obviously to scare people out of voting for Senator Obama. This, remember is the same Let Freedom Ring that thinks that George W is the greatest president ever, wants to undo Roe v. Wade, favors going back to the original intent of the Constitution, wants to limit the power of the judiciary, encourages the family as the basic building block of society (so long as the family centers on a heterosexual couple), and wants to restore prayer to our schools. Considering its agenda it is not surprising that Let Freedom Ring is afraid of Barack Obama.

Now, the maven has seen lots of election campaigns. (No, I am not old enough to remember the dirtiest of all elections—the 1800 contest between the Federalists and the Jeffersonians). And maybe my memory plays tricks with me. However, I get the feeling it is getting unusually nasty out there. I mean I remember the “mushroom cloud” ad that the Dems ran in 1964 to scare people out of voting for Barry Goldwater. It was pretty devastating. But, this year there seems to be a concerted effort by those on the right, including the Republican National Committee (whose ads are clearly the best in terms of effectiveness) and the McCain-Palin campaign, to personally attack Senator Obama and portray him as outside the spectrum of political acceptability. The supporters of McCain-Palin don’t have any real issues to talk about, so they are trying real hard to scare everybody. Their message—“electing Obama is unthinkable.”

Is there any way that we the voters can affect the level at which our political campaigns are run? How do we get candidates for public office to concentrate on the issues rather than character attacks? Well, campaigns run these fear and loathing ads because they think they work. The only way we can raise the level of the public debates in this country is to demonstrate to the candidates that we will not be fooled by their slime campaigns. We need to send a message to the Republican National Committee and to the McCain-Palin campaign, and of course to Let Freedom Ring on Election Day by voting for Barack Obama for president. And, if you happen to be one of those people who is exit-polled, tell them that you refuse to vote for a hate-monger or a candidate supported by hate-mongers.

Citizens of Virginia! On November 4 the choice is yours. Will you vote based on fear and loathing? Or will you look at the issues and vote for the man most qualified to be president? I urge you to vote for Obama because he is the real instrument of change. Voting for McCain is asking for four more years of Republic misrule.

Reverend Wright Conspiracy?

I am not one of those conspiracy freaks. I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy. I believe that United States astronauts actually walked on the moon. I believe that it was al Qaeda, not the CIA, that attacked the World Trade Center in 2001. However, there is something about this Reverend Wright thing that gives me bad vibes.

Can it be just a coincidence that the videos of Reverend Wright’s preaching surfaced when Senator Clinton’s campaign was at rock bottom? And, what about those photos of the reverend with Bill Clinton in the White House? Isn’t it possible that the videos were actually released by the Clinton campaign? Can it be that Reverend Wright is a secret agent in the Clinton campaign and staged his preaching trip to make sure that his views would remain as a cloud over the Obama campaign? In the last debate, wasn’t Senator Clinton particularly gleeful when she repeatedly found Senator Obama guilty by association? Is it just a coincidence…

Maven, cut it out. You sound like one of those conspiracy crazy.

Thank you, precious reader, for stopping my ranting. Bill and Hillary Clinton couldn’t be that devious. Could they?

TD, Wrong Again

Okay, I know you’re going to ask me. Maven, why are you always picking on the Richmond Times-Dispatch? If you don’t like it, just cancel your subscription.

That is a fair question. The answer is, “I don’t know.”

But seriously, I criticize the TD because I want to see it become a great newspaper. A great community like Metro Richmond needs a paper worthy of its citizens. When the editors of the TD fail in being world class, this maven needs to let them know.

So what am I in a huff about now? It is yesterday’s editorial “Obama and Che.” This editorial reveals the editors’ lack of understanding and sensitivity with regard to a symbol that is terrifying to many African Americans. It also shows that even though Senator Obama has not yet captured the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination it is not too early for the TD to start branding him with the L word.

The editorial reads,

Barack Obama, whom National Journal ranks the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, doesn't hold with American-flag lapel pins. He says they're a substitute for real patriotism.
On the other hand, he apparently doesn't mind the fact that workers in an Obama campaign office in Houston hung a big Cuban flag with Che Guevara's mug emblazoned on it. Obama's team says merely that the flag is "inappropriate."
It's a lot more than that. Guevara wasn't some romantic mystic reading poetry in an ashram. He was a terrorist who directed hundreds of show trials and executions. He overthrew one bloody dictatorship only to impose another.
A poster glorifying Che is the moral equivalent of a noose. Why can't Obama -- who likes to be thought of as a noble exception to political orthodoxy -- come out and say so?

I have only been a journalist since I started this blog a year and a half ago. Yet, it is obvious to me that the reference to the National Journal ranking Barack Obama as the most L member of the Senate has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the editorial. The only reason I can see for it being there is to arouse negative feelings about Obama in those within the TD’s circulation area who consider liberals as a threat to truth, justice and the American way.

But it is the last paragraph of the editorial that mystifies me. How can any reasonable person suggest that a poster of Che Guevara is the “moral equivalent” of a noose? I was around in the 60s, so I know that Che wasn’t the Robin Hood figure he was portrayed as. He was a pretty nasty dude. Che had a large roll in turning the Cuban revolution into a reign of terror.* So, any person, especially one not even born in the 60s, who displays a poster glorifying Che as a hero probably doesn’t know “the rest of the story.” A noose as a symbol, however, is an entirely different matter.

Over the years, thousands of African Americans were murdered by being hanged. To generations of African Americans, especially men, it was not unreasonable to fear that their lives might end hanging from a tree with a noose around their necks. The threat of the noose was used to keep African Americans in line. Lately, when it has become fashionable for racists, or even those just playing pranks, to suspend nooses either in public places or in places close to a particular African American, the fear of the noose has been brought back. Displaying a noose is not only telling African Americans “we don’t like you,” it is also threatening that “we know how to deal with you.”

Clearly, a poster of Che is not the “moral equivalent” of a noose. A poster of Che hanging in one of Senator Obama’s campaign offices is clearly “inappropriate.” However, it is not even in the same ballpark as a noose.


*Calling him a “terrorist” is of course in the eye of the beholder. I am sure that George III considered Washington and the Continental Army as a band of terrorists (assuming he had ever heard of the word “terrorist.")

Oh Bama

I know all of you are waiting with baited breath for the maven’s endorsement in the Democratic Party race for the presidential nomination. Well, you better restart the old inhale-exhale routine, ‘cause I ain’t gonna change my previous endorsement of Bill Richardson. Now that the Governor is out of the race, I will endorse nobody. (My endorsement seems to be the kiss of death, so I’m not sure either of the remaining candidates really wants it.) However, I will continue my on-line debate with myself over who will make the best president.

I spend some of my spare time tutoring in Richmond Public Schools as part of the Micah Initiative. Somehow, I got into a political discussion Monday with some fifth graders, all of whom were African Americans. They each urged me to vote for Senator Barack Obama so that we could have our first black president. I tried to explain to them, without much success, that I would vote for the best qualified person, and that I didn’t care whether that person was black or white, male or female. Paraphrasing Martin Luther King, Jr., I urged them to judge people by their character not by the color of their skin. As I said in my piece about Hillary Clinton Monday, I will not vote for or against her because she is a woman. Likewise, I will not vote for or against Senator Obama because of the color of his skin.

So, let’s not beat around the bush (no pun intended). Let’s get straight to the experience issue because that is the one that concerns me. As I indicated Monday, I don’t buy this argument by Senator Clinton that she has “thirty five years” experience and that therefore she will “hit the ground running” on January 20 of next year. However, I am a bit concerned that up until the Democratic convention in 2004 I had never even heard of Barack Obama. His government experience before then was in the Illinois Senate. In 2005, only about three years ago, he began his term in the United States Senate. So, how much government experience is necessary before a person is qualified to be president?

When the media and some of Barack’s opponents raised the experience issue earlier in the campaign, I immediately thought of Abraham Lincoln. Under the standards being applied to Senator Obama, Lincoln was not qualified to be president. Before running for president in 1860, Lincoln had held only two government positions—four terms in the Illinois legislature and a single term in the United States House of Representatives. And, I am sure that most of the country had never heard of him before the 1860 Republican Convention. Each of Lincoln’s opponents in the election—Stephen Douglas, John Breckenridge and John Bell—had more experience in the Federal Government than did Lincoln. Yet Abraham Lincoln is consistently judged as one of our best presidents.*

(I wrote the stuff above before I knew the results of the primary elections in the Commonwealth, Maryland and the District of Columbia).

Those of you with a phenomenal memory are aware that last summer I opined that being a member of a legislature, whether state or federal, does not provide a person with the type of experience that prepare him/her for being president. (http://jamesrivermaven.blogspot.com/2007/08/choosing-next-prez-part-ii.html) I stated then that being a legislator does not develop the executive and managerial skills that a president needs.

It is apparent to me, however, that, unless Mike Huckabee pulls off a miracle of biblical proportions, our next president will be a person with only legislative—not executive or managerial—experience. This year, for only the third time since the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, we will be electing an incumbent United States Senator to be our President.

I have been thinking long and hard on this issue of experience. Perhaps the truth is that there is no amount or type of previous experience that will adequately prepare someone to be President of the United States. When the inauguration parties are over next January and the next president sits down alone in the Oval Office, I imagine that s/he will be swept by a feeling of inadequacy. This job is so big and so difficult that even I would feel inadequate, and I am a trained maven. I don’t think that anyone watching presidents from the Capitol across town or even close up as a spouse or White House staffer can ever know what it is like to be president (except, of course, for those of us who watched “The West Wing” for years.) I think that even a vice president isn’t necessarily better qualified to be president for having served in the number two position. It is hard to say, for example, that either Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson was a better president because he served as vice president before fate elevated him to the White House. (I think that the voters know that too. Since 1960, only one of four vice presidents who sought to succeed to the presidency won the election).

So, does Hillary Clinton’s seven years in the Senate make her more qualified to be president than Barack Obama’s three years in the Senate? This maven is not ready to say so. I think that either of them will have to spend a great deal of time learning should s/he be elected. Nobody is going to “hit the ground running.” Hopefully, history will be kind to whoever is elected our next president and the mistakes s/he makes during those first few months in office will be minor ones.

But wait, maven. You didn’t say who you voted for on Tuesday.

Dear reader, in this country we have a secret ballot. Who I, or any other person, vote for is nobody else’s business. That’s why there is a curtain you can close when you walk into the voting booth (or at least there used to be). But, I will say that I did not vote for Bill Richardson.

* This judgment is one of hindsight. We know that the North won the Civil War and we give Lincoln credit for preserving the Union. However, Lincoln was not so popular during his presidency. In fact, the public’s opinion of Lincoln’s performance during the first year and a half of his presidency was so low that had he run for reelection in May or June of 1863, rather than in November 1864, there is a strong chance that he would have been defeated.

Dream Team? Be Serious

My maveness has been suggesting it for weeks. Now the CNN guys have brought it out in the open. How about a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket for the Democrats in the fall? Not only would it be historic in having a woman and an African American as nominees for president and vice president (not necessarily in the order stated) but it would be hard to beat.

For the media, it just couldn’t be better. The media have really loved this past year with both the first woman and the first African American as serious candidates for president (not that I forget Shirley Chisholm). But, alas, we are approaching midnight and half of this story may soon go away. At whatever time either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama gain enough delegates to win the nomination, the other will go back to the Senate and this year will suddenly become only half as historic as now. So, in the fine media tradition of trying to make the news rather than just report it, Wolf Blitzer and his “Best Political Team” have proposed this dream team. And, as everybody is reporting it today, neither candidate ruled it out.

Oh really? This maven watched the debate last night (there’s nothing more entertaining than rival candidates just oozing with love for one other) and I’m not sure I heard the same thing. What I did hear was both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton acknowledging that the other would make a fine running mate. What I didn’t hear was either candidate saying s/he would agree to run as number two.

Neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton have to run for reelection this year, so it is safe for either of them to run for VP (although if my memory serves me right, Joe Lieberman did run both for VP and for reelection to his Senate seat in 2000). The real question is whether it is safe for either of them to be elected vice president. Although in recent administrations vice presidents have been given more and more responsibility (some suggest that Dick Cheney is actually the closet president), it is still second place. Moving from the Senate to vice president just might prove to be a career-ending decision.

Mrs. Maven tells me that being vice president puts one in position to run for president in a few years. I agree (and not just because she is my wife). Being vice president often makes one the odds-on favorite to win the party’s nomination four or eight years hence. But let’s look at a little history. Of the four sitting vice presidents who have run for president since 1960 only one, George H. W. Bush in 1982, has been elected (although, of course, Richard Nixon was finally elected eight years after he left the vice president’s office). As Richard Nixon in 1960, Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and Al Gore in 2000 learned, being vice president doesn’t necessarily mean you will be elected president.

Of course we can’t discount the possibility that the president will die in office and that the vice president will inherit the office. As we’ve heard in many campaigns in the past, “Would you want _____ to be one heart beat away from being president?” Although eight of our presidents have died in office thus thrusting their vice presidents into the White House (and one resigned making his vice president into president), there is a long list of vice presidents who were elected to this office and were never heard of again. For a person ambitious to be president, accepting the vice presidency and hoping that your boss will die before January 20 four years from now is not the best way of getting the job.

So, why would either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama give up her/his influential seat in the United States Senate to become vice president? For the good of the party? To get a chance to run for president in eight years? To get the chance to cast a vote in the Senate when there is a tie? I’m not sure agreeing to serve as vice president is a good political decision for one eager to serve at the top.

But, didn’t Lyndon Johnson agree to give up his very powerful job as Majority Leader of the Senate to run for vice president in 1960? I really don’t know how the Kennedy brothers convinced LBJ to run for number two. (Historians suggest that the vice presidency was offered to Johnson as a courtesy and that the Kennedy brothers—especially Robert—were shocked when Lyndon accepted.) Senator Johnson certainly couldn’t have known that the considerably younger man who would become his boss would not live to complete his term. Why he gave up such power for a job not worth a bucket of warm spit will forever be a mystery.

We will have to wait to see whether my maveness’ and Wolf Blitzer’s “Dream Team” becomes a reality. But, if I were you, unless you have a wonderful set of lungs, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Dewey Defeats Truman!

In its lead editorial today, our great metropolitan daily (The Richmond Times-Dispatch for you out-of-towners), tried to explain Senator Clinton’s unexpected defeat of Senator Obama in the New Hampshire Democratic primary last week. As you know, before the vote the political polls indicated that Senator Obama would build on his Iowa caucuses victory by thrashing Senator Clinton in New Hampshire. All the political pundits were stunned by Senator Clinton’s seventy five hundred vote victory over Obama. How to explain it?

The TD tried to explain the upset by what it calls “The Wilder Effect.” It harkened back to the 1989 election for governor here in the Commonwealth. Before the election, the polls showed Democrat L. Douglas Wilder (African American) with a significant lead over Republican Marshall Coleman (Caucasian). On the day of the election, however, Mr. Wilder beat Mr. Coleman by a scant few thousand votes. “The Wilder Effect,” according to the TD, is the tendency of white voters to tell pollsters that they will vote for a black candidate although they do not really intend to do so. Presumably, these voters lie to the polls to avoid being perceived as racists. Only in the privacy of the voting booth will they reveal their true preferences.

Good try, TD, but I have a different explanation. The polls were just wrong. Way back when I was a wee lad, cutting my political teeth on a Democratic Party primary election in Brooklyn, USA, I learned the truth about polls, and it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. The only poll that counts is the one on Election Day.

In 1965, the New York Democratic Party was choosing between two candidates for mayor—Sanitation Commissioner Paul Screvane and City Comptroller Abe Beam. I campaigned for Screvane going door-to-door in my neighborhood urging people to vote for him. On the night before the election, we sat around the Monroe Democratic Club celebrating our victory the following day. Why this premature party? The final polls on that Monday indicated that Screvane was going to beat Beam rather badly.

But, I forgot to tell you one key fact about the candidates. Paul Screvane was of Italian origin; Abe Beam was a Jew—the first Jew to run for mayor of New York. On Election Day, a funny thing happened. The Beam people hired a large number of busses and transported huge numbers of residents of Jewish senior residences to the polls to vote for Abe. Some came to the polls in wheel chairs; others actually on stretcher beds. Most of these older people hadn’t voted in years. Certainly the pollsters had not included them in their samples. So, on primary day, the Democratic electorate proved the pollsters wrong by choosing Abe Beam, rather than Paul Screvane as their candidate. I call this “The Abe Beam Effect,” or as Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

There is another “effect” that may explain the big New Hampshire upset. I will call this one “The We’re Gonna Teach Those Outsiders a Lesson Effect.” It was explained by a New Hampshire voter the day after the election. He said that people in New Hampshire are very independent and resent all the media and pollsters telling them how they are going to vote. He thought that a significant number of New Hampshire Democrats changed their vote from Obama to Clinton at the polls just to prove the political professionals wrong.

So what is the real reason that Hillary beat Barack in New Hampshire? Frankly dear reader, I don’t give a damn. The fact is that the polls were wrong and Clinton won. “The Guy with the Most Votes is the Winner Effect” triumphs again.

I’m Sorry Mr. Obama—No You Can’t

"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816

I’m sure you all got goose bumps from Senator Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can” not-quite-a-concession speech last night. Some compared it to John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton. But to me, with the cadence and the Baptist preacher resonance, Mr. Obama’s “Yes We Can” sounded a little like Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream.” In any event, it was a thrilling speech and it left Mr. Obama’s supporters determined to capture and change our government.

I’m afraid, however, that Mr. Obama is raising hopes in his supporters and is making promises he cannot possibly fulfill. And it’s not just Obama. All of the candidates for president are likewise encouraging us to believe that they are going to end poverty, that they will provide universal health care, that they will cut taxes for the middle class, that they will do all kinds of wonderful things to bring “change” to this country. Unfortunately, just chanting “Yes We Can” will not change the reality that we can’t do most of what the candidates are preaching because we just can’t afford it.

Last night I went to the Department of the Treasury’s website and learned that our Federal Government is in debt to the tune of $9,199,557,987,743.58. In plain words, we owe nine trillion, one hundred ninety nine billion, five hundred fifty seven million, nine hundred eighty seven thousand, seven hundred forty three dollars and fifty eight cents. I don’t know about you, but despite my experience and expertise I am unable to contemplate nine trillion dollars. I don’t think that I have ever carried more than two hundred bucks in my wallet at one time. Let’s just say that nine trillion is a bit more than that. In the words of the immortal Everett Dirksen, we are talking about real money.

What is the result of this enormous debt? Each year our government pays over two hundred twenty billion dollars in interest. Do you have any idea of how much health care we could buy for $220,000,000,000? Can you imagine how many times we could fly to the moon? Think of how many of our children we could send to college for free. Let your mind drift and imagine what we could accomplish with those two hundred twenty billion dollars. Yet, that is the amount we will pay this year and every year just to pay interest on our debt. It is money for which we will get nothing.

And just in case you think that debt is going away, keep in mind that we have trillions of dollars of unfunded promises that we are going to have to pay to our citizens in the next twenty years. Everybody expects Medicare to be there for them. Everybody expects that Social Security will be there for them. Where, I ask, is the money going to come from? Are there enough governments, corporations and individuals in the world who will want to continue lending us money in the future to pay the amount of our yearly commitments? Or, will we need massive tax increases to keep our government solvent. Or, is it possible that the United States of America will end up defaulting on its debt?

Have you heard any candidate even hint at our debt crisis? No! You can’t make promises to get yourself elected if you admit that the government can’t afford what your are promising. Republicans don’t want to talk about the debt because a Republican president and a Republican congress have increased our debt by almost three and a half trillion dollars since January 20, 2001. Democrats don’t want to talk about the debt because to admit the crisis would dampen all their plans.

So, we just go on with business as usual and celebrate when our annual deficit gets lower than two hundred billion dollars. Nobody plans for a way to bring our debt under control. Nobody talks about the real sacrifices we will have to endure over the next several years.

Each year that our government operates at a deficit, we are levying a tax of the amount of that deficit on our grandchildren. None of the Bush tax cuts were real cuts; they were just tax deferrals to be paid some day in the future, when you and I are dead.

Is there any way out? Well, it won’t be nearly as easy as it would have been had the Bush Administration continued the debt reduction strategies worked out by the Clinton Administration and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in the late 1990s. There is still time to act, although it will not be painless. We need to increase taxes. We need to restructure all our entitlement programs to reduce the unpayable promises we have made.

So what do you and I do? First we need to get more information. We need to go to the Fiscal Wake-up Tour by the Government Accountability Office (http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/wakeuptour.html). We then need to start asking the hard questions of all the presidential candidates. While we’re at it we need to start asking the same questions of our federal senators and representatives. We owe it to our grandchildren.

There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad…
Thomas Jefferson, 1821