AN INDEPENDENT MAKES A CHOICE
By R.D. Wilson
I will be voting for the Democrats on my ballot this November. I have voted both for Republicans and for Democrats over my years of participating in elections. This year I am voting for the Democrats. I am very concerned about the state of the country and the world my grandchildren are inheriting, and the anti-government positions of those who have hijacked the Republican Party scare the hell out of me.
I did vote for Obama in 2008 with some reservations and a lot of hope. He was a bright guy with an optimistic outlook about bridging the partisan divide, and he seemed to have an appreciation for the looming economic crisis that he would surely inherit, but he had no proven executive experience. However, his Republican opposition was too old, too compromised by pandering to the right-wing of the party, and chose a pop-politician running mate who was too clueless. The choice was easy; although, I did tell my wife that whoever was elected to follow George W. Bush would probably be a one-term president.
I was profoundly disappointed in Obama’s early performance. That was mostly because I had unrealistically high expectations. Deep down, I knew that he couldn’t walk across the Potomac; he was going to have to use a bridge like everyone else. Recognizing that Obama inherited the embers and ashes of the catastrophic Bush administration, I do have to cut him some slack. At least, now he knows the job and the hostile environment in which he is expected to perform. I hope he also understands his own personal limitations and surrounds himself with people who can do better those things that he doesn’t do well. He should have learned that he can’t start a political negotiation with his compromise position, and that the crop of Republicans that he is likely to face has his failure as their prime objective, without regard to the damage it will do to the country.
Reminiscent of 2008, the Republicans aren’t giving me a choice. I had hopes when Jon Huntsman entered the primaries, but he was too sensible and pragmatic in pursuit of what is best for the country to appeal to a Republican base financed by the plutocrats and energized by neoconservatives.
I can’t vote for any politician that signed Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge”. Any politician who decries the growth of the national deficit but adamantly refuses to consider any increase in revenue to support government obligations can’t have my vote. The federal government didn’t acquire its obligations in a vacuum. Congress authorized them, now Congress has an obligation to support the federal government in meeting its obligations. It may be uncomfortable for the Republican deficit hawks to recognize this, but the only balanced budgets that any of them can probably remember occurred in a Democrat administration. During the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations the deficit reached record highs in combatting the Cold War. When Soviet Russia fell apart both countries were broke; the U.S. advantage was that we still had credit. Paul Tsongas was a Democrat who lost out to Bill Clinton in the 1960 primaries, and a cofounder of the Concord Coalition with the Republican, Warren Rudman. Tsongas used his campaign to make the deficit a major issue that led to balanced budgets and a surplus in the Clinton administration ( that George W. Bush squandered). The Republications like to use “tax and spend Democrats” from their campaign phrase book. The genesis of the deficit problem, however, lies with the “borrow and spend Republicans”. The deficit does have to come down, but the first step is to elect a Congress that is less concerned about financing their next elections and their personal political careers than they are with making government work for all Americans. I want representatives in Congress that will give their Pledge of Allegiance to America, not to a lobbyist.
By R.D. Wilson
I will be voting for the Democrats on my ballot this November. I have voted both for Republicans and for Democrats over my years of participating in elections. This year I am voting for the Democrats. I am very concerned about the state of the country and the world my grandchildren are inheriting, and the anti-government positions of those who have hijacked the Republican Party scare the hell out of me.
I did vote for Obama in 2008 with some reservations and a lot of hope. He was a bright guy with an optimistic outlook about bridging the partisan divide, and he seemed to have an appreciation for the looming economic crisis that he would surely inherit, but he had no proven executive experience. However, his Republican opposition was too old, too compromised by pandering to the right-wing of the party, and chose a pop-politician running mate who was too clueless. The choice was easy; although, I did tell my wife that whoever was elected to follow George W. Bush would probably be a one-term president.
I was profoundly disappointed in Obama’s early performance. That was mostly because I had unrealistically high expectations. Deep down, I knew that he couldn’t walk across the Potomac; he was going to have to use a bridge like everyone else. Recognizing that Obama inherited the embers and ashes of the catastrophic Bush administration, I do have to cut him some slack. At least, now he knows the job and the hostile environment in which he is expected to perform. I hope he also understands his own personal limitations and surrounds himself with people who can do better those things that he doesn’t do well. He should have learned that he can’t start a political negotiation with his compromise position, and that the crop of Republicans that he is likely to face has his failure as their prime objective, without regard to the damage it will do to the country.
Reminiscent of 2008, the Republicans aren’t giving me a choice. I had hopes when Jon Huntsman entered the primaries, but he was too sensible and pragmatic in pursuit of what is best for the country to appeal to a Republican base financed by the plutocrats and energized by neoconservatives.
I can’t vote for any politician that signed Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge”. Any politician who decries the growth of the national deficit but adamantly refuses to consider any increase in revenue to support government obligations can’t have my vote. The federal government didn’t acquire its obligations in a vacuum. Congress authorized them, now Congress has an obligation to support the federal government in meeting its obligations. It may be uncomfortable for the Republican deficit hawks to recognize this, but the only balanced budgets that any of them can probably remember occurred in a Democrat administration. During the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations the deficit reached record highs in combatting the Cold War. When Soviet Russia fell apart both countries were broke; the U.S. advantage was that we still had credit. Paul Tsongas was a Democrat who lost out to Bill Clinton in the 1960 primaries, and a cofounder of the Concord Coalition with the Republican, Warren Rudman. Tsongas used his campaign to make the deficit a major issue that led to balanced budgets and a surplus in the Clinton administration ( that George W. Bush squandered). The Republications like to use “tax and spend Democrats” from their campaign phrase book. The genesis of the deficit problem, however, lies with the “borrow and spend Republicans”. The deficit does have to come down, but the first step is to elect a Congress that is less concerned about financing their next elections and their personal political careers than they are with making government work for all Americans. I want representatives in Congress that will give their Pledge of Allegiance to America, not to a lobbyist.
I can’t vote for anyone endorsing supply-side, “trickle-down”, economics as the path to
economic recovery and prosperity for all. George H.W. Bush called it “voodoo”
economics” during his primary campaign against Ronald Reagan. He was right. I was
asked by a colleague during the Reagan administration, “What is “trickle-down
economics?” In an intuitively inspired answer, I told him, “Trickle-down economics is an
economic theory whereby the wealthy prosper by impoverishing of the middle class.”
Unfortunately, that’s the way it has worked. If the wealthy get money they will invest it
where it will make them the most money with the least risk anywhere in the world,
without considering the impact on the people and communities affected by their financial
decisions. If they can find a way, it will safely sit in their bank accounts and compound.
Even if it weren’t for the Tax Pledge and his endorsement of “trickle-down economics”, I still could’t vote for Mitt Romney. After six years of campaigning, I don’t know what Romney believes in or how he plans to lead the country. All I really know is that he wants to be President and he is willing to do or say anything and spend any amount to achieve that goal. He does have a successful executive background, but I don’t know how being a leveraged buyout expert transfers to a job where all decisions are high risk, with inadequate information, and they will be coming at him from a fire-hose. Although job creation has been a cornerstone of his campaign, I found nothing in his history that convinces me that he can or will create jobs.
I’m not voting for Obama because Romney is a Republican or because he is a Mormon, it’s because he’s a shark. Under Romney’s leadership Bain Capital’s only objective was to create wealth for the partners and investors, at which he was successful. Job creation wasn’t part of that equation. Jobs lost, jobs created, or jobs moved overseas were incidental to creating wealth. The human cost of his decisions wasn’t a consideration. From what I have read, Romney is scrupulous about avoiding actions that are clearly illegal, but he has no qualms about trying to exploit that gray seam that lies between black and white. If he can’t lawyer his way out of a “gray” dispute, he’ll negotiate a settlement. He didn’t claim all of his deductions on last year’s tax return so that his effective tax rate would be higher for the campaign. It will be interesting to see if he files an amended return after the election. He is an expert at gaming the system, and an expert at creating wealth for himself and others through investments - even when it means avoidable suffering for workers and communities. Why would I think he would create jobs if there there wasn’t a payoff for him in the deal?
Even if it weren’t for the Tax Pledge and his endorsement of “trickle-down economics”, I still could’t vote for Mitt Romney. After six years of campaigning, I don’t know what Romney believes in or how he plans to lead the country. All I really know is that he wants to be President and he is willing to do or say anything and spend any amount to achieve that goal. He does have a successful executive background, but I don’t know how being a leveraged buyout expert transfers to a job where all decisions are high risk, with inadequate information, and they will be coming at him from a fire-hose. Although job creation has been a cornerstone of his campaign, I found nothing in his history that convinces me that he can or will create jobs.
I’m not voting for Obama because Romney is a Republican or because he is a Mormon, it’s because he’s a shark. Under Romney’s leadership Bain Capital’s only objective was to create wealth for the partners and investors, at which he was successful. Job creation wasn’t part of that equation. Jobs lost, jobs created, or jobs moved overseas were incidental to creating wealth. The human cost of his decisions wasn’t a consideration. From what I have read, Romney is scrupulous about avoiding actions that are clearly illegal, but he has no qualms about trying to exploit that gray seam that lies between black and white. If he can’t lawyer his way out of a “gray” dispute, he’ll negotiate a settlement. He didn’t claim all of his deductions on last year’s tax return so that his effective tax rate would be higher for the campaign. It will be interesting to see if he files an amended return after the election. He is an expert at gaming the system, and an expert at creating wealth for himself and others through investments - even when it means avoidable suffering for workers and communities. Why would I think he would create jobs if there there wasn’t a payoff for him in the deal?
I will not vote for Mitt Romney because of the Supreme Court. The Republicans have
been keen on creating ways to limit voter access or sway elections in their favor. They
made a concerted effort before the upcoming election to intimidate people who would
be inconvenienced by “Voter Id” laws. In spite of all their impassioned rhetoric on the
subject, it has been conclusively proven that the “Voter Id laws” are a solution in search
of a problem that doesn’t exist. On the other hand, voting irregularities in a Republican
county in Florida threw the 2000 presidential election into the hands of the Supreme
Court who decided for George W. Bush. Before voting began this year, invalid voter
registrations were turned in to some Florida counties by the contractor hired by the
Republican National Committee (RNC). The RNC would definitely like to throw a close
election into the Supreme Court. I don’t believe that the Supreme Court should be in
the business of deciding elections. The Supreme Court has already invalidated
campaign finance laws making campaigns appear to be up to the highest bidder.
Women’s rights are likely to be in jeopardy if Romney gets the opportunity to name a
justice to the court. The Supreme Court is already tilted toward the conservative side.
Another conservative justice and the creationists, and anti-abortion activists are likely to
have powerful friends in Washington.
If people who are in what Romney considers “Obama’s 47%” (the poor, the elderly, the former middle class, and, for that matter, the middle class) expect to get anything out of a Romney administration, they are deluding themselves. However, if they blow him a kiss, he might give them a haircut.
This 2012 election is critical for our country, and I wish we had stronger, less controversial, choices. But, we don’t. I can’t remember an election where the choice of who we send to Congress is as important. If we send someone pledged to Grover Norquist and owned by the plutocrats, we can expect a Congress that places partisan objectives over good government. This could lead to continued paralysis and a deep recession in which all but the wealthy are hurt. Or, it could prompt a spurt of legislation to get the government out of businesses and put it into your bedroom, limit your access to health care, and set in motion the next global financial meltdown.
If people who are in what Romney considers “Obama’s 47%” (the poor, the elderly, the former middle class, and, for that matter, the middle class) expect to get anything out of a Romney administration, they are deluding themselves. However, if they blow him a kiss, he might give them a haircut.
This 2012 election is critical for our country, and I wish we had stronger, less controversial, choices. But, we don’t. I can’t remember an election where the choice of who we send to Congress is as important. If we send someone pledged to Grover Norquist and owned by the plutocrats, we can expect a Congress that places partisan objectives over good government. This could lead to continued paralysis and a deep recession in which all but the wealthy are hurt. Or, it could prompt a spurt of legislation to get the government out of businesses and put it into your bedroom, limit your access to health care, and set in motion the next global financial meltdown.
