Why I'm Anti Government Bailouts

As we headed into recession during our recent economic crisis several banks went "bankrupt" and had to close their doors. The economy was so bad that many large banks and corporations needed government loans to help stave off financial failure. Here's a list. 

Adding to the crisis were looming balloon mortage payments for millions of Americans. For decades financial institutions offered risky loans to marginally qualified individuals seeking to purchase a home. Because of the balloon payments and the economic crisis many of these homeowners lost their homes. Short sales and foreclosures abounded; Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae tottered.

Then the government thought they should do something to help stave off the economic disaster. So, what did they do? They helped the banks and other corporations and let the small-time homeowners to flounder by themselves.

Part of the money given to the banks was to be invested in new loans to prop up businesses and to foster new growth. Some of the money could have been used to give relief to the beleaguered homeowners. What did the banks do? They deposited the money in their vaults and sat on it.

The banks used the government's money to earn interest so that they could get out of the red. Then they paid back the loans to the government without ever using the money to benefit anyone but themselves.

So, the banks are fine, but business still is slow to recover, and the creation of new jobs is even slower. What about the homeowners facing foreclosure? Only several months later did anyone in Washington try to help them out.

Now, the goverenment could have taken a completely different approach in the beginning of the crisis. The government could have given the money to the beleaguered homeowners, who then would have paid their mortages to the banks, thus, stemming the bleeding by the top financial institutions.

But, once again, our government "of the people, by the people, and FOR the people" caters to the rich and powerful at the expense of the average worker.

And, that's why I am against Government Bailouts

5 Reasons Why I Am Pro-Labor

1.      I Grew Up in a Working Class Neighborhood

I grew up in a large northern rust-belt city. My father worked as a pipefitter for the railroad, my friends’ dads worked for the steel mills and in the auto industry. About 80% of the parents of my high school classmates were blue-collar workers.

 Thanks to unionization and collective bargaining these workers were able to live the American Dream by making payments on mortgages and purchasing late model cars. One by one the houses in my working class neighborhood began sprouting television antennae.

 2.      Working Class People are Heavily Invested in their Communities

These workers coach youth sports teams, lend muscle on community projects, and continually deposit money in the emergency needs jars found at convenience stores and elsewhere. They volunteer for EMT and Fire Department duty. Their volunteerism includes local churches and community groups, such as the Lions and Kiwanis.

 3.      I Believe in Collective Bargaining

Through union lobbying and government regulations the work week was lowered from 12 hour days/6 days a week to 8 hour days/5 days a week. Pension funds were established to help retired workers subsist. Through OSHA dangerous and unsanitary working conditions diminished.
 
One has only to read about the nineteenth century robber barons or the living conditions of the meat packing plant workers in Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” to understand the many positive contributions of unionization and collective bargaining for the American worker. It seems that Big Business rarely establishes wages, benefits, and working conditions in the interest of its workers. But, business seems much more interested in the bottom line, the percentage of profit, and its stockholders.

 So, it seems that I am pro-union. In spite of the fact that we still don’t know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, I am. Unions provide protection for the individual worker against abuses of the employer. Unions require the employer to abide by the negotiated contract when good will breaks down.

 4.      Capitalists Constantly Attack Workers Salaries & Benefits

The only voices advocating abolishing unions are capitalists. Often they disdain the worker as lazy. Some suggest that workers start their own businesses if they want to bring home more income.  And we are supposed to emulate these people?

I find it even more disturbing that republican led state governments, such as Wisconsin, are also attacking public service employees unions. Their employees are the ones that make state offices and agencies run. Isn’t this policy short-sighted at the least?

 5.      Working Class & Lower Middle Income Families Comprise 60% of American Society

Working class Americans and those from the lower middle class comprise 60-65% of society. Their household income is $75,000 or less. However, they are the largest segment of society. Look at the Dennis (2002) and Thompson & Hickey (2005) models in the Wikipedia article "American Middle Class".

When the US was a manufacturing economy these workers were invaluable to Big Business. Now, it’s this group that suffers the largest number of job cuts and has the hardest time finding new positions with roughly the same wage and benefits packages.

Because working class and lower middle income comprise over 60% of the economy, because their wages are not rising at the level of inflation, and because proposed tax plans don’t favor them, they feel particularly squeezed.

 

Both state and federal governments need to provide relief for working class and lower middle income families and not place the burden of subsidizing government programs on their backs.

 

Why I Am A Centrist

Having just voted in the United States Presidential Election and having viewed countless hours of grating political ads and having viewed countless political ads by facebook friends I'm just fed up!

I feel like the democratic party has been captured by liberal activists and wants the federal government to financially support any and all minorities and special interest groups.

I feel like the republican party has been captured by the capitalists who only want the government to free them from paying any taxes, and limit government benefits in order to raise their bottom line.

Neither party is willing to work with the other to actually accomplish any meaningful legislation that takes all Americans into account. If the democrats are in power they enact some new social legislation sure to benefit the lower class at the expense of the middle class, and if the republicans are in power they enact legislation that benefits big business and their own pockets.

In all of this maneuvering, both parties lose sight of the reason they were elected--to represent the interests of their constituents, not the lobbyists.

Unfortunately, I find that even state legislatures have become equally divisive and that they often enact legislation that benefits utilities and insurance companies while forgetting about the citizens' economic situations.

Now, I find that I agree with some--not all--of the democrat's social agenda, and I agree with some--not all--of the republican's economic agenda. I favor the libertarian's smaller, less intrusive government, and agree with the statist's use of limited government regulation of industry.

My leadership style also fits well with centrism as I am a consensus builder, recognizing good points on both sides of issues and seeking for the common ground. I also value history and established procedures, so I don't jump at every new idea and want to hold on to that which has proved helpful and useful.

I think government works best when the various law makers can work together to solve a problem, rather than stubbornly insisting on following their own (or their lobbyists) interests and ideologies. we used to call this STATESMANSHIP. It is this kind of working relationship that created the US Consitution.

I believe the best answers, and the best hope for our nation, is at the political center, and so, That's Why I Am A Centrist.

Rules for Craftsmen

by David Brooks

Published: October 15, 2012 

Voters have been astonishingly clear. In 2000, they elected George W. Bush after he promised to change the tone in Washington. In 2008, they elected Barack Obama after he promised to move the country beyond stale partisan debates. In this year’s first presidential debate, surveys show that viewers loved Mitt Romney’s talk of professionalism and bipartisanship.

In other words, primary campaigns are won by the candidate who can most convincingly champion the party’s agenda, but general election campaigns are won by the candidate who can most plausibly fix the political system. So let’s think carefully about what sort of leader it would take to break through the partisan dysfunction and make Washington work.

First, it doesn’t take moderation. It’s important to distinguish between moderation and pragmatism. Ted Kennedy was nobody’s definition of a moderate, yet he had the ability to craft large and effective compromises on issues ranging from immigration to education and health care.

Second, the governing craftsman has to have a dual consciousness. He has to be able to distinguish between a campaign consciousness and a governing consciousness. The campaign consciousness involves simplifying your own positions, exaggerating your opponent’s weaknesses and magnifying the differences between your relative positions. In governing mode, you have to do the reverse of all these things.

Third, it does require the ability to count. The governing craftsman has to be able to know how many votes each side possesses. He has to avoid the narcissistic question: What do I want? He has to ask instead: Given this correlation of forces, what is the landscape offering me?

Fourth, the craftsman has to avoid the trap of thinking that right makes right. He has to avoid saying to himself: My position is objectively the correct one. Therefore, all I have to do is get the facts out there, win the debate and then I’ll get everything I want.

The craftsman has to accept the hard reality that the other side also believes these things. It is extremely unlikely that one side will convince the other, or the country. The craftsman can hope for some final ideological victory, but he can’t realistically expect one.

Fifth, the craftsman has to distinguish between existential issues and business issues. Winston Churchill would have made a terrible mistake if he had compromised with the appeasers. On the other hand, Dan Rostenkowski and Robert Packwood were absolutely right to compromise to get the tax reform of 1986 passed.

The craftsman has to understand that in the middle of the fight almost every issue will feel like an existential issue, though, in reality, 98 percent of legislative conflicts are business issues.

Sixth, the craftsman has to be able to read a calendar. It is psychically painful to move away from your heartfelt position. It is easier to say to yourself: I can’t get what I want now, but, if I just wait, I’ll win the next election and get everything after that. Participants in the Middle East peace process do this: They postpone their dreams while maximizing their demands.

The craftsman has to understand that these distant fantasies almost never come true. It is usually better to make a small step next month than do nothing in hopes of a total victory next generation.

Seventh, the craftsman has to be socially promiscuous. Deal-making is about friendship. The craftsman has to work on relationships all day every day. It’s not enough to talk to your adversaries in negotiations. You have to talk to them when nothing is happening. You have to talk to them when they are up, when they are down. You have to celebrate their anniversaries and birthdays.

Eighth, the craftsman has to betray his side. It is relatively easy to cut a deal with the leader of the other party. It is really hard to sell that deal to the rigid people in your own party. Therefore, the craftsman has to enter into a conspiracy with the other party’s leader in order to manipulate the party bases. The leaders have to invent stories so that each base thinks it has won.

Ninth, the craftsman has to understand that stylistic pragmatism has to be accompanied by substance pragmatism. Barack Obama really wanted to move beyond stale battle lines. But he offered a conventional Democratic agenda. If you want to break the partisan stagnation, you have to come up with an unexpected policy agenda that will scramble the categories. You have to mix proposals from columns A and B.

Finally, a craftsman has to be tough inside and soft outside. It hurts to cede ground. The craftsman has to be gritty enough to endure the pain that always accompanies compromise, yet sensitive enough to recognize and sympathize with the other party’s pain.

Voters are right to demand craftsmanship, given the brutal trade-offs that loom ahead. But, boy, it’s hard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/opinion/brooks-rules-for-craftsmen.html?_r=0

Name Some Centrist Candidates

I don't endorse any of the candidates in the linked article, I just thought we ought to have an idea of possible choices.  Discuss and Disagree.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/02/opinion/avlon-centrist-candidates/index.html

Are You A Centrist?

Take this 10 question quiz and find out where you lie on the political spectrum. Takes about 3 minutes of thought.

The Nolan Chart

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

The Two Americas

Republican Security Council

THE TWO AMERICAS: "America is now two countries, not on speaking terms. The culturally cohesive America of the 1950s that some of us remember, is no longer with us. . .
"One America listens to Rush Limbaugh; the other to NPR. Each America has its favorite cable news channel. . . There are plenty of smart, creative and successful people in both Americas. But they don't like to mix with each other 

these days.
"One America tends to be traditionally religious, personally charitable, appreciative of entrepreneurs and suspicious of government.
"The other tends to be secular or only mildly religious, less charitable on average, skeptical of business and supportive of government as an instrument to advance liberal causes. This was an election that pitted these two cultures against one another. . .
"Now the Two Americas disagree, sharply. Government decisions enthuse one and enrage the other. The election is over, but the Two Americas are still not on speaking terms." ~ Michael Barone, of the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of "The Almanac of American Politics."

- - - - 

I would hasten to add that The Two Americas also have a generational gap. Voter demographics show that a majority of Americans over 40 voted for Romney, while a majority of those under 40 voted for Obama. It's probably no surprise that the majority of voters for Obama lived in cities with large minority populations, while the majority of Romney voters lived in suburban and rural areas.

The challenge for centrists is to define social programs important for urban Americans and economic policy important for suburban and rural Americans. We need to focus on the issues and find win-win scenarios. That's what the politicians in DC seem unable to do. If Centrists can accomplish this task they will have the key to victory in 2016.

Ron Paul: Election shows U.S. 'far gone' - Washington Times

Ron Paul: Election shows U.S. 'far gone' - Washington Times

One possible Centrist candidate for 2016 is Ron Paul. Here's a post-election article. Sharing, not necessarily agreeing.

My Current Positions (as of November 8, 2012)

Here is a summary of my current political positions. Let the arguments begin!

ECONOMIC ISSUES

1. Pro-labor, including working class and lower middle class.

These folks are the backbone of America. They support traditional patriotic, ethical, and legal causes. They have the least political support from politicians, and feel like they are the only ones paying taxes to keep the country afloat. People in this group account for 75% of all voters.

 

2. Pro limited term welfare and unemployment.

Help people OUT of their situation.

3. Anti big business bail outs.

Give the bail out money to the working class, they know how to use it. They'll stimulate the economy if you give them the money, and the banks and other big business will get their share, too.

4. Wind-fall Profits.

I favor government regulation of wind-fall profits. Industries should either use the money to rebuild their infrastructure, or the government should use the wind-fall to pay down the national debt. (Think Joseph's 7 fat years and 7 lean years)

SOCIAL ISSUES

5. Pro-life, anti-abortion.

I believe that life begins at conception. I am willing to authorize abortion in cases of rape or incest and when the mother's life is in danger. Otherwise, the woman had the choice to use birth control measures or to abstain. The child shouldn't pay for its mother's ( or father's) behavior. 

6. Pro-Gay Rights

I favor extending all the rights and privileges to gay couples that married people enjoy. I favor civil unions. I'm not sure about calling it marriage.

7. Pro Social Security and Medicare.

They're not entitlements, we contributed to our accounts in every paycheck. The  government needs to keep its hands out of the till.

8. Universal Health Care.

I'm ambivalent about universal health care. I certainly don't like the penalties in Obamacare. I think lots of employees will see their hours reduced so that employers can avoid paying for benefits.

9. Environment.

I'm happy to have the skies and waterways cleaned up. I'm glad that unsightly dumping has (for the most part) ceased. However, I think EPA reuglations go overboard about protecting habitats. Let's find a happy medium. 

FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES

10. Pro military.

I want a strong defense. I want others to think twice before challenging us. I want us to leave Afghanistan as soon as possible.

11. Pro Israel.

I believe that the nation of Israel is God's special people, but it's far from righteous.

12. Foreign Aid.

We should help other countries when we can, especially help the weaker countries/peoples who can never pay us back. We should not apologize for who we are. I don't want the US to become France or Germany.

Mission

The mission of this blog is to clarify centrist and populist political positions and to discover suitable third party candidates for President for the 2016 election.

For the past twenty years (at least) a growing number of American voters have been displeased with the choice of candidates from the two major political parties. The time seems ripe for a strong third party candidate who represents the positions and values of most Americans. These values are close to the center politically.

I believe that by beginning to work the day after the 2012 election and staying the course centrists will be able to define their platform and discover candidates than can win elections for local, state, and national office. I am pledged to do my part.

Join me in the quest!

Subscribe to the blog, join the conversation, declare your values.

BTW, you don't have to agree with me.