SOME THOUGHTS ON THE RECENT ELECTIONS

First of all, I am thankful that we had two such fine families running for president.

Then I regret that the American electorate demands such negative campaigning.  Unfortunately if one side does it, the other must also.  The electorate says they don't like it, but they do pay attention to it.  In this regard, the Democrats seemed to be more effective in their negative campaigning than the Republicans.

After all the money spent by outside groups such as Super PACS in the campaign, we ended up having the same Democratic president, an increase in Democratic Senators by two (but not enough to break filibusters) and  an increase of Democratic Representatives by seven (but not enough to take over the House).  The electorate seems to say to our politicians "Make it work!"

Mitch McConnell's first priority of defeating the President didn't work.  Will we face another four years of total obstruction?

Somehow Republicans are going to have to learn how to love Hispanics and quit kicking them in the teeth.  It is going to be very hard for them, but Hispanics tend to be conservative and can be a natural component of a conservative movement.

There are no precedents in our politics anymore.  It used to be that politics was said to stop at the borders, but no longer. The immediate politicalization of the Benghazi attack on September 11 shows that.  I really thought that Benghazi couldn't be made to last until the election proved to be unfounded as the media was more than willing to keep this issue going.  Ronald Reagan suffered both the Lebanese Embassy bombing* in 1983 in which  63 people died was never politicized by the Democrats nor was the Beirut (Lebanon) base bombing in which 299 American and French forces were killed.*  These two disasters have not stopped Ronald Reagan from becoming deified by many Republicans, no doubt by some of those who want to keep the Benghazi issue alive even after the election.

Romney's demonizaton of the 47% who pay no Federal income tax as being lazy dependents may be unfortunate but is a widely held view of many Republicans.  I know this both from Republicans I know and from boards on Motley Fool.  But it also does insult many of the white working class people who vote Republican.  Please remember that 47% of the Households earn less than $47,000/yr which undoubtedly includes many of white workers.  One cause of this lack of Federal income tax payments is the child tax credit where there is a $1000 per child deduction from their taxes, and this deduction was raised under the Bush-43 administration from $500/child to $1,000/child.**

The Romney claim that he knows how to generate jobs is both right and wrong.  Private equity, at least in the short term, eliminates jobs and does not create them.  That is the first thing they do, fire people.  Labor is the elastic component of our system.  However in the beginning of Bain Capital, they emphasized Start Ups which do create new jobs.  Romney switched to private equity because it was a quicker way to make money and that is what Bain Capital is all about.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Whether in the long term private equity creates jobs, I don't know , but suspect that it doesn't.

But weren't start ups what Obama was doing in promoting alternative energy?  In spite of the Solyndra failure, the amount of losses in the Federal government Start Ups program is small.  Even Solyndra, however, served a good purpose because the Solyndra system didn't use the special glass used to solar energy.  Their approach caused the price of the special glass to plummet to make Solyndra uneconomic.  I have not seen any article examining whether the price of glass plummeting has saved more money in solar energy panels than the losses on Solyndra, but over time it might.  Personally I wish the government would have taken Solyndra to production before closing it down.  If you are going to be involved in start ups, there are going to be failures and the emphasis needs to be on the net.

There is a point in saying that the Federal government shouldn't be choosing winners and losers of course; however, the government does this sort of thing all the time.  Think how important the government emphasis by NASA and the DoD on miniaturization of electronics has been not only to producing inexpensive desk top computers but now the tablets and smart phones.  Consider the World Wide Web (WWW) and Geographic Positions Systems (GPS) for just two.  These were developed for military purposes.  The important thing was really permitting these two innovations to be released into the public sector where private industry could promote them for Civilian uses.

*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_embassy_bombing; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

** http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-about-the-Child-Tax-Credit

THE OBAMACARE "COMMITTEE"

One frequently hears about a committee (panel or board) in Obamacare that is going to make judgements about what benefits you will get.  Most recently Mitt Romney made the complaint in the first presidential election debate.  The committee is actually called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) or, originally the Independent Medicare Advisory Board.  This IPAB is explicitly restricted to making savings without affecting rationing, beneficiary costs, coverage or quality of care , but is given the task of meeting certain goals as to the cost of Medicare.*  Furthermore Congress can overrule the Board with a supermajority vote, but then must find the savings elsewhere.*  Lastly the IPAB consists of 15 members appointed by the president but subject to congressional confirmation.*  The President must consult with the Majority Leader of the Senate on the appointment of three members, the Speaker of the House of Representatives on appointment of three others, and then consult for three each with the Minority Leaders of these two bodies.*  This leaves three to be appointed by the Administration as ex-officio non-voting members.*  The members will serve six years in staggered terms.*

The obfuscation of the real IPAB purpose is, of course, done for political reasons.  IPAB in fact replaces a previous Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (Med Pac) whose recommendation of cuts to Medicare have been ignored by Congress.*  You are advised to read the entire article in Wikipedia.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board)

TRUTH IS DANGEROUS FOR POLITICIANS

Former President Clinton has said something like “Democrats like to fall in love. Republicans like to fall in line.” There do seem to be strong lines in the Republican party, like taxes should always be lowered. It would be dangerous for a Republican candidate for office to counter this. But there are other lines, and I often wonder who establishes them? Another one is government should be smaller; yet, oil companies are to continue getting their subsidies and corn-based ethanol not only is to have a subsidy but also a tariff to make importing ethanol uneconomic. So no matter what a candidate’s opinion, a Republican candidate has to tow the line or face the consequences. Mitt Romney’s problems with promoting universal health care in Massachusetts when he was governor haunt him today in his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president. Tim Pawlenty may have a drag on his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination not only because of the health care law he put in place in Minnesota but also his opposition to the ethanol subsidy while he is campaigning in Iowa.

Newt Gingrich would like to have the Republican nomination for president, but , alas, he was recently caught telling the truth in a recent interview at “Meet The Press” and has gotten into deep yogurt as a result. According to National Review, Gingrich said, "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering."* Apparently, the party line on this is that the Republicans don't do social engineering. Even worse he said, “ I oppose Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform but support a ‘variation’ of the individual mandate.'”** For Republicans, the individual mandate is a no, no.

Of course Gingrich has had to apologize to Paul Ryan for breaking with the party line over his lapse into the truth: “Gingrich, however, is trying to put the controversy behind him. Last night, he told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren that he’d already apologized to Ryan for his response to Gregory’s question about whether Republicans should ‘really move forward to completely change Medicare’ and ‘turn it into a voucher program’ –- a question he now wishes he didn’t answer at all. Gingrich said, 'It's a hypothetical baloney question that had no hope of happening. The Republicans don't control the Senate. They don't have the White House. They can't do what Obama did. And I should just dismiss it. So, that was a mistake.'”***

The opinion of the pundits is that Gringrich’s campaign, never strong, is finished.

You can see the video of Newt Gingrich on Meet The Press, May 15, 2011, for the Medicare and Paul Ryan voucher system:

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/05/video-newt-gingrich-on-meet-the-press-51511/ You can see the interview with Greta Van Susteren at http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich-the-extended-on-the-record-interview/. You can read about the Tim Pawlenty stands on the ethanol subsidy at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/politics/24pawlenty.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24

*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110515/pl_ac/8477605_newt_gingrich_goes_after_paul_ryan_medicare_plan_1

**http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/gingrich-i-oppose-paul-ryans-medicare-reform-but-support-a-variation-of-the-individual-mandate/

*** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/nbcs-david-gregory-defend_n_863660.html