Republicans are digging their own grave

Posted by Shyam Moondra

In 2011, Congressional Republicans led the ugly debate on debt ceiling which resulted in the downgrade of U.S. securities and eventually they ended up losing the 2012 election. One would think that Republicans probably learned their lesson; however, for whatever inexplicable reasons, they are making the same mistakes all over again. In essence, Republicans are continuing to self-destruct.

The country is on the verge of going over the "fiscal cliff" (automatic tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts on January 1, 2013) and voters overwhelmingly blame Republicans for putting the country through unnecessary unpredictable times. Another downgrade of government securities by the rating agencies may very well be inevitable. For a while, negotiations between President Barack Obama and the House Speaker John Boehner on "fiscal cliff" appeared to be headed to a successful conclusion, but then came a strange unilateral move by Boehner to pursue "Plan B" (making the Bush tax cuts for families earning less than $1 million a year permanent while letting the tax cuts for millionaires expire), which, as it turned out to Boehner's embarrassment, didn't even have the support of his own party caucus. The "Plan B" was never brought to a vote but this futile exercise derailed the negotiations between Obama and Boehner. So now what we have is nothing and we are only a few days away from the "fiscal cliff." A few weeks ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced a bill to let Obama raise the debt ceiling to demonstrate that even Democrats wouldn't support it. However, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) decided to put that bill up for a vote and it appeared that the bill could actually pass, McConnell was forced to filibuster his own bill. The current Republican leaders in the House and Senate seem to be bent on showing off that they can do the weirdest things and look incompetent or as the British would say "nutters."

To be able to govern, a party must first win election, and to win election it must pursue policies that are supported by a majority of the electorate. An overwhelming majority (including the rich people) support higher tax rates for those who make $250,000 or more to help reduce budget deficit. In a democracy, how can a party go against the wishes of the people and still expect to prevail? Republicans can't impose a minority view on a majority and get away with that. The same thing is true on other issues such as abortion, immigration, and gun control, where Republicans are pursuing their extreme policy agenda which is not supported by the majority of the people.

The U.S. demographics are changing; this year, for the first time ever, more non-white babies were born than white babies and that means the Obama coalition (Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, middle class whites, students, women, and veterans) will only get stronger in the future. Therefore, continuing to cling to rigid conservative ideologies that are not supported by the emerging electorate is a sure prescription for losing elections going forward.

Republicans' iron-cast ideology of "no new taxes, ever" is not only impractical but it's also damaging to the economic well-being of the country. President George W. Bush cut taxes for the rich (at a time when we were fighting two wars and spending like crazy) and, as a result, the rich people benefited the most during the last decade (which explains the widening gap between the rich and poor). So there is nothing wrong if rich people are asked to contribute more now to help reduce the deficit and debt.

Republicans will eventually lose on their right-wing ideologies (because of the changing demographics) and thereby become irrelevant. Recent opinion polls clearly show that the people are generally fed up with the Republican intransigence; in 2014, it's very likely that Democrats will win filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and they will also win the House, paving the way for gridlock to finally come to an end.

Republicans are digging their own grave and in 2014 they will finally get to RIP.

Obama's leadership, sense of optimism, and competence will boost the stock markets

Posted by Shyam Moondra

The person who occupies the White House has enormous impact on how the country, and for that matter the world, fares. Below is a synopsis of what has happened during the recent presidencies and what could one expect during the Obama administration.

Ronald Reagan (1981-1988): The Dow Jones Industrial Average increased from 900 to 2,500 or 178%. President Reagan believed in smaller government, strong defense, and lower taxes. He introduced trickle-down economics, i.e., prosperity of the rich people will trickle down to the poor (George H. Bush called it "voodo economics"). Reagan's strong and decisive leadership and inspiring communications skills led to optimism on the Main Street and Wall Street. However, lower taxes combined with increased defense spending led to large budget deficits.

George H. Bush (1989-1992): The Dow Jones Industrial Average increased from 2,500 to 3,200 or 28%. Bush is noted for his successful execution of Desert Storm war campaign that led to the expulsion of Iraqis from Kuwait. However, Bush tried to reduce the deficit caused by Reagan's policies by increasing taxes, breaking his pledge of "read my lips - no new taxes" and lost his re-election bid. The Reagan momentum carried into the Bush presidency and the stock market went up to a new high, but huge budget deficit remained a big drag on Bush's presidency. Bush also suffered from his lack luster communications skills.

Bill Clinton (1993-2000): The Dow Jones Industrial Average increased from 3,200 to 11,000, or whopping 244%. Clinton brought more centrist style government. His practicality, competence, superior intellectual abilities, uncommon political skills, and superb communications skills enabled him to grow economy, strengthen national defense, turn budget deficit into budget surplus, and entice people to move off the welfare rolls and become productive working members of their communities. Clinton demonstrated what a pragmatic and non-ideology driven government can accomplish. Clinton shied away from rash decisions on using the military power. His more cautionary approach in foreign affairs enabled the U.S. to achieve its goals in Kosovo without overextending the military while keeping our alliances strong. Even though Clinton's second term was marred by the Monica Lewinsky affair, overall he showed that a smart government can make a big difference in people's lives.

George W. Bush (2001-2008): The Dow Jones Industrial Average declined from 11,000 to 8,800 or 20%. The Bush years were the most incompetent, incoherent, visionless, and destructive years in the history of the United States. He led a government based on ideology and stubbornness (even if he made a mistake, he would refuse to change the course). His administration represents one of the most corrupt administrations in our history - he appointed incompetent and unqualified people in important government positions as political payoffs that led to disastrous results as was evident from how badly his administration handled the Katrina disaster. The award of no-bid contracts and missing billions of dollars in Iraq show how pervasive was corruption in his administration. His overemphasis on deregulation and lack of enforcement by the SEC led to a complete breakdown of our economic system. He spent money like a drunken gambler and turned the biggest budget surplus into the largest budget deficit. He hurriedly pumped hundreds of billions of tax payers' money into the financial system, only to be misused by the corrupt financial institutions. Bush misled the country by using manufactured intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq that turned out to be a major blunder. He sacrificed thousands of American lives (many more wounded and now forced to live limbless lives) and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and he wasted $800 billions that could have been used right here to do good things for the American people. All of that was to get rid of Saddam Hussein, who, as Bush explained, "tried to kill my dad." This unnecessary war brought Al Qaeda to Iraq (and thus made us less secured) and fractured our alliances. Bush will go in the history as the worst president we ever had.

Barack Obama (2009-2016?): The Dow Jones Industrial Average is expected to grow from 8,800 to 18,000, or 105%. Obama is already showing many of the presidential characteristics that will help restore confidence in the country's future and our prestige around the world. Obama's inspiring written and oral communications skills (often compared to those of Lincoln, Kennedy and Reagan), his intellectual capacity and competence (often compared to those of Kennedy and Clinton), his emphasis on making life better for the low- and middle-class Americans (often compared to those of Roosevelt, Lincoln and Clinton), and his ability to think big (often compared to Lincoln who abolished slavery and Kennedy who called upon NASA to land a man on the moon). Obama, being a young man from the generation of Blackberry, e-mails, and YouTube, brings something new that is unprecedented - his strong belief in using technology to solve many of our problems. His focus on using green technologies to create new high-paying jobs and achieve energy independence, aggressively pursuing stem cell research to find cures for many diseases, and making extensive use of IT technologies to reduce the health care cost will help our economy start growing again. Obama represents a composite view of many of the desirable presidential characteristics, as exhibited by many of our past great presidents, that bode well for the future of our country.

The Congress should scrap the seniority system and older congressmen should retire

Posted by Shyam Moondra

President George Bush's approval rating has been the lowest compared to that of all other presidents in the modern history. However, the Congress fairs even worse in the eyes of the American people. The Congress, as an institution, is lethargic; it's like an over sized, old, and tired elephant that can hardly move.

While many of our problems are a direct result of Bush's ideology driven governing style, the Congress has failed to provide checks-and-balances as envisioned by the nation's founders. Bush's belief that the government should get out of the way of the private sector led to lax regulations that, in turn, led to the devastation of our free-market economy. Just as crime goes up on the Main Street if the police is not cruising the streets, it was not unexpected that Wall Street will engage in deception and manipulation if the regulators just looked the other way. Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strike led him to blunder in invading Iraq that led to enormous costs in terms of lives and money. Bush's mantra of "lower taxes," led to disproportionately higher benefits to the rich at the expense of everybody else who are now stuck with a huge national debt that next generations would have to repay. Bush's spiritual belief is that there is no global warming and if there is something going on with our environment it's God's doing and not man-made, and, therefore, we don't really need to do anything. His recent push for health provider's conscience based denial to provide health care is rooted in his firm belief that abortion is a sin and not a woman's right. Bush's ideology driven agenda has brought nothing but ruins that now President-elect Barack Obama has to undo by pursuing more pragmatic ways of governing.

The Congress' record is even bleaker. The senators and congressmen failed to question faulty intelligence on Iraq, they authorized Bush to go to war but failed to provide oversight, they did not properly watch over the regulators who were supposed to regulate the financial sector, and they kept authorizing Bush to spend money that we didn't have. The government of checks-and-balances, as envisioned in the constitution, did not materialize.

One of the reasons why the Congress has turned in such a poor performance is that too many senators and representatives are old and they have been at the Capitol way too long. The median age of senators is 63 years compared with 36.7 years for the entire U.S. population. Most of the committee chairmen are in 70's and 80's, who are not in tune with the needs and thinking of the much younger and more dynamic population.

While older people bring experience and wisdom to their jobs, they generally have less energy and passion to accomplish big things. They tend to be comfortable in their jobs and thus have no zeal for any change. Resistance to change also means that novel ideas and solutions are not easily accepted. The older people are always behind the curve and in reactive mode; they almost never anticipate problems and they are rarely ready with proactive actions to prevent problems from happening in the first place. It's like a slow-motion movie running in reverse, very painful to watch.

Our country faces many difficult and complex problems that would require vigorous schedules and innovative approaches to solve them. The present mix of senators and representatives is out of step with the young and vibrant President-elect Obama, whom the American people chose over the aging Sen. John McCain. Obama has already outlined his ambitious agenda that includes a huge stimulus package to generate 3 million jobs, achieve energy independence during his tenure as the president, stabilize the housing market, tackle the health care crisis, win the war on terror in Afghanistan, and improve our educational system. The real question is if Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and these tired committee chairmen are the right people to keep up with Obama in achieving grand things for our country. I look upon these old lawmakers as an obstacle in our path to progress.

I think the time has come to get rid of this unwritten rule of seniority in the Congress when deciding who should lead what committee (the House has already begun that process but the Senate has not). The selection of lawmakers for the major leadership positions should be based on who has the capacity, drive, and passion to partner with the young Obama in getting things done. And to those in the Congress who are over 68, it's time they consider retiring and letting the younger generation take over, as was made abundantly clear by the American people who elected the young Obama as the next president. Perhaps, the time has come to also consider term limits for the U.S. senators and representatives.

Is President George Bush secretly trying to help Sen. Barack Obama?

Posted by Shyam Moondra

Sen. Barack Obama has been talking about his strategic vision on a number of different issues, only to be mocked by Sen. John McCain and his surrogates. However, in the last few weeks, President George Bush seems to be embracing some of Obama's ideas, which lends the question if Bush is secretly trying to torpedo the campaign of McCain, his one-time political foe.

Here are a few examples:

1. Obama has been consistently advocating direct diplomacy in dealing with Iran. He was the first to say publicly that he would be willing to meet with the Iranian president to discuss the nuclear issue. McCain and others quickly jumped on Obama, calling him naïve and inexperienced in foreign affairs. However, recently, President Bush dispatched a top State Department official to join the representatives of other major powers at a meeting with the Iranian officials to discuss the issue of nuclear enrichment, undercutting McCain's position on the issue.

2. Obama has been talking about setting a time-table for withdrawing American combat forces from Iraq, His main reason for this position is that a time-table will force the Iraqi government to speed-up the internal political reconciliation, so that Iraq could become a full-fledged sovereign country sooner rather than later. McCain is, of course, opposed to setting any time-table. But now Bush is talking about a "time-horizon" within which American soldiers could be pulled out of Iraq. Even Iraqi officials are now in agreement with Obama, leaving McCain in a very awkward position.

3. Long time ago, Obama correctly identified Afghanistan/Pakistan as the region to focus on in the war on terrorism and not Iraq, He even suggested that 2-3 brigades from Iraq could be moved to Afghanistan to deal with the deteriorating situation there with respect to Al Quaeda and Taliban. Lately, the Defense Department is also talking about the need to send more forces to Afghanistan. That led McCain to also jump on the band wagon and call for more troops for Afghanistan.

4. When McCain proposed a gasoline tax holiday, Obama called the idea a "gimmick," which will not provide any meaningful relief to the consumers. The Bush administration and other Republicans seemed to agree with Obama, and the McCain proposal was dead-on-arrival.

5. Obama proposed to make a major investment in transportation and infrastructure projects to create thousands of jobs in the construction industry. McCain thought that was pork-barrel spending. However, many in the Congress in both parties seem to agree with Obama, and now efforts are underway to position infrastructure spending as the second round of stimulus to give a boost to the sagging economy. While Bush has not explicitly signed-up on a second stimulus package, he has not said "no" either.

Lately, the way Bush has been aligning himself with Obama on so many different issues, it is forcing McCain to make u-turns, again and again. That makes McCain look like a typical politician, while Obama is winning the praise from the electorate as being a pragmatist, a strategic thinker, and a problem solver.