Structural changes in both political parties causing dysfunction – moderate Republicans hold the key

Posted by Shyam Moondra

Dysfunction in the federal government began during the presidency of George W. Bush whose war in Iraq based on false intelligence led to distrust in the government among politicians as well as general public. The money spent on the war in Iraq, bank bailouts necessitated by Bush's lax regulations of the financial industry, and unnecessary tax cuts given to the rich at a time when the country was fighting two wars contributed to the huge budget deficit and national debt. Bush's successor, President Barack Obama, was forced to undertake large-scale stimulus spending to thwart severe recession caused by the financial crisis left behind by Bush, which led to even bigger increases in budget deficit and debt. Obama, at the urging of his liberal supporters, pushed through Affordable Care Act (or what is now termed as Obamacare) in both the House and Senate strictly on partisan basis. That gave birth to the Tea Party movement whose extremism worsened political polarization not just between Democrats and Republicans but also within the Republican Party. In 2011, House Speaker John Boehner, under intense pressure from Tea Party aligned conservatives, led the ugly debate on increasing debt ceiling, which crashed the financial markets, slowed economic recovery, and caused the first ever downgrade of the U.S. government debt from AAA to AA+ by the rating agency Standard & Poor. Subsequently, Republicans paid a price at the ballot box in 2012 when Obama easily won re-election and Republicans lost seats in the House and Senate. One would think that Republicans learned their lesson, but here we are, two years later, with Republicans playing the same game all over again with more serious implications than before - the government is currently shut down for eight days already and we are on the verge of first-ever default by the U.S. government on its debt. The Congress now has an approval rating of only 10%, which is a historic low, but that does not seem to bother Boehner and other Congressional Republicans at all.

In terms of the legislative agenda, the current 113th Congress is termed as the most unproductive Congress of modern times. The extent to which this Congress is polarized is summed up by the statement of Boehner in which he said that the success of the Republican-led House should be judged not based on how many new Bills they pass but based on how many existing Bills they repeal. With the emergence of Tea Party faction as a strong player among the conservative ranks of the Republican Party, Boehner has been forced to adopt their extreme ideologies to keep his job as the Speaker. The extremism propagated by Tea Party has become an obstacle in getting anything done in a split government that by necessity requires compromises. As a result, the Republican Party is badly divided between conservatives and moderates. Republican moderates, who fear reprisal in the form of primary challenges inspired by Tea Party if they oppose Tea Party's extreme ideologies, have chosen to remain silent and on the side-lines while Tea Party leaders such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas have taken on an oversize role in shaping the direction of the Republican Party. This has irked such iconic moderates as Sen. John McCain and others who have openly criticized the tactics advocated by Cruz. Nevertheless, to preserve unity, many moderate Republicans in the House and Senate have decided to grudgingly go along with the policies formulated by Cruz and other conservatives. These moderates have clearly been marginalized in this new political shuffle. A fractured Republican Party is not well positioned to win the Senate in 2014 or the White House in 2016. Cruz and others have openly advocated shutting down the government and even defaulting on government obligations as acceptable strategies to get what they want, namely, getting rid of Obamacare, reducing tax rates for businesses, and reforming the entitlement programs to reduce spending. They have gone even further by devising an unorthodox plan to get rid of Obamacare by de-funding it. Obamacare was approved by the Congress, signed into the law by Obama, and subsequently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional. Boehner tried over 40 times to repeal the law but failed. Obamacare was a major issue in the 2012 presidential and Congressional elections, but Obama and Democrats prevailed. Now Boehner, at the urging of Cruz and others, has chosen to shut down the government and is prepared to let the government default on its obligations unless Obama agrees to dismantle Obamacare, his signature program. This is, of course, an extreme tactic of blackmail, which Obama cannot and will not accept. The normal procedure for getting rid of a law is to have a new revised Bill passed by both the chambers and signed into law by the president; but Republicans are trying to kill the program by withholding funding for its implementation. This is certainly a novel approach but ultimately undemocratic and it cannot be allowed to succeed. Today, it's Obamacare, but tomorrow Republicans could try to de-fund other laws that they do not like, defying the checks and balances built into the constitution. Of course, not all Republicans subscribe to this extreme tactic.

On the other side of the isle, since the election of Obama as the president in 2008 and re-election for a second term in 2012, the Democratic Party has moved to the left of the political center. Obama strongly believed that Bush's pro-rich policies, especially his generous tax-cuts to the rich, widened the gap between the rich and poor and the middle class lost a lot of ground. Obama, with the help of ultra-liberal Nancy Pelosi, who was House Speaker at the time, moved the Democratic Party to the left, which was a sharp contrast to the previous Democratic President Bill Clinton, who ruled from the right of the center. Clinton dismantled the welfare programs and moved people from welfare rolls to work rolls, but Obama has consistently favored the poor and the middle class over the rich. Under Obama, there has been a huge growth in the food stamp program, disability benefits, and Medicaid expenditures. The liberal transformation of the Democratic Party under Obama has sidelined Clintonian conservatives and moderates within the Democratic Party that would have preferred to govern from the center on most economic issues. In spite of some disagreements between liberal and conservative Democrats, they have nevertheless steadfastly remained united in their opposition to Republican extremism.

While Republican Party has been radicalized by the Tea Partiers much to the discomfort of Republican moderates, Democratic Party has moved to the left much to the discomfort of Democratic conservatives and moderates. So, what we need is a rebalancing act in which moderate Republicans join forces with conservative and moderate Democrats to form a powerful block whose support would be essential to make progress on any particular issue. At least six moderate Republicans in the Senate would have to switch their Party affiliation and become Democrats; such a move will not only give Democrats a filibuster-proof majority, it will also keep liberal Democrats in check while rendering extremist Republicans such as Cruz powerless. There are many moderate senators such as John McCain, Susan Collins, Kelly Ayotte, Tom Coburn, Jim Inhofe, John Thune, Richard Burr, Ron Johnson, Rob Portman, and Lisa Murkowski, who could possibly become a part of this balancing act with an objective to move the country forward on important issues of tax reforms, entitlement reforms, infrastructure investment, education reforms, immigration, etc. In the House, 17 Republican moderates would need to switch to Democratic Party which would give the control of the House to Democrats while at the same time dilute the power of liberals within the Democratic Party. There are 23-26 House moderate Republicans who are willing to vote for clean CR and debt ceiling bills. Many of them also favor to proceed on immigration bill and some of them are even pro-choice, so they will fit right in within the Democratic Party. Obama and Democratic Congressional Leaders would need to make the case to the target Republicans for the switch by offering them prominent committee assignments and even leadership positions within the Democrat controlled House and Senate. These movements will instantly break the gridlock in Washington, DC and the Congress would finally resume its business of legislating and solving people's problems.

Romney and Ryan – Retrofit and Rack

Posted by Shyam Moondra

In 2008, Republican presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain was running behind Democrat Barack Obama and McCain was looking for a game-changer to energize his uninspiring campaign. McCain found it in Sarah Palin, then Governor of Alaska, whom he chose as his running mate. However, Palin turned out to be a disastrous choice which ultimately led to McCain’s humiliating defeat in the election. Now, four years later, it is déjà vu all over again. Republican presumptive nominee Mitt Romney is running behind Democrat President Obama and Romney needed a game-changer, so he picked as his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, an ultra conservative from Wisconsin where Obama is presently ahead in the polls.

Romney’s announcement of Ryan being his running mate has indeed energized the Republican base, judging from the size of the crowds that are showing up at their joint appearances since the announcement. The same thing happened when Palin was chosen by McCain as his running mate; her colorful speeches (that included such lines as “pig with lipstick”) did arouse the crowds especially the conservatives, but that initial excitement didn’t last for long and eventually it became clear that Palin was not a wise choice after all. Ryan would probably meet the same fate. Once Ryan's budget plan is dissected more fully and his positions on Medicare and Social Security programs, tax cuts for the rich, abortion, and gay marriage start sinking in the hearts and minds of various constituents, the initial excitement would fade and reality set in.

Romney has been a moderate Republican all his life, which is evident from his record as the Governor of Massachusetts, where he reformed health care that later became the blueprint for Obamacare. Romney’s policies there on many social issues such as abortion and gay marriage were too similar to those of Obama and too moderate for right-wing ideologues. Those may be the reasons why Romney rarely talks about his accomplishments as the Governor of Massachusetts on the campaign trail. Of course, since Romney started running for the president of the United States in 2008 (when he lost the nomination to McCain), Romney has tried rather unsuccessfully to re-brand himself as a conservative. He flip-flopped on many issues just to appeal to the conservatives many of whom deeply distrust him. In Ryan, a multi-term Representative from Wisconsin, Romney found an ultra conservative, who could possibly help Romney solidify his support within his own Party. The Ryan pick, however, is a retro move, Romney’s desperate attempt to retrofit his credentials to make him look like an authentic conservative, which he is not.

Ryan is a decent family man with impeccable personal qualities. His humble beginning is very appealing to many voters, which contrasts to Romney’s inability to connect with the ordinary folks given Romney’s enormous wealth and affluent background. Ryan has shown a great deal of courage in proposing his budget plan that would end Medicare as we know it, knowing full well that even some fellow Republicans would find it too extreme and that it would be ripped apart by many of his own senior constituents. His staunch support of conservative ideology (small government, low taxes for the rich and corporations, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-welfare programs, anti-entitlement programs, pro-gun, pro-personal freedoms, and pro-business) makes him a darling of the conservatives within the Republican Party, especially the Tea Partiers. However, this pick will ultimately prove to be a rack for Romney’s campaign because it will make it impossible for Romney to put together a winning coalition.

Here is a rap sheet on Ryan:

Positives:

• A decent family man with integrity and strong personal convictions.

• He is a self-made man with humble beginning, in sharp contrast to the affluent background of Romney.

• He is a policy wonk with good understanding of the budget issues. As the Chairman of House Budget Committee, he is well respected in and out of the Congress.

Negatives:

• Recently, former Vice President Dick Cheney said that the number one requirement for a VP pick is that he/she must be ready to become President on a moment's notice. Palin was not, nor is Ryan. Ryan is too young and has almost no foreign affairs experience.

• Ryan’s budget plan relies heavily on gutting Medicare and Social Security programs (that didn’t cause the current deficit) and giving tax cuts to the rich (as part of unproven “trickle-down” economics).

• Ryan’s proposal to privatize Medicare will shift the burden on to the senior citizens while creating a huge profit potential for the insurance companies. Given that Ryan received around $1 million in campaign contributions from the insurance industry, his proposals are tainted with potential conflict-of-interest.

• Ryan is way too conservative (almost to the point of being extreme) when it comes to issues like abortion, gay marriage, women pay equality, and civil rights.

• Ryan is part of the House Republican leadership team that is damaged because of its misbehavior during the debt ceiling debate that eventually led to the downgrade of government securities from AAA to AA+ by Standard & Poor, the first ever in our history. Their extreme tactics were overwhelmingly disapproved by the people.

Ryan lost no time in making federal budget as the number one issue and criticizing Obama for $1 trillion deficit and $15 trillion debt (never mind if Obama inherited from the former President George W. Bush severe recession, $1 trillion deficit, $10 trillion debt, and 2.6 million jobs lost in Bush’s final year in office). In fact, Ryan supported Bush’s $1 trillion worth of unnecessary tax cuts to the rich and tax subsidies to oil companies and farmers, $1 trillion spent on unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $700 billion worth of bank bailouts that became necessary after Bush reduced bank regulations which precipitated the 2008 financial crisis. Ryan was part of the problem but now he wants to fix the problems he helped create. Obama agrees that we need to reduce deficit; in fact, Obama negotiated with Republican House Speaker John Boehner a grand plan that would have reduced deficit by $4.5 trillion over ten years but that plan was torpedoed by Tea Partiers within the Republican Party because it included tax increases for the rich. Ryan is wrong when he says that Obama is not concerned about the deficit and debt; Obama wants to reduce deficit through a balanced approach (that combines tax increases and spending cuts) while Ryan wants to do it by gutting the Medicare and Social Security programs that didn’t cause the current deficit and make the middle-class bear the main burden of dealing with the deficit problem.

Ryan's selection would only solidify the support of women and senior citizens for Obama, supplementing Obama’s already strong lead among the Blacks, Hispanics, and young college students. The presence of Ryan on the Republican ticket may also push Independents to favor Obama. A powerful coalition of voters coming together like this is a sure prescription for a landslide victory for Obama in November. It’s now more likely that Obama would win the critical states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia, thereby accumulating far more than 270 electoral votes that he needs to prevail. A coattail effect of Obama’s victory may also mean that now there is more than 50% chance that Democrats may even end up winning the House of Representatives as well. It wouldn't be a surprise if Romney soon starts thinking about replacing Ryan on the ticket - well, that's what flip-floppers do.

A clean sweep by Democrats (controlling the White House, Senate, and House) would finally end the gridlock in Washington, DC and pave the way for a balanced approach to reforming the tax code and reducing budget deficit (by combining spending cuts and revenue increases in a 4:1 ratio) and making progress on the issues of immigration, education, and energy. In January, 2013, it’s very likely that the old grand plan of reducing deficit by $4.5 trillion over ten years, hammered out by Obama and Boehner, might finally get a second chance.

McCain's extreme comments against Obama are harmful to our democratic process

Posted by Shyam Moondra

Lately, Sen. John McCain and his running-mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have been using extreme tactics against Sen. Barack Obama that are totally out of line and are very damaging to our democratic process.

Bill Ayers, who is now a university professor, committed terrorist acts to show his opposition to the Vietnam war at a time when Obama was just eight years old. A few years ago, Obama and Ayers had brief association because they both served as board members in connection with community projects in Chicago area. Ayers is not an Obama advisor nor he is in any way involved in Obama's presidential campaign. Given these facts, this is a huge stretch to use this brief association between the two men as a basis to imply that Obama may be a "terrorist." This is a smear tactic, plain and simple.

McCain and Palin have also implied that Obama may be a "corrupt" Chicago politician or he is "dangerous" or he has "character" problems. These are all flimsy charges without any proof to support any of these charges. McCain's surrogates have called Obama "unpatriotic" and they have used Obama's middle name "Hussein" to imply that he may be a Muslim even though they know that he is in fact a Christian.

During the first debate, McCain was visibly angry and disrespectful towards Obama that didn't win McCain any points in the eyes of many voters. During the second debate, McCain referred to Obama, his colleague in the Senate, as "That one," which was totally uncalled for.

McCain has been utterly ineffective in articulating his vision for the pressing problems of economy, jobs, health care, and education that the American people have been dying to hear about. McCain has impulsively offered flawed solutions or said something and then changed or retracted his solutions or comments. That makes him look indecisive and confused.

McCain's erratic leadership and his extremism have in fact hurt him because a majority of Americans believe in fair play and they are not happy at the political terrorism being practiced by McCain and Palin. McCain has run a dishonest and dishonorable campaign, second only to Richard Nixon.

McCain should be careful not to enrage his hard-core racist supporters to the point that one of them may contemplate to assassinate Obama or if McCain loses, Obama may have a hard time to govern. Just because you can't win, it doesn't mean that you unfairly torpedo your opponent's chances to govern and do the good work for the country. Country comes first, which means keeping the political discourse civil and fair.

Most polls indicate that Obama may be headed to a landslide victory, so McCain and Palin should tone-down their extreme rhetoric and be mindful that if Obama wins he should have an environment where all the people could work together to solve tough problems we face as a nation.

Has John McCain lost his bearings?

Posted by Shyam Moondra

In recent weeks, Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency, seems to have lost it completely. His campaign is so poorly run that one has to wonder how he is going to manage the country! He has not presented any cohesive plan to deal with the pressing substantive issues of economy, energy, etc. Lately, he has resorted to attack ads against Sen. Barack Obama, which is inconsistent with his reputation as being straight shooter and above dirty politics.

Let's look at some facts:

1. McCain made statements that had factual errors and had to be later corrected. And it happened, not just once or twice, but may be as many as half-a-dozen times. Is that because of his advanced age? Is he fit to be near the nuclear button (not to forget his legendary red hot temper)?

2. When McCain ran for the presidency the last time, he proclaimed that he wanted to change the politics of Washington, DC and would run a clean campaign. Well, all that has changed this time. He is now running non-stop attack ads against Sen. Barack Obama. He is back to the old dirty politics, championed by mostly Republicans. This time dirty politics may not work because the people are going through tremendous hardship and they desperately want a leader who would solve problems of economy, oil prices, healthcare, etc. As a result, dirty politics may help McCain solidify his support among hard-core Republicans, but his attack ads will cost him the votes of the Independents and conservative Democrats. To them, McCain, as a straight shooter, was the main attraction, but once he resorts to dirty politics, he loses that attraction. His comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton has backfired; even Spears is reportedly unhappy about her image being used in political commercials.

3. He keeps changing his position on a variety of issues.
a. He first strongly criticized Obama for talking about setting a time-table for the withdrawl of American combat forces from Iraq, But when President Bush started talking about "time-horizon" and Iraqi President al-Maliki's expressed support for Obama's position, McCain switched his position and now he says that he could live with a "time-table." Now that's a big u-turn from his previous plan to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
b. Initially, he gave "no new taxes" pledge, but now he seems to be backing away from it.
c. First, he proclaimed that he would balance the budget by the end of his first term in office, while also making the Bush tax cuts permanent. But when questions were raised about if it's at all possible to do that (the numbers don't add up), he seems to be backing away from such a lofty goal. McCain instantly lost his credibility. This seemed to prove, what he once said himself, that he doesn't really understand economics.
d. First, he said that Iraq was a top priority, but now he seems to be shifting focus to Afghanistan/Pakistan, but only because Obama has been talking about this for a long time and now even Pentagon seems to agree with Obama.

4. The main concern American people have right now is economy, but McCain – 'The Surge Man" – keeps talking about the Iraq war and hammering Obama on this issue. He erroneously thinks that this election is about the war in Iraq. He is just out of touch.

5. McCain's response to the high oil prices was to give the consumers an "oil tax holiday," saving them a whopping $30! The idea was so silly and laughable that, not just most economists, but even President Bush and most Republicans in the Congress wouldn't even go near it.

6. He has been trying to project himself as a tough guy. How is he going to deal with Iran? McCain parodied the Beach Boys' song, saying "Bomb, Bomb, Iran…" Well, the macho strategy in Iraq has cost the U.S. dearly; the American people have no appetite for another war. Again, McCain seems to be out of touch. Recently, President Bush sent a top diplomat to a meeting with Iran on the nuclear issue, which is consistent with what Obama has been saying for some time now.

McCain was not making progress, at least in terms of polls, so someone must have advised him to go on the attack, spending millions of dollars on ads against Obama. These attacks worked in the past when the country was prosperous and there were no major issues. But this time, the people desperately looking for leadership to end the war in Iraq (that has cost thousands of lives and two trillion dollars), to reduce huge budget deficit that Bush has piled up, to create more jobs, to come up with an effective energy policy that combines alternative fuel sources and conservation, to address the healthcare crisis, and do something about the decline in education. McCain, by going on the attack and not offering any strategic vision on important issues that people care about, he is simply making himself as an irrelevant candidate.

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.