Today, Saturday, April 9, 2011, I caught part of a video clip of President Obama who, I think, was on the National Mall speaking to visitors to D.C.
I thought I heard the President say: "Because Congress was able to settle their differences," the museums and monuments are open. I know he said what I've put in quotes. I think the rest was the essence of his statement.
BECAUSE OF CONGRESS SETTLING ITS DIFFERENCES???? That's how Obama sees this recent dispute over the budget, or wants to portray it? Sheesh.
And where the heck was the White House in all this? Sitting on the sidelines? Obviously not. Obama, Biden and others at the White House were obviously key players in this drama. But, sadly, Obama's comment reflects the way he wants to be seen, the way he wants to portray himself -- above the fray, almost a non-partisan.
No doubt Obama is trying to move to the center for 2012 and not appear opposed to major trimming of America's deficit and debt. And that may be good policy and make political sense for him. But only so far.
As I recall, after Gingrich and the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in the 1990's, some called President Bill Clinton irrelevant. Clinton would have nothing of that and knew how to assert himself and remain relevant, winning a second term in the process.
Obama is not irrelevant. The Republicans handily won the House in 2010 but neither control the Senate nor the White House. And while many Americans worry about the deficit and national debt and the Tea Party has shown some ability to whip up concern over those issues, there is much to be said about not panicking on either of these two issues, nor rushing to radically reduce the budget when the economy has yet to find its way out of the Great Recession. Obama may have made the right decision during the lame duck session of Congress last year in caving on opposition to a continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy but he will weaken himself, even if he wins re-election, if he flip flops all across the spectrum, which is what he appears to be doing.
Yes, Obama needs the House of Representatives to pass legislation, including a budget, so compromise is necessary. But Obama should nonetheless use the bully pulpit to continue to try to educate the American people on the role of and need for a strong federal governmental presence. We are no longer an agrarian society; we are a highly urbanized society with an economy that is not only fully integrated across this nation but with much of the world as well. We need a central government that can regulate economic swings, protect Americans against the excesses of private entrepreneurs and enterprises, stimulate economic growth and trade, assure minimum standards of healthcare and education, and perform many other tasks, in addition to defense.
Obama should also not throw in the towel on increased taxes to balance the budget and assure certain "entitlements", particularly now that the Republicans are finally showing their fangs when it comes to attacking Medicare, with Social Security likely to be next. Reform of these programs? Yes. The kind of radical restructuring and privatization that Republicans seem to favor? Absolutely not.
Obama is not irrelevant but sometimes it appears he wants to make himself so. During the 2008 campaign Obama spoke of presidential styles and he definitely seemed to favor Reagan's, which Obama himself described as essentially above the fray, letting others fight over the details only to emerge near the end. This has been Obama's style, with respect to fights over the stimulus package, healthcare reform, and now the 2011 budget. He and his aides have been involved in all of these battles but he himself has let others take central stage. In my judgment this was and continues to be a big mistake for him.
Obama has been an eloquent speaker and communicator when in campaign mode, whether during the campaign or as president. But in his daily talks and press conferences he has come across as dry, distant and without affect. He came across that way during some of the debates during the 2008 campaign as well. He needs to go into what I'll call campaign mode more often. He needs to show passion and not get caught speaking in a dry, distant tone, carefully selecting his words as if he were lecturing somewhere. He needs to show he cares and that, while open to necessary compromise, he still has his own set of values and will pursue and fight for them. It's okay to compromise and even stand aside on some campaign promises that simply aren't achievable. But if he bends on almost everything and comes across as dry and drab in a move toward the center, he will not only not be a good president, but he will, in my judgment, undermine his chances of re-election. And even were he not to win re-election, he will have been true to himself and to all those who voted for him.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
My Letter to Long Beach Councilman Gary DeLong on 2nd + PCH Project (Major Shopping Center in Eastern LB)
Dear Gary,
I read with interest the coverage of the 2nd + PCH project in the Belmont Shore – Naples Patch of April 5, 2011. I want you to know that I am opposed to the project and I found points made in the article as well as comments from Mike Ruehle disturbing.
I have lived in Belmont Shore since 1979 upon my return from attending law school at UC Davis. I had previously lived in Seal Beach while teaching. Back then there was no Marina Pacifica let alone the twin shopping centers. The Hyatt Edgewater Hotel wasn’t the eye sore it became but its glory years had passed it by. Traffic was not a major problem. I welcomed the construction of the shopping centers despite the dismal failure the first time around at what subsequently became known as the Wow (Tower Records, et al.) And I would not have minded had the Hyatt Edgewater been replaced but despite rumors from year to year that did not happen.
But the 2nd + PCH is going far beyond what is truly suitable for that location. Nor does Long Beach need the high end stores contemplated in the project. Yes, I shop at South Coast and to a lesser extent at Cerritos and Westminster Mall (which has truly disappeared as a rival to the other two). And I enjoy the high end stores, particularly at South Coast. But that location has enormous parking and access from a number of separate approaches. And it is not very far from Belmont Shore.
I wouldn't mind 2nd + PCH were it not destined to fundamentally transform this part of Long Beach forever. Trust that I'm not given to nostalgia but I think it will serve business interests far more than it will serve the public interest. It will transform eastern Long Beach from a beach/marina oriented area with some convenient shopping and movie venues to a built up commercial area filled with shoppers and automobiles. And, I know it will turn out to be an enormous traffic problem, regardless of whatever "mitigation" the builder and/or City will make. I say I know not because I am a traffic engineer but because I have lived here for decades and also am familiar with what happens when major projects are built in areas not truly containing the infrastructure needed to sustain them. Even if lanes are expanded at the 2nd and PCH intersection, I can only imagine that congestion will be enormous and those of us living in the area will be heavily impacted. As you well know, access to Belmont Shore and Naples is limited. For those of us living here, that's a good thing but the 2nd + PCH project will make it a bad thing.
I was in law school when CEQA was adopted by the California Legislature and participated in Environmental Moot Court. I am quite familiar with its processes and standards. While it contains mechanisms intended to truly mitigate negative environment impact, it also does not ultimately stand as an obstacle to a legislative body intent on building a project regardless of its environmental consequences. If the process is followed the legislative body may do almost what it pleases. I'm concerned that this is exactly what is happening this time through and that you are facilitating that turn of events rather than opposing it. If true, Ruehle's allegations that your election chairman has become the developer are troubling in this regard. What exactly is your position on this project? You may have commented on it in your emails and I assume you support it strongly, albeit with appropriate mitigation which will ultimately mean little.
I am not a wide-eyed environmentalist. While I am concerned about the environment, my frustration above all is traffic. In fact, I write also to share my frustration at the recent changes in street design and consequent traffic flows elsewhere in Long Beach, beginning right here on 2nd Street in Belmont Shore and focusing as well on downtown Long Beach where I currently work. Bicycles and bicycling are good things and should be encouraged. But the recent conversion of the second lane in both directions on 2nd Street through Belmont Shore and Naples is wrong, creates needless safety risks and should be reversed. Whose idea was it and what role, if any, did you play in this?
Even more problematic has been the changes made in street design in downtown Long Beach, on Broadway, 3rd Street, and Marina Drive. On Marina Drive near the Aquarium an entire lane of traffic heading from the end of the Long Beach Freeway to Ocean has been eliminated, presumably to allow more parking on Marina Drive for the restaurants at The Pike. What a disaster. Cars pour onto Marina Drive from the return commute home from Los Angeles and create enormous congestion given the removal of a lane. I work in that downtown Long Beach area and both see and experience the congestion daily. As for Broadway and 3rd Street, the elimination of a lane for a bicycle lane is another miscue. Bicycle traffic is minimal from my daytime observations but automobile traffic is now worse than ever. A commitment to "green" is meritorious but not for its own sake and not when the negative consequences outweigh any real positive contribution. In my opinion that is the case with these street design changes of late.
I previously wrote to you a number of years ago about parking in Belmont Shore that leads residents to forego trips away from home out of fear that they will not be able to park near their homes upon their return. You indicated that individual streets could vote in favor of some kind of permitting but I may have noted in response (or simply noted to myself) that such an approach merely sets one street against another as shoppers on 2nd Street or visitors to the beach will simply park on a neighboring street. I renew my complaint here and once again call upon you as our Councilman to consider a systemic approach that would require permitting throughout Belmont Shore as a way of making parking tolerable for residents. Many cities and parts of cities have such plans and it is time that Long Beach adopted such a plan for Belmont Shore. In fact, such a plan should have been adopted long ago.
Thanks for considering my opinions.
Regards,
Donald
I read with interest the coverage of the 2nd + PCH project in the Belmont Shore – Naples Patch of April 5, 2011. I want you to know that I am opposed to the project and I found points made in the article as well as comments from Mike Ruehle disturbing.
I have lived in Belmont Shore since 1979 upon my return from attending law school at UC Davis. I had previously lived in Seal Beach while teaching. Back then there was no Marina Pacifica let alone the twin shopping centers. The Hyatt Edgewater Hotel wasn’t the eye sore it became but its glory years had passed it by. Traffic was not a major problem. I welcomed the construction of the shopping centers despite the dismal failure the first time around at what subsequently became known as the Wow (Tower Records, et al.) And I would not have minded had the Hyatt Edgewater been replaced but despite rumors from year to year that did not happen.
But the 2nd + PCH is going far beyond what is truly suitable for that location. Nor does Long Beach need the high end stores contemplated in the project. Yes, I shop at South Coast and to a lesser extent at Cerritos and Westminster Mall (which has truly disappeared as a rival to the other two). And I enjoy the high end stores, particularly at South Coast. But that location has enormous parking and access from a number of separate approaches. And it is not very far from Belmont Shore.
I wouldn't mind 2nd + PCH were it not destined to fundamentally transform this part of Long Beach forever. Trust that I'm not given to nostalgia but I think it will serve business interests far more than it will serve the public interest. It will transform eastern Long Beach from a beach/marina oriented area with some convenient shopping and movie venues to a built up commercial area filled with shoppers and automobiles. And, I know it will turn out to be an enormous traffic problem, regardless of whatever "mitigation" the builder and/or City will make. I say I know not because I am a traffic engineer but because I have lived here for decades and also am familiar with what happens when major projects are built in areas not truly containing the infrastructure needed to sustain them. Even if lanes are expanded at the 2nd and PCH intersection, I can only imagine that congestion will be enormous and those of us living in the area will be heavily impacted. As you well know, access to Belmont Shore and Naples is limited. For those of us living here, that's a good thing but the 2nd + PCH project will make it a bad thing.
I was in law school when CEQA was adopted by the California Legislature and participated in Environmental Moot Court. I am quite familiar with its processes and standards. While it contains mechanisms intended to truly mitigate negative environment impact, it also does not ultimately stand as an obstacle to a legislative body intent on building a project regardless of its environmental consequences. If the process is followed the legislative body may do almost what it pleases. I'm concerned that this is exactly what is happening this time through and that you are facilitating that turn of events rather than opposing it. If true, Ruehle's allegations that your election chairman has become the developer are troubling in this regard. What exactly is your position on this project? You may have commented on it in your emails and I assume you support it strongly, albeit with appropriate mitigation which will ultimately mean little.
I am not a wide-eyed environmentalist. While I am concerned about the environment, my frustration above all is traffic. In fact, I write also to share my frustration at the recent changes in street design and consequent traffic flows elsewhere in Long Beach, beginning right here on 2nd Street in Belmont Shore and focusing as well on downtown Long Beach where I currently work. Bicycles and bicycling are good things and should be encouraged. But the recent conversion of the second lane in both directions on 2nd Street through Belmont Shore and Naples is wrong, creates needless safety risks and should be reversed. Whose idea was it and what role, if any, did you play in this?
Even more problematic has been the changes made in street design in downtown Long Beach, on Broadway, 3rd Street, and Marina Drive. On Marina Drive near the Aquarium an entire lane of traffic heading from the end of the Long Beach Freeway to Ocean has been eliminated, presumably to allow more parking on Marina Drive for the restaurants at The Pike. What a disaster. Cars pour onto Marina Drive from the return commute home from Los Angeles and create enormous congestion given the removal of a lane. I work in that downtown Long Beach area and both see and experience the congestion daily. As for Broadway and 3rd Street, the elimination of a lane for a bicycle lane is another miscue. Bicycle traffic is minimal from my daytime observations but automobile traffic is now worse than ever. A commitment to "green" is meritorious but not for its own sake and not when the negative consequences outweigh any real positive contribution. In my opinion that is the case with these street design changes of late.
I previously wrote to you a number of years ago about parking in Belmont Shore that leads residents to forego trips away from home out of fear that they will not be able to park near their homes upon their return. You indicated that individual streets could vote in favor of some kind of permitting but I may have noted in response (or simply noted to myself) that such an approach merely sets one street against another as shoppers on 2nd Street or visitors to the beach will simply park on a neighboring street. I renew my complaint here and once again call upon you as our Councilman to consider a systemic approach that would require permitting throughout Belmont Shore as a way of making parking tolerable for residents. Many cities and parts of cities have such plans and it is time that Long Beach adopted such a plan for Belmont Shore. In fact, such a plan should have been adopted long ago.
Thanks for considering my opinions.
Regards,
Donald
Saturday, February 26, 2011
On David Brooks, "Runaway Debt" and America's Moral Challenges
David Brooks, a conservative columnist who writes in The New York Times, wrote that he is saddened that Mitch Daniels, Republican Governor of Indiana, is inclining not to run for President. In praising Daniels, Brooks commented that "the country's runaway debt is the central moral challenge of our time." I think that is ludicrous and sent the below email to David in response. His column is at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/opinion/25brooks.html?src=me&ref=general.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear David,
Do you truly believe that this country’s runaway debt is the central moral challenge of our time? It's truly sad if you do.
Not the increasing inequality in this vast and still wealthy country. Not the failure to grapple with millions of uninsured were so-called Obamacare to be eliminated. Not this country's failure to recognize its limits as the world's policeman. Not our need to face up to the challenges of a country increasingly changing in its demographic character, by which I mean the incredible growth of the Hispanic population.
Yes, the debt is and should be of major concern. But the greatest moral challenge? Spare me. How about focusing on the "morality" surrounding its emergence -- a banking system focused on creating obscure and obscene kinds of financial instruments based on mortgages given to non-qualifying candidates? What say you on that? I don't know Mitch's position on Obama's financial regulation legislation but I know Republicans in general oppose it, despite lessons all of us should have learned from the recent Great Recession.
No, David, you're wrong. That you see the debt as a moral challenge rather than the consequence of a good faith effort to avoid the pitfalls of the Great Depression by priming the pump through government spending is quite sad.
Please think more before you write. You're more balanced than most conservatives but you truly need to clean your lenses and check out what the real "moral" challenges are that face us.
Thanks.
Donald A. Newman
Long Beach, CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear David,
Do you truly believe that this country’s runaway debt is the central moral challenge of our time? It's truly sad if you do.
Not the increasing inequality in this vast and still wealthy country. Not the failure to grapple with millions of uninsured were so-called Obamacare to be eliminated. Not this country's failure to recognize its limits as the world's policeman. Not our need to face up to the challenges of a country increasingly changing in its demographic character, by which I mean the incredible growth of the Hispanic population.
Yes, the debt is and should be of major concern. But the greatest moral challenge? Spare me. How about focusing on the "morality" surrounding its emergence -- a banking system focused on creating obscure and obscene kinds of financial instruments based on mortgages given to non-qualifying candidates? What say you on that? I don't know Mitch's position on Obama's financial regulation legislation but I know Republicans in general oppose it, despite lessons all of us should have learned from the recent Great Recession.
No, David, you're wrong. That you see the debt as a moral challenge rather than the consequence of a good faith effort to avoid the pitfalls of the Great Depression by priming the pump through government spending is quite sad.
Please think more before you write. You're more balanced than most conservatives but you truly need to clean your lenses and check out what the real "moral" challenges are that face us.
Thanks.
Donald A. Newman
Long Beach, CA
Saturday, February 12, 2011
My Contempt for 'Talking Heads' and Budget Cutters
I have such contempt for all the so-called 'talking heads' who appear on the bankrupt cable news channels (CNN, FoxNews, MsNBC) at times of crisis claiming to know what they are talking about, not that the usual suspects know anything either. Now it's Egypt. Was Tunisia a month ago. On to Yemen. Of course, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq remain perennials.
And then there's the domestic agenda but my contempt there focuses on the self-described budget cutters. Cut the budget by $100 billion say the Tea Party losers but, uh, don't touch defense, Medicare, Social Security. Which leaves what? Environmental Protection? Federal subsidies for education? Why not eliminate the Food & Drug Administration? Let the states handle highway construction and regulation of commerce. They do such splendid jobs at it. Obama is talking about taking the federal government out of the mortgage industry (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac), something that probably makes sense, but the real estate industry -- yes, the business side -- is hollering no, as they fear their industry will suffer. The FACT is that if federal spending is to be curtailed defense and the entitlement programs will have to be hit. But will seniors stand for that? (I won't!!! ;-) )
Anyway, the time may have come to offer myself for prime time. The older I get, the more I realize how dumb, uninformed and ignorant the next generation is proving itself to be. ;-)
And then there's the domestic agenda but my contempt there focuses on the self-described budget cutters. Cut the budget by $100 billion say the Tea Party losers but, uh, don't touch defense, Medicare, Social Security. Which leaves what? Environmental Protection? Federal subsidies for education? Why not eliminate the Food & Drug Administration? Let the states handle highway construction and regulation of commerce. They do such splendid jobs at it. Obama is talking about taking the federal government out of the mortgage industry (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac), something that probably makes sense, but the real estate industry -- yes, the business side -- is hollering no, as they fear their industry will suffer. The FACT is that if federal spending is to be curtailed defense and the entitlement programs will have to be hit. But will seniors stand for that? (I won't!!! ;-) )
Anyway, the time may have come to offer myself for prime time. The older I get, the more I realize how dumb, uninformed and ignorant the next generation is proving itself to be. ;-)
Saturday, January 1, 2011
A Rant on Disproportionate "Taxes" on Motorists
On December 31, 2010, two Los Angeles Times reporters wrote separate articles on related subjects. Nardine Saad wrote an article about the State of California's intent to impose an additional $4 charge on all traffic and parking tickets, purported to pay for "emergency air transport services because of a revenue shortfall in Medi-Cal funding." Marc Lifsher wrote an article about the imposition of "crash taxes" on motorists who are found "at fault" in vehicle accidents for the costs of emergency services at the scene.
Nardine's article is at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-traffic-tickets-20101231,0,6845681.story. Marc's article is at http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-crash-tax-20101231,0,2932838.story?page=1.
I am deeply troubled by this increasing tendency of government to essentially tax individual citizens (indeed all persons) to pay the costs of governmental services and obligations that these same citizens are already supporting through their payment of income taxes, sales taxes, other revenue taxes and the like. Requiring the recipients of services to pay for those services often makes sense but double taxation does not and, as discussed below, in these instances the new taxes have been undertaken as "practical" necessities to cover budget shortfalls rather than as the result of well thought out public policy. I protest and so should you!
Below is an email I sent to Nardine and Marc thanking them for their articles but also urging them to probe further and expose this tendency to double tax. I admit that my own anger over this approach is in part the result of having been given a ticket for a traffic violation I did not commit, only to discover that a base fine of $35 or so had been multiplied into a fine of about $250 or more. As most of you know, I am (still) a liberal Democrat but these kinds of governmental measures risk pushing me into the anti-tax alliance!
My email to Nardine and Marc:
Thank you for your complementary articles in yesterday's (December 31, 2010) Los Angeles Times. I recently was given a traffic ticket for allegedly having made a so-called California stop. I was amazed at the amount due to multipliers and additional fees for courtroom construction and the like, above and beyond a rather small "base" fine. Your articles captured what is happening but, in my opinion, only begin the discussion which I urge you both to pursue.
Nardine, your article, "Price of a Traffic Ticket Going Up $4," reflects the decision by legislators to impose on motorists who violate, or are accused of violating, parking and traffic laws taxes masquerading as fines for governmental functions that are only indirectly related to traffic and parking. In this case, you report that the increased fine is intended to pay for emergency air transport services because the legislature and voters have chosen to underfund Medi-Cal.
Marc, your article on "Crash Taxes" at least describes a tax that directly relates to a traffic event, but again seeks to impose on the taxpayer who was "at fault" in an accident an additional tax above and beyond what he or she already pays for police, fire and other emergency services.
I strongly urge either or both of you to research and write an article or articles on this entire process that seeks to impose on individual motorists the costs of various governmental services and/or obligations that traditionally have been funded more directly by the legislative bodies. Building and maintaining courthouses is a basic responsibility of government and to single out a particular class of citizens to pay an undue proportion of the costs is, in my view, grossly unfair. That those saddled with this burden have broken a law may make them less sympathetic but, particularly in the case of those who have illegally parked or not fully stopped at a stop sign, we aren't talking about folks who have intentionally set forest fires or otherwise engaged in purposeful illegal acts. Then, too, as you both know, most motorists who are ticketed end up paying the "bail" rather than contesting the matter in court. Many if not most do this not because they have committed the violation but because the costs of contesting the matter as well as a recognition that in a liar's contest between citizen and police officer the court is more likely than not to believe the officer make challenging the ticket are, as an economic calculation, greater than the costs of paying the "bail." That economic calculation itself is deplorable and contrary to what a fair justice system should require.
Marc, in your article on "crash taxes," I commend you for covering much of this issue of what I consider double taxation on those who may be "at fault" for an accident but already pay taxes for emergency and other governmental services.
What at least I find a bit ironic here is that I am not a conservative or a supporter of the insurance lobby. Quite the contrary! But this increasing movement toward "pay as you go" taxation or taxation focused on the so-called user of services must have its limits and be fully discussed as a public policy option. We see at our public universities an increasing movement toward student fees, now finally called tuition, as the general public and legislators refuse to allocate public funds to support higher (or K-12) education, once thought of as a core governmental function that should be funded through the General Fund to enable all citizens an opportunity to improve themselves and thereby strengthen the society, the economy, and the democracy.
I recognize, as a former political scientist turned attorney, that there are arguments on all sides of these issues. But I fear that there has not been any real public discussion. Rather, the state, cities and public universities, cash strapped because of underfunding and economic crises, have simply gone forward and taken what they often call "practical measures" to raise fees and taxes on individuals. These actions are not truly driven by some public policy consideration that has been discussed and debated but merely by exigencies and that is dangerous.
Thank you both for your efforts to cover these important issues! I encourage further probing and pushing legislative bodies to discuss these matters more openly, something the Los Angeles Times has been doing well as of late!
Happy New Year!
Donald A. Newman
Long Beach, CA
Nardine's article is at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-traffic-tickets-20101231,0,6845681.story. Marc's article is at http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-crash-tax-20101231,0,2932838.story?page=1.
I am deeply troubled by this increasing tendency of government to essentially tax individual citizens (indeed all persons) to pay the costs of governmental services and obligations that these same citizens are already supporting through their payment of income taxes, sales taxes, other revenue taxes and the like. Requiring the recipients of services to pay for those services often makes sense but double taxation does not and, as discussed below, in these instances the new taxes have been undertaken as "practical" necessities to cover budget shortfalls rather than as the result of well thought out public policy. I protest and so should you!
Below is an email I sent to Nardine and Marc thanking them for their articles but also urging them to probe further and expose this tendency to double tax. I admit that my own anger over this approach is in part the result of having been given a ticket for a traffic violation I did not commit, only to discover that a base fine of $35 or so had been multiplied into a fine of about $250 or more. As most of you know, I am (still) a liberal Democrat but these kinds of governmental measures risk pushing me into the anti-tax alliance!
My email to Nardine and Marc:
Thank you for your complementary articles in yesterday's (December 31, 2010) Los Angeles Times. I recently was given a traffic ticket for allegedly having made a so-called California stop. I was amazed at the amount due to multipliers and additional fees for courtroom construction and the like, above and beyond a rather small "base" fine. Your articles captured what is happening but, in my opinion, only begin the discussion which I urge you both to pursue.
Nardine, your article, "Price of a Traffic Ticket Going Up $4," reflects the decision by legislators to impose on motorists who violate, or are accused of violating, parking and traffic laws taxes masquerading as fines for governmental functions that are only indirectly related to traffic and parking. In this case, you report that the increased fine is intended to pay for emergency air transport services because the legislature and voters have chosen to underfund Medi-Cal.
Marc, your article on "Crash Taxes" at least describes a tax that directly relates to a traffic event, but again seeks to impose on the taxpayer who was "at fault" in an accident an additional tax above and beyond what he or she already pays for police, fire and other emergency services.
I strongly urge either or both of you to research and write an article or articles on this entire process that seeks to impose on individual motorists the costs of various governmental services and/or obligations that traditionally have been funded more directly by the legislative bodies. Building and maintaining courthouses is a basic responsibility of government and to single out a particular class of citizens to pay an undue proportion of the costs is, in my view, grossly unfair. That those saddled with this burden have broken a law may make them less sympathetic but, particularly in the case of those who have illegally parked or not fully stopped at a stop sign, we aren't talking about folks who have intentionally set forest fires or otherwise engaged in purposeful illegal acts. Then, too, as you both know, most motorists who are ticketed end up paying the "bail" rather than contesting the matter in court. Many if not most do this not because they have committed the violation but because the costs of contesting the matter as well as a recognition that in a liar's contest between citizen and police officer the court is more likely than not to believe the officer make challenging the ticket are, as an economic calculation, greater than the costs of paying the "bail." That economic calculation itself is deplorable and contrary to what a fair justice system should require.
Marc, in your article on "crash taxes," I commend you for covering much of this issue of what I consider double taxation on those who may be "at fault" for an accident but already pay taxes for emergency and other governmental services.
What at least I find a bit ironic here is that I am not a conservative or a supporter of the insurance lobby. Quite the contrary! But this increasing movement toward "pay as you go" taxation or taxation focused on the so-called user of services must have its limits and be fully discussed as a public policy option. We see at our public universities an increasing movement toward student fees, now finally called tuition, as the general public and legislators refuse to allocate public funds to support higher (or K-12) education, once thought of as a core governmental function that should be funded through the General Fund to enable all citizens an opportunity to improve themselves and thereby strengthen the society, the economy, and the democracy.
I recognize, as a former political scientist turned attorney, that there are arguments on all sides of these issues. But I fear that there has not been any real public discussion. Rather, the state, cities and public universities, cash strapped because of underfunding and economic crises, have simply gone forward and taken what they often call "practical measures" to raise fees and taxes on individuals. These actions are not truly driven by some public policy consideration that has been discussed and debated but merely by exigencies and that is dangerous.
Thank you both for your efforts to cover these important issues! I encourage further probing and pushing legislative bodies to discuss these matters more openly, something the Los Angeles Times has been doing well as of late!
Happy New Year!
Donald A. Newman
Long Beach, CA
Sunday, November 21, 2010
I Despair but Hope that America Is Able To Renew and Reinvent Herself
I still love politics but I’m growing frustrated at what I see. Last night I posted a brief comment on Facebook that the Obama administration increasingly brings to my mind the name of the original Saturday Night Live cast, the Not Ready for Prime-Time Players, and that Sarah Palin reminds me of Senator Hruska's comment about Supreme Court nominee Carlswell that there are mediocre judges, people and lawyers and that they deserve some representation as well.
I've become bored with the utterances of our political leaders and completely turned off by the self-righteousness and sanctimoniousness of cable news’ talking heads. While I, because of my background as a political scientist, appreciate more than most that politics in a democracy requires compromise, I am frustrated by the incredible gridlock that has become a constant feature of our polity.
I am also frustrated by what I consider the myopia of many American voters. How voters, particularly independents not emotionally attached to a particular party, could conclude that the nation will be better off by returning Republicans to power is truly beyond my comprehension. I understand that exit polling suggests that voters were mainly expressing frustration with the economy and voting against the incumbents, rather than embracing Republican Party principles or candidates. Nonetheless, voters should have been able to discern what has been going on since the economy tanked under President Bush and who is more likely to lead the country back to prosperity or at least an improved economy.
The Republicans proved completely obstructionist during the last Congress and, despite their claims that they offered alternative policies, I don't recall any that had detail and substance. When they are asked point blank to specifically identify government programs that they will cut in order to fulfill the promises they continue to make, they duck and cover. In fact, it was Obama who stuck his neck out (in a way I do not entirely support given my own age) by implementing curbs in Medicare in the healthcare reform law he sought. As I understand it, the law eliminates Medicare Advantage and, over time, makes other substantial cuts in Medicare coverage. The Republicans, never fans of Social Security or Medicare, hypocritically sought to present themselves as the saviors of those programs while calling for enormous budget cuts and privatization of some of these safety net programs.
But I'm not enamored of President Obama. His professorial style is simply not appealing. Indeed it is off-putting. Is he only capable of communicating fluidly and with emotion when he has a prepared text and a teleprompter in front of him? It appears so. He doesn’t seem capable of connecting with people on an emotional level and a president needs to do so to mobilize support and move a nation. Obama truly is at risk of being a one term president. If the economy noticeably picks up in the next year and a half he may be spared that fate but who can tell. If the economy remains incredibly sluggish with high unemployment and gridlock in Washington, he may well lose.
Yet, who would be a viable Republican presidential candidate? That's scary. Barbour of Mississippi? I sure hope not. What a catastrophe. Pawlenty? A waffler.. Romney? A flipflopper of the worst kind. Gingrich? A joke and at this point a threat to democracy. Palin? More than a joke, a disaster. Huckabee? Not my cup of tea but he seems more level headed than most if not all of the other would be Republican candidates..
I frankly applaud the President, and the Congress, for their legislative accomplishments. The stimulus; healthcare reform; banking reform; student loan reform; credit card reform. These were major achievements despite critics’ attacks. But Obama, Pelosi and the others took their eyes off the ball. Carville’s “it’s the economy, stupid” is sage political advice for all time. I understand that Obama may have reasoned that his best and perhaps only chance of passing significant healthcare reform to bring 30 million uninsured Americans in from the cold was soon after his election and the election of strong Democratic majorities in both Houses. But when expectations of a quick economic recovery proved wrong and unemployment continued to rise, Obama and the Democrats should have returned their attention and their message to the economy and made that the central focus of their activities. It isn’t clear that anything the Democrats could have done, particularly in the face of consistent Republican opposition, would have measurably improved the pace of an economic recovery, but focusing more on that problem, showing greater emotion and empathy toward Americans’ plight, and considering alternative economic measures would have been the wise and prudent course.
Obama might even have been able to do so without abandoning healthcare reform had he stepped forward and taken the lead in explaining the proposed healthcare legislation to the American people. Instead, as he had done with the stimulus bill, he remained relatively aloof and let the Congress fight over the contours of the bill and that was a disaster. Tentative efforts by Democrats to explain the healthcare reform bill and other initiatives to the people last summer in town hall meetings proved inept when Tea Party adherents and others were able to shout down the Democrats and turn the meetings against the Democrats. It was a complete disaster and much of the blame is attributable to the President. I further blame the President for not focusing more clearly on his legislative record during the November campaign. It again appeared that the President and his aides lacked focus and failed to refine a message that could communicate the Democrats’ accomplishments with clarity and conviction to the voters.
Having said all that, the political party in control of the White House almost invariably loses seats in the Congress in off year elections. And with an ailing economy voters are even more likely to vote against the incumbent party. In this instance, the Democrats were the controlling incumbents in both Houses of Congress and the White House. This time the loss was huge, however, and will make it extremely hard for the President and Democrats to accomplish much legislatively before the 2012 elections.
I no longer watch the Sunday morning political interview programs – Meet the Press, This Week or Fox News Sunday. I find myself alienated from most cable news. I despair that America is slipping in its stature, as Asia awakens in this 21st century. We must indeed reinvent ourselves, not by returning to the practices of the early 20th century when America emerged as an industrial power but at a considerable price in terms of monopolies, sweatshops and other exploitations of labor, exclusionary immigration policies, and rampant racism, but by reasserting our inventiveness, creativity, market economy, commitment to higher education, balanced with fair social and economic policies designed to foster personal responsibility, individual freedom, a living wage, healthcare for all, and equal justice and opportunity for all Americans, not just a privileged few. It isn't clear we will succeed. It definitely requires belt tightening but also a willingness by all sides to find common ground.
I recognize that my Republican and conservative friends will claim that the Democrats are the party out of the mainstream, taxing and spending the Republic into bankruptcy, and pursuing a socialist tinged program. But I respectfully disagree. We are not a country of small farmers living long distances from one another or even a country of small towns and villages. We are a fully integrated society economically, and even increasingly integrated in a global economy. While I respect the role of the states in our federal system and the benefits of experimenting with new ideas in individual states, we will not thrive if we deny the need for consistent national policies in areas that once were the province of states, be that education, safety net practices, healthcare or other issues.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Thank you, Liu Xiaobo
Thank God, but above all, thank the men and women who have the guts (i.e., the courage, nerve, fortitude, moxie, audacity) to risk their lives, freedoms, and liberties to pursue and fight for fundamental principles of liberty, justice, equality, freedom and other profound truths and values by standing up to governments, organizations and other individuals who by power, repression and force deny some or all of these fundamental truths, values and rights to individuals or groups deserving of and entitled to them.
The latest hero is Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese writer, literary critic and intellectual, who stepped forward as a political activist in pursuit of greater political and individual freedom in China after the Tiananmen Square demonstrations and military crackdown in 1989 and has put his own freedom and enjoyment of life’s simple pleasures at risk ever since. Congratulations to him for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
For me what is fascinating and uplifting is that Liu Xiaobo has been willing to sacrifice his own liberty in pursuit of such worthy goals. Many others have done so before him, most as followers and some as leaders, but most of us on this Earth don’t take such risks (or, for some, take such risks in pursuit of unworthy goals, and, yes, I get to determine at least for myself which goals are worthy and which are not). Most of us, even when we don’t accept things as they are, lack the courage to take these kinds of risks to stand up to authority and struggle against the prevailing order. We may criticize those in power, vote where we can to replace them, perhaps contribute in small ways in opposition, but we don’t put our own freedom, liberty or pursuit of our own pleasure and happiness, however circumscribed they may be in our particular society, at significant risk.
To those that have done so, and to those doing so currently, thank you. You are, indeed, my heroes.
The latest hero is Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese writer, literary critic and intellectual, who stepped forward as a political activist in pursuit of greater political and individual freedom in China after the Tiananmen Square demonstrations and military crackdown in 1989 and has put his own freedom and enjoyment of life’s simple pleasures at risk ever since. Congratulations to him for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
For me what is fascinating and uplifting is that Liu Xiaobo has been willing to sacrifice his own liberty in pursuit of such worthy goals. Many others have done so before him, most as followers and some as leaders, but most of us on this Earth don’t take such risks (or, for some, take such risks in pursuit of unworthy goals, and, yes, I get to determine at least for myself which goals are worthy and which are not). Most of us, even when we don’t accept things as they are, lack the courage to take these kinds of risks to stand up to authority and struggle against the prevailing order. We may criticize those in power, vote where we can to replace them, perhaps contribute in small ways in opposition, but we don’t put our own freedom, liberty or pursuit of our own pleasure and happiness, however circumscribed they may be in our particular society, at significant risk.
To those that have done so, and to those doing so currently, thank you. You are, indeed, my heroes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)