By Nick Paleologos, on Fri Nov 2, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
Everybody says the country is polarized. Really? It seems that everybody pretty much agrees on the following:
DEFENSE SPENDING:
1) Our troops should be the best trained and best equipped in the world.
2) The various branches of our military should not be competing against each other for resources but preparing instead to fight increasingly sophisticated threats to our national security.
3) Our allies should be paying their fair share of the cost of defending freedom around the world.
DOMESTIC SPENDING:
1) Social Security is good. But Warren Buffet should have to pay the same percentage of his total income into Social Security as the rest of us. And if the retirement age also has to go up a year or two in order to make the system solvent over time, we’re fine with that.
2) Medicare and Medicaid are also good. But each needs to be run better—and by that we mean cheaper. As far as national health care is concerned, let’s stop fooling around. Requiring businesses to pay for health care is ridiculous. It’s a huge drag on their ability to grow and to create new jobs. Basic health care (just like education) should be the birthright of every US citizen. Smart and healthy citizens make for a stronger and more competitive country. Fear of destitution from illness, on the other hand, makes us less entrepreneurial and less productive. The best thing we can do for this economy is to take the cost of health care off the backs of our job creators, and instead have everybody chip in.
3) Education? Don’t get me started. Every kid in America—regardless of income—goes to school. And that’s a good thing. So why stop at high school? If you’re smart enough to cut it, the country needs you to go to college. Period. But let’s face it. Colleges have been jacking up tuitions on the back of government guaranteed student loans for way too long. No college—public or private—should be eligible for any taxpayer funds of any kind (direct or indirect) unless they can prove they have a needs blind admission policy. That is, the kids they accept are allowed to attend—even if their parents can’t afford the full freight. And when colleges complain, the answer is simple. You’re supposed to be smart. Figure it out!
PUBLIC TELEVISION:
1) We get a much better bang for the buck from Big Bird, than from Big Oil.
Read the rest of… Nick Paleologos: A Closing Argument for Obama — Tough Choices? Gimme a Break!
By Jonathan Miller, on Fri Nov 2, 2012 at 9:15 AM ET
In his latest column in The Huffington Post, The RP introduces No Labels‘ newest set of policy proposals to promote problem-solving in Washington: Make the Presidency Work! No matter who is elected tomorrow, we need a stronger chief executive in order to help fix our broken political system. And No Labels has a plan to make this happen. Read an excerpt:
Promises, promises.
President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney are certainly making plenty of them.
Recent experience, however, suggests they will have a hard time keeping many of their promises.
It’s not because either is intentionally lying (all the time); but rather, it’s because gridlock, obstructionism and hyper-partisanship have become the rule in Washington.
Chances are very good that whoever sits in the Oval Office for the next four years will have to deal with a Congress that is closely divided between the two parties. One party may control the House and the other the Senate. And, even if one party were to have a majority in both bodies, progress will be confined by Senate rules that make it almost impossible to pass anything unless 60 of its 100 members agree.
Historically, divided government can work. President Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican, and House Speaker Tip O’Neill, a liberal Democrat, famously joined forces in the 1980s to shore up Social Security and pass comprehensive tax reform.
More than 50 years ago, President Eisenhower won support from a Democratic Congress to build the Interstate Highway System.
The Civil Rights laws of the 1960s passed only because a significant number of Republicans joined with Democrats in a common front against discrimination.
The common thread in every instance: Presidents and legislators who crossed party lines to put their country first.
In recent years, unfortunately, hyper-partisanship and political point-scoring have emerged as dominant themes. Over the last two decades, no matter which party held the White House, the opposition’s consistent, knee-jerk response was to “just say no” to almost anything the president proposed.
To be fair, some of the resistance reflected honest differences in policy. And, also to be fair, presidents also have often failed to reach out meaningfully to the other side.
But too often, the legislative paralysis has been simply a function of politics.
With a fiscal cliff threatening to derail the economy; a record budget deficit that threatens long-term prosperity; health care costs rising with no end in sight; challenges of immigration, energy, and global warming continuing to mount and fester; and an ever-present concern about potential terrorism on the homeland; it’s high time to change the environment in Washington so that the president and Congress we choose on November 6 can work together to solve problems.
No Labels, a grassroots movement of more than half a million Republicans, Democrats and independents, has introduced a set of proposals that would make it easier to get things done in Washington. Our Make the Presidency Work! action plan consists of 11 common-sense proposals that would help break the gridlock, by changing outdated rules and traditions that get in the way.
We are very excited at The Recovering Politician to introduce our newest weekly reinvention contributor: Julie Rath, one of today’s leading style arbiters in the men’s fashion industry. (Read her bio here.)
Julie will be sharing fashion tips and advice with our readers, many of whom (mostly the guys — I can see you out there!) are shall we say, sartorially challenged. With Julie’s guidance, perhaps some of our readers can reinvent themselves as fashion icons. Or at least be more presentable in the workplace and out on the town.
Of course this being only a few days before a major election, Julie’s first piece discuss a critical issue in Campaign 2012: the style choices of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. While not as disparate a contrast as Kennedy versus Nixon, Julie’s keen eye offers a unique perspective on the candidates’ differences. Enjoy and learn:
==============================
In this Fall’s battle of reds versus blues, my stylist’s eye is trained on the important issues. That’s right: the Obama-Romney sartorial showdown. Whatever your political inclination or level of fashion interest, the candidates’ style statements have an undeniable effect on how they are perceived by the voters.
One misstep-in-mandals can read as silly and out of touch with what’s current.
Read on for how the two candidates stack up:
Debate Style
While both candidates keep it ultra-safe and conservative with dark navy suits, white shirts and blue or red ties (which, interestingly they exchanged in the final debate), Obama gets the leg up for his double-vented and shorter suit jacket, well-executed tie dimples, better pant length and overall trimmer fit on his suit. See all that excess fabric around Romney’s shoulders and sleeves? He needs to go down a jacket size.
Both candidates have a nice build, and a suit that fits like armor will show that off. While Romney looks good in the shorter point collar, I’d like to see Obama mix it up with a more stylish semispread. Also, Obama is smart to wear a slightly high collar to disguise his thin neck.
Everyday Style
How do the candidates fare when they hit the streets shaking hands, kissing babies, and shooting b-ball? The verdict is pretty much the same: Obama for the win with his flat front pants and better-fitting clothes across the board. On the topic of sleeve-rolling (a common practice among politicians who want to show they’re ready to “tackle the issues”), Romney could take a lesson or two from Obama on how to do this correctly and authentically.
Read the rest of… Julie Rath: Obama vs. Romney– The Sartorial Showdown
Greetings and thank you for the opportunity to express myself in an open manner. I don’t think what I have to say is what you’re looking for, as I am truly undecided in my decision for who should be the next president of our great country. I am not undecided for lack of knowledge of both of the main candidates, nor the third party candidates, as I also watched the third party debates moderated by Larry King and will be watching the final debate on Nov. 5 as well between Gov. Gary Johnson and Dr. Jill Stein. I am undecided because of a lack of information from all candidates because I have not heard any of them speak in support of a minority of people such as myself; the self employed independent contractor. Though I know this isn’t a closing statement, this is more of wanting to find out what all candidates have to say about the hard working self employed, one person businessman, so I will write my viewpoint to you.
First, let me begin by stating that I live in Virginia, and am an independent contractor, teaching the joy of music to the young through elderly in a small, local music store. I am responsible for paying my own taxes, and receive a 1099 at the end of the year. I have heard plenty about the middle and upper class, but I really don’t make enough money to be in either of those brackets. My income is in the poverty bracket, especially factoring in that I have a daughter in high school, and my wife is a cancer patient. We rely on my income to pay the bills, and had to apply for food stamps to try to make ends meet. This is the first time in my life that I’ve had to resort to this, and I’m not proud of the fact. In this area, I see a weakness in the President, as more and more families have had to go this route, and now I find myself in the same position. Neither the President or Governor Romney has mentioned the independent contractor, and I feel it is because we are such a small minority that our votes don’t matter to them, since we can’t help them win, which in turn, makes me feel that we aren’t in the numbers for economic growth. So neither of the forerunners have anything to make me feel secure in voting for them. The ACA presents a double jeopardy for me, as I can’t afford healthcare and will face a financial penalty for not having it. That takes away another point for the President, who has forced me into this predicament.
The only candidate that seems helpful for my situation is Governor Johnson, who wants to abolish the IRS, which would help me tremendously, and sadly he has no chance in winning. I like to say that our colors are Red, White, and Blue, but our only options are Red and Blue, due to PACS and SuperPacs pouring money to help them win. Third Party candidates should be equally represented as the White in a true democracy, where ethics rule over money. The debates should be open to all candidates on the ballot, so that the voters can make a truly informed decision come election day. Money shouldn’t be the deciding factor, but character, vision, wisdom and knowledge should be what we are voting for, representing the best of ALL candidates on the ballot. In this scenario, I see Governor Johnson as the best choice for me. I also agree with him and Jill that Marijuana should be legalized, regulated, and taxed in the same manner as alcohol, reducing the cost of jailing offenders that are not criminals, except for the current laws regarding Marijuana. This would generate a lot of revenue that would be a part of an economic recovery.
It’s a sad time for me, and I don’t see the election changing anything for my circumstances. I do plan on voting, and from what I’ve written to you, it appears that through writing, my choice would have to be for Governor Johnson, though it would be a vote for my integrity, and not helping to elect the next president, so my decision would have to be for what I believe in, or voting for one of the forerunners that I feel would be the less of two evils, knowing that neither would help my situation.
I could go on, but I know have gone well over my 1,000 words, and I know they aren’t a closing statement for any particular candidate, but this issue is nonexistent in the race for the White House.
The problem that Washington has faced over the last 18 years is that Democrats in Congress still do not accept their minority status and have fought the Republican Party since the revolution of 1994. The partisanship increased 100 fold as a result of the Democrat Party reeling that the country had the audacity to oust them from 40 years of entrenched power. Since then, many Congressmen have come and gone, but the so-called “moderate” has evaporated. While the Republicans tend to elect the principled, the Democrats tend to elect the partisan.
Republican presidential candidates are always labeled as extreme – the Democrats favorite label for any Republican. In Mitt Romney, they have a hard time labeling him as such since Romney himself took more moderate positions in his race against Ted Kennedy and for governor. In a twist of good fate, this has worked well for Romney: Democrats cannot label him extreme-right, on one hand, or a flip-flopper, on the other, since you cannot have it both ways. Either you are an entrenched, inflexible extremist, or you have a history of showing empathy for your political opponents.
Mitt Romney’s greatest asset, as we are now discovering in the last week of the campaign, is his ability to work accross party lines, bridge the divide, and work to resolve tough issues. The proof is in his leadership as governor. This was Barack Obama’s mantle in 2008 – using the the ‘not blue states, not red states’ cry – but he has proven to be the most liberal, leftist political partisan the White House has ever seen. There is, in fact, no hope with him or for him.
Mitt Romney will clean up Washington, DC by working with anyone who is ready and willing to tackle the hard issues of today and not kick the can down the road for the next generations to solve.
Imagine a political party “really” wanting America governed progressively. Imagine its platform stressing social justice, human and civil rights, peace, disarmament, and other populist policies. The two-party duopoly may say they support progressive values but upon closer analysis they are actually spurned.
Presidential candidate, Dr. Jill Stein of America’s Green Party believes another United States is possible but another party is necessary.
She fully embraces the Green Party’s ‘Green New Deal’ platform. The Green New Deal is the only detailed program from any political party for moving America quickly out of crisis into a secure, sustainable future.
Inspired by FDR New Deal that helped us out of the Great Depression of the 1930s, the ‘Green New Deal’ will provide similar relief and create an economy that makes our communities sustainable, healthy and just.
Here are some but not all of the policies Dr. Stein and the Green Party proposes.
Dr. Stein believes our country cannot truly move forward until the roots of inequality are pulled up, and the seeds of a new, healthier economy are planted. Thus she supports an economic bill of rights that ensures all people:
1. The right to employment through a full employment program that will create 25 million jobs by implementing a nationally funded, but locally controlled direct employment initiative, offering public sector jobs when private sector jobs are not available;
2. Workers rights including the right to a living wage, to a safe workplace and to organizing a union without fear of firing or reprisal;
3. The right to quality healthcare achieved through a single-payer Medicare-for-All program;
4. The right to a tuition-free, quality, federally funded, local controlled public education from pre-school through college;
5. The right to decent affordable housing, including an immediate halt to all foreclosures and evictions by creating a federal bank with local branches to take over homes with distressed mortgages and either restructuring the mortgages to affordable levels, or renting the homes by expanding rental and home ownership assistance;
6. The right to accessible and affordable utilities, expanded Internet for all, and public transportation through democratically run, publicly owned corporations that operate at cost and not for profit;
7. The right to fair taxation distributed in proportion to earnings and one╒s ability to pay. In addition, corporate tax subsidies will be made transparent by detailing them in public budgets where they can be scrutinized, not hidden as tax breaks.
Closing arguments for President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney should contrast their respective records and declared agendas. But that’s not enough. Each candidate lives and breathes in a political party ecosystem with a dominant worldview and armies of enforcers to keep office-holders, even presidents, from straying too far from received doctrine.
Let’s start with the President’s record. He was sworn in facing the worst economic conditions in 80 years, and with only three Republican votes enacted an economic stimulus agenda that saved or created 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs. The stimulus worked. He saved General Motors and Chrysler from collapse, signed Wall Street reform legislation and, to top it off, drove through Congress the most important health care reform since the 1960s. He brought our troops back from Iraq as promised. Obama rang up historic accomplishments in the teeth of fierce Republican opposition even to proposals (like Obamacare) with a strong Heritage Foundation roots.
In a second term President Obama is committed to further spending restraint and entitlement reform as long as the deficit-expanding Bush tax cuts are, for the super-wealthy, repealed. He’ll make immigration reform and strengthening America’s education system important priorities.
Mitt Romney’s rhetoric reflects the right-wing fear of “dependency” if Americans choose to tackle our pressing public challenges through government action. Since the goal is for government to spend and do less, it’s no wonder that he promises big tax cuts for everyone and “big change” without explaining what he means. But we should look beyond the rhetoric.
The ideas, bundled into worldviews, which define the parties today will shape the administration of the winner on November 6th.
For most congressional Republicans today and their active supporters, government routinely infringes upon personal liberty, undermines self-reliance and is generally inefficient and incompetent. Since government is the problem, taxes should be cut, regulations reduced and—somehow—all be well in time. How that will happen is a matter of faith, not evidence. Republicans would roll back health care coverage for more than 30 million Americans who will finally obtain it through “Obamacare.” They deny the overwhelming scientific consensus about the threat of climate change. The economic plan consists of vague “free market” generalities.
People who don’t believe in government don’t run it well. That’s one lesson from the George W. Bush administration. That’s why, given the enormous challenges of making the federal government work well, it should be left in the hands of those who are willing to try.
Read the rest of… Tom Allen: A Closing Argument for Obama
By Lauren Mayer, on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET
I’m the proud owner of a uterus, and I’d like to be in charge of it. Period. (And yes, really bad pun intended.)
No matter how many positions Romney takes on female reproductive rights (and he’s taken more positions than are in the Kama Sutra), we have to look at his party platform and his choice of running mate, not to mention his unwillingness to withdraw his endorsement from candidates like Richard Mourdock. You know it’s bad when Romney comes across as a moderate, because he actually would allow an abortion exception in cases of rape . . . excuse me?
And as for the pundits and online commentators who wonder why so many women are ‘quibbling about irrelevant subjects like women’s stuff instead of the economy’? Even the best economy doesn’t matter to a woman who can’t control her own body, on top of the fact that the GOP also doesn’t believe that women deserve pay equity, or insurance coverage of birth control – and those ARE economic issues, by the way. (Plus anyone who was alive before Roe v. Wade might recall that making abortions illegal doesn’t end them, it just makes them more dangerous. I’m with Bill Clinton in hoping abortions will be safe, legal, and rare.)
Add in all of Romney’s mis-statements and condescension to 47%ers, like my mom who’s on social security and depends on Medicare, on top of his refusal to release tax returns, his belief that millionaires should pay a lower tax rate than I do, and his plan to return to the same unregulated, ‘trickle-down economics’ that caused the recession in the first place, his reliance on Bush-Cheney-era neocon hawks, oh, and did I mention his latest lie about Jeep moving to China, even running an ad after Chrysler explicitly refuted that story?)
Fortunately, before I start ranting too much, I’ll take a break and launch into song!
Everyone says – and the polls suggest – that this year’s election is going to be close. Normally any candidate who keeps his money overseas and who has made his living sending jobs overseas wouldn’t even stand a chance of being elected to the highest office in the land, especially at a time of grim economic times.
Romney may win this election, despite all of his flaws, mainly because Obama has done such a mediocre job the last four years at best.
Instead of dismantling all of the Bush Era policies, he let them all ride. Many of my Democratic friends are less than enthusiastic about their President because of this.
But, I would simply point out to the American people, especially the undecided voters to think about the points that I considered before making up my own mind.
Obama did inherit the worst economy since the Great Depression. George W. Bush took a 5 Billion dollar surplus that Clinton left him and in his first few months in office, squandered it all and turned it into a 5 TRILLION DOLLAR Deficit. The only way he could have ruined the country this badly is if it were intentional. I believe, Bush was the worst President in US History for that reason. To me, it was even a treasonous Presidency far worse than any other treason in our history. And the damage that Bush did is still not fully appreciated. The Wall Street FatCats that sold the world trillions in fraudulent paper are still doing it. Another shoe is yet to drop.
Obama faced the greatest resistance to getting any of his bills passed than any other President in history and I believe it was a Racial Bias on the part of the Republican Party. They even admit that their primary job was to defeat Obama. Actually their job is to get things done and try to fix problems. SO, in effect, the Republicans were the BIGGEST protaganists of EXTENDING the Bush Treason.
Obama is an imperfect man. He would be the first to admit it. I think his humility is his greatest downfall. But, I believe that his experience in his first term has honed him, like a sword that is forged in the fires of the Hell and that he now has the strength and wisdom to make his second term astonishingly good.
And, last but not least, you must consider this: Whoever gains the White House will inherit the worst economy since the one Bush handed to Obama.
The challenges will be extreme. The next administration will have to make huge cuts in everything. Do you want a Republican making the cuts, which will be mainly in social programs. OR would you prefer the cuts to be in THE PENTAGON, Oil Company Subsidies, Tax cuts for the wealthy and HUGE WASTEFUL programs like that? The choice is really that simple.
Do you want more of your countrymen to go hungry, lose their homes, suffer and die? If you do, vote for Romney because he says he will increase Defense spending. That will only come from the Social Programs and also ultimately RAISE your taxes.
OR would you rather take money from the guys who wasted TRILLIONS of your money in Viet Nam and Iraq, Afghanistan, etc? IF you are not a war-mongerer, like the Republicans then you must vote for Obama.
The choices are GRIM either way. It’s only what you feel you can support as the least grim choices we must make.
That is the way you should make your decision this year. And it always helps to remember at election time. Which side of the bread is your butter? Do Republicans ever give you or your family anything to make your lives a little better?
Or is it the Democrats who do that?
THINK about your own family for a while before going to the polls.
Mike Mathiesen is the Founder of Go Foods Global, Santa Cruz, CA
