December 26, 2017--Merry Jack

"At the risk of spoiling your holiday, I thought to give you a call to wish you a merry whatever."

"To you as well," I said to Jack, "In fact I was thinking about you last week as your president and a very wimped-out Republican Congress passed that so-called tax reform bill."

I heard Jack trying to suppress a laugh. "'So called?' There are all sorts of reforms in it but not ones you like, so instead of acknowledging that you make fun of it. You don't consider the cut in corporate taxes to be a reform? If not, I don't see what you would you would see as a reform."

"Genuine and permanent cuts in taxes for the middle class, for example. This version is tipped way to the benefit of wealthy people like Trump himself who have large real estate assets and tens and hundreds of millions to pass along to their children when they die."

"I read what you wrote last week about the doubling of the standard deduction and raising the child tax credit," Jack said, "Even you agreed that it could so help lower-income people that it could turn out to be a political benefit to Republicans come the midterm elections next year. And of course 2020."

"It's true that I did speculate about that, but all the independent analyses of the bloated, nearly 1,000-page bill is that it's not only full of loopholes and carve-outs for special interests but whatever cuts middle income people will see, after a few years, will be ratcheted back and they will have to deal with tax increases."

"What did you call this? 'Speculation.' What's that worth? Speculation is another way of referring to your opinion. You love lecturing people about that. You're the one who rails about confusing facts with opinions. But now you don't have facts to back up your case but just opinions. One thing though I'll grant you is that no one knows for sure the full effect of something this huge. Especially what you and your friends mockingly say about the consequences of trickle-down. You know your history--the Reagan tax cuts rescued a very weak economy that he inherited from Jimmy Carter. There was a spurt of growth and a dramatic reduction in inflation."

"And, pay attention to this, a tripling of the national debt. Like the current bill, it wasn't paid for. The Trump tax bill will add up to $2.0 trillion to the debt. Ditto for George W. Bush's tax cut. It led to the Great Recession and a doubling of the debt. You guys call us tax-and-spend liberals. I call you tax-cut and spend conservatives. At least with someone like Bill Clinton and, for that matter, your pariah, Barack Obama--both Democrats by the way--there was growth and in both their cases a lowering of the deficit and debt."

"You call Obama's two percent of annual growth to be a healthy economy? It was during his time that the middle class got creamed. Especially men."

"You're ignoring what he inherited from Bush. The world's economy was about to go over the cliff. You guys are good at glomming over unpleasant facts."

"And you're not? How about the facts of economic growth over the past year? Trump's first year. How come you never want to talk about that? Look at the stock market and employment numbers. You and your friends say it's the result of momentum from Obama policies. That Trump had nothing to do with it. Fess up--if the economy had crashed this past year wouldn't you be blaming Trump? One thing you specialize in is talking out of both sides of your mouth."

"That's the way politics works. We're all guilty of engaging in spinning." That much I granted to Jack.

"And haven't you been a huge beneficiary of the run up in the value of stocks? How's your 401(k) looking these days? I assume pretty good. I don't hear any complaints about that."

I chose not to baited into talking about that with Jack but instead said, "Another thing you're conveniently ignoring is that tax legislation doesn't exist in a vacuum. By severely restricting deductions for state and local taxes and capping how much mortgage interest people can deduct millions of middle class people will not be happy with what they see about the value of their own assets. The value of homes, the major asset of most people, is expected to decline by as much as ten percent. And this will not just be in blue states as Republicans love to chuckle about. Millions in Texas and Florida and Arizona, to mention a few red states, will also see big declines in the value of their homes. I admit that the major hits will be in Democratic states like New Jersey and California and suburban parts of New York. High tax, high inflation states. But Republican home owners in those states will also be hurt."

"And here I thought I was just calling to wish you a merry Christmas and poke you about all the people on TV ads thanking Trump for allowing them to celebrate Christmas. About that you and I are of the same opinion. This is just ridiculousness."

December 21, 2017--4:01 In the Morning

It's 4:01 in the morning and as I do when I wake up so early I turned on the radio to get the news. To see if we're at war with North Korea and how the Knicks did last night. (They didn't play and we're not--yet.)

On all-news WINS, the first thing I heard was Senator Orrin Hatch at the victory-lap celebration President Trump organized yesterday to gather kudos to himself after 100 percent of Republican House members and senators voted for the new tax bill.

Orrin, who needs to retire immediately, said, "You're a heck of a leader [meaning Trump]. You've done everything you promised."

I waited for the list of accomplishments but they were not forthcoming. Just waves of love. Speaking about love I was glad pathetic Lindsay Graham didn't grab the mike. It's not a lot of fun getting nauseous on an empty stomach.

I switched to another station and there was some Democrat leader gushing about how this disgraceful piece of legislation will turn out to be a political blessing in disguise for progressives. Once Trump people see how little their taxes will be cut they will feel betrayed and vote in November to flip both the House and Senate to the Democrats.

Dream on, I thought, which is not an inappropriate way to put it at, now, 4:07 A.M.

I'm not so sure "average" Americans will see their taxes lowered so little. Or actually raised, as some on the left are claiming and hoping. Those of us wishing for this may have a rude awakening. Again, as it's now 4:11, not a bad way to think about this.

Here's how things will play out, noting up front that I see this bill to be a disgrace. Even if some middle-class taxpayers will see some cuts as it plays out it will continue the redistributional process begun during Ronald Reagan time (when Orrin Hatch to that point had never seen such a heck of a leader)--the rich pay less while the bottom half pay more. 

First, as early as February most workers who have taxes withheld will see some increase in their take-home pay. Maybe as much as $50 a week. 

This in part will be because the Trump people who will create the withholding tables will sweeten them by front loading them--these workers will find more in their paychecks than they should in order to trick them into seeing the value of the tax cuts to them. When they file their 2018 taxes in early 2019 they will not get any refunds but likely will have to ante up more. By then, if Trump is still around, he'll blame this on Obama and Hillary. And Robert Mueller, if he's still around.

More ominous for liberals who are looking forward to the Trump tax cuts imploding will be the effect of the doubling of the standard deduction.

For couples that will amount to nearly $25,000 per year. For many of the 31 percent who currently itemize, this bump up will amount to a significant tax cut. And it will be a good deal for many more. Perhaps another 10 to 20 percent will stop itemizing because the standard deduction is better for them. As will be the extended tax credit for children. Using the standard deduction will make it much easier to file and, in many instances, will not require an expensive accountant to do the filing. If the number calculating their taxes this way approaches 50 percent, that's a big political story.

Finally, as with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, folks like me (professionals, managers  government workers) who are progressives and say we oppose the regressiveness of these previous tax cuts, we were actually great beneficiaries of the lowering of the tax rates and the exemptions and loopholes that were laced into the legislation.

This will be especially true for retired people who vote disproportionately. 

In other words, don't expect a tax revolt. It will not get the political job done either next year during the midterms or two years after that. We need to do what many liberals in Virginia did--get out there and run for school boards and state legislatures. Those of us who can't or won't do that, we need to be consistently activated. We can't sit back and wait for things to get better because, on their own, they won't.

As for me----it's 4:49 and time to try to go back to sleep. No radio, and no more Orrin.

April 27, 2017--Laugher Curve

As I draft this, President Trump has not as yet revealed the details of his "massive" tax cuts.

In spite of this I can speculate what his multi-trillion dollar proposal will contain and how it will be paid for.

When the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finishes its scoring, they will find that most of the cuts go to corporations--where the effective rate will be cut from 35% to 15%.

Also, a large slice of the tax cuts will go to America's highest earners. There will, though, to put a fig leaf on the truth, be some tax savings for middle class people, mainly an increase in the deduction for dependent children. Then in regard to children, thanks to Ivanka Trump's influence, there will be tax credits to offset some of the costs of childcare.

Unless paid for, over the decade, these cuts will add multiple-trillions to the national debt. So there will be some attempt to show how the cuts will be paid for.

Nearly a trillion will be the result of repealing and replacing Obamacare. As noted here last week, the legislation inching its way through the House of Representatives is not a healthcare bill but a tax cut bill. This of course means it has no chance of passing in the Senate and probably not in the House. So chalk that trillion up to the debt.

The real savings to pay for the tax cuts will not be from savings at all but rather from extra tax income that will be the result of a dramatic rise in economic growth.

At the moment, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is going up by a tepid annual rate of less than two percent. The Trump proposal will show a growth rate of about twice that. They feel they can project that because tax cuts for wealthy people and corporations are stimulative to the economy. Growth will trickle down to average folks who will in turn use the extra income they derive from tax cuts and increased economic circumstances to buy cars and houses and stuff.

This assumption, this projection is based on bogus economic theory promulgated most prominently during the 70s. and 80s by Arthur Laffer. It is graphically most famously represented by the Laffer Curve which illustrates how tax cuts spur enough economic growth to generate new tax revenue which in turn cuts into the deficit.

Arthur Laffer in 1974

Here's the problem--

There is no historical or empirical evidence whatsoever that it works. When first taken up by Ronald Reagan during the 1980 Republican presidential primaries, George H.W. Bush, who was contesting for the nomination, memorably called it like it is--Voodoo Economics. Telling the truth helped cost him the nomination and the rest is history.

That history includes truly massive tax cuts under Reagan of just the sort of which Laffer would approve. And did approve. But it did not jolt the economy as promised and it was paid for, as Trump's will be, by adding trillions to the national debt. Over time, during the eight years of his presidency, Reagan nearly tripled it.

And if we need further evidence, when 20 years later, George (the son) Bush pushed another round of tax cuts through Congress, the economy collapsed and the debt doubled.

As the French would say, Viola.

On the other side of the ledger, there are other voila moments--the resulting state of the economy after Bill Clinton and Barack Obama raised taxes. Clinton raised them on the highest earners and the GDP increased annually, on average over his eight years, by 3.8%. Obama inherited a prostrate economy from George W. Bush and managed to more than halve the annual debt while the economy grew by about 2% a year.

One might, therefore, conclude that tax cuts of the Laffer kind do not follow the Laffer Curve but in spite of this here we are again with voodoo economics resurrected. Why anyone would believe Treasury Secretary Mnuchin that "The tax plan will pay for itself with economic growth" is beyond my comprehension.

He knows not all of us are economic illiterates and so he confesses that the preposterous 3-4% GDP growth rate is the result of "dynamic scoring." This is when growth rate projections are based not on observable reality but are derived from assumptions about where the economy will be as the result of various hypothetical actions. In other words, rather than projections based on a semblance of reality ("static scoring") economists such as Laffer and government officials such as Mnuchin just make things up. They pick a growth number out of the air that fits their theory and proclaim it to be the empirical truth.

These might be considered economic alternative facts. Let's see if the public and Congress will again take a sip of the Kool-Aid.

April 20, 2017--Tax Scam

I'm dense so it's taken me awhile to figure out why the Republicans so passionately want to
"repeal and replace" Obamacare. Actually, some of the most conservatives want only to do the repealing.

I got swept into believing some of the rhetoric. Obamacare is deeply flawed. True. It does not allow most people to keep their doctors, true; and it is not containing the rise in the cost of either medical care itself or healthcare insurance. Also true.

But, after a little time passed and the Republican talking points were countered, it became clear that the Paul Ryan American Health Care Act is not about healthcare but about taxes--a critical step toward his plan to cut and reform corporate and income taxes.

Here's the math--

In a March 22nd Forbes Magazine posting (not a socialist publication) it was reported that contained in the final version of the proposed bill, after all the deal making with the House of Representatives Freedom Caucus and White House, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that the plan would result in an $600 billion tax cut over the next decade, with at least $274 billion of the cuts going directly to the richest 2%.

Further, Medicaid would be cut, again over the decade, by $880 billion, making it more difficult for low-income taxpayers to secure insurance.

Though from a healthcare perspective it would be a crisis for low- and middle-income people--the CBO also estimated that these cuts would mean that 24 million would lose their current coverage--from a tax-cut perspective it would be a bounty. Again, with the top 5% benefiting the most from the GOP version of tax reform.

Obamacare does include two tax surcharges for high earners--

For couples filing jointly, if their adjusted gross income is $250,000 or higher there is a 0.9% Medicare surcharge and a 3.8% surcharge on net investment income, with the latter being income from certain types of dividends and capital gains.

The Ryan plan calls for the elimination of these two taxes for very high earners.

If this bill were to pass (and although it was set aside last month it is still a glimmer in Paul Ryan's eye and seems to have the support of the president, who feels the need to get at least something, anything done--even something this harsh and regressive) then Congress and the president could move on to what really interests them--massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Paid for largely, and here's the perversely brilliant part, by repealing the two Obamacare tax surcharges. Doing this would yield $1.48 trillion, which would "pay for" most of the additional tax cuts in a manner so as to make then seem "revenue neutral."

Again, this healthcare shell game is not about healthcare but tax cuts.

The claim, of course, is that cutting taxes for the wealthy is really about helping the middle class, because if you cut "job creators'" taxes they will invest in businesses that generate high-wage jobs.

The only problem with this claim is that it's untrue--the massive Reagan tax cuts and the even larger Bush tax cuts did not boost the economy or create jobs.  What was created were massive increases in the national debt--nearly tripling during Reagan's time and doubling under George W. Bush.

In contrast, the debt after Clinton's eight years increased by just 32% and during Obama's two terms, after inheriting a collapsed economy, it went up by 68%.

I am embarrassed to admit that it has taken me this long to finally figure out what is going on and what all the congressional healthcare machinations are about--tax cuts.

December 22, 2016--Liberals Need to Fess Up

If we progressives are to rescue our political souls we need to begin by doing some fessing up.

I'll begin and then maybe you will consider doing the same.

Since 1981, Ronald Reagan's first year as president, most liberals have been big beneficiaries of conservative fiscal policy. Especially tax policy.

Though publicly rueing the dramatic cuts he and Congress pushed through, privately and unconfessedly we have done very well.

The Reagan tax cuts followed years later by the Bush tax cuts (re-upped by Barack Obama) were of benefit primality to upper-middle-income people. Not just the top 1-percent but most who were just upper-middle-class. Millions and millions of Americans with advanced education comfortably slotted into the professional, knowledge-working sectors of the economy.

People like me.

These are approximate numbers that reveal how I have fared thanks to Reagan, Bush, and even Obama--

Since 2001 when the Bush cuts took effect, Rona and I have paid at least $5,000 less a year in taxes. Over the course of these 15 years this totals $75,000.

Not bad, not bad at all.

This savings funds a lot of our lifestyle since it is discretionary income.

And the good times for us in this regard, with Donald Trump about to become president, look as if they will continue to roll. Maybe even accelerate. The stock market is so happy that the Dow is about to top 20,000 and our portfolio of stocks in only six weeks, thanks to the Trump Rally, has gone up more than 6-percent.

No bad, not bad at all.

All the time this has been happening, I have moaned and ranted here and among equally-privledged friends about the unfairness of the economic system, focusing my outrage primarily on how, as the result of right-wing fiscal policy, inequality has grown worse.

While all the time I and we have been thriving, millions are being left behind.

This looks and feels like hypocrisy to me.

And among the hypocrites you will find me.

Then, what else has been going on?

Again, since Reagan's time, white working-class and lower-middle-class Democrats have been drifting rightward. When the media noticed this phenomenon, they called these voters "Reagan Democrats," and a few weeks ago these same Democrats became "Trump Democrats," and their votes are propelling him to the White House.

All the while, what have many of us liberals been up to? Trying to enjoy ourselves, leaving the social policy agenda to Republican conservatives who have delivered more to us than the people whom they claim they represent.

I don't know about you, but I haven't noticed myself sending an additional $5,000 "equity" check to the IRS every April 15th with my tax returns.

Instead, at that time, I'm typically planning my next vacation in Maine and trip to Italy.

If we don't begin by taking an honest look at our own lives we will have no chance of overtaking the political forces at work. We used to be the party of "the working man." Now we are the party of self-indulgence and condescension.

More about that tomorrow.

May 2, 2016--Limousine Liberals

Back in 2004, liberals like me loved Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas? We chortled as he exposed how Republicans there and elsewhere duped white working people by promising and then failing to focus on social issues such as abortion and anything having to do with gay rights while in fact delivering tax cuts for themselves and their wealthy patrons.

On the other hand, I am not so sure we will like Frank's latest--Listen, Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? As Beverly Gage quipped in her front-page review in yesterday's New York Times Book Review, it could just as easily have been titled, What's the Matter With Massachusetts?

As I haven't yet read Listen, Liberal, here are highlights from Gage's review--

Liberals in general--and the Democratic Party in particular--should look inward to understand the sorry state of American politics. Too busy attending TED talks and vacationing in Martha's Vineyard, Frank argues, the Democratic elite has abandoned the party's traditional commitments to the working class. In the process, they have helped create the political despair and anger at the heart of today's right-wing insurgencies. . . . 

In Franks's view, liberal policy wonks are part of the problem, members of a well-educated elite that massages its own technocratic vanities while utterly missing the big question of the day. . . .  It is the eternal conflict of management and labor, owner and worker, rich and poor. . . . 

Frank notes that today some people are living much better than others--and many of those people are not Republicans. . . . He argues that the Democratic Party--once the "Party of the People"--now caters to the interests of the "professional-managerial class" consisting of lawyers, doctors, professors, scientists, programmers, even investment bankers. These affluent city dwellers and suburbanites believe firmly in meritocracy and individual opportunity, but often shun the kind of social policies that once gave a real leg up to the working class.

I have offered similar thoughts here for at least the past two years, confessing in one posting that though I am an advocate for tax reform that would be democratically redistributive, I have benefited from and enjoyed the bounty of the Bush tax cuts.

From that position it is hard not to sound hypocritical when calling for structural changes that would truly help the hardening underclass. Listen. Liberal sounds like something I need to read. And in a hurry. It sounds as if my progressive friends need to do likewise.

We have a lot to answer for. Liberals too have been duping the people who trusted us and been the core of our constituency. Partly on our watch inequality has widened and many of us in the professional class have benefitted mightily.

November 11, 2014--Liberals

Shortly before leaving Maine we had breakfast with two very liberal friends. This was about a week before the recent midterm election and part of what we discussed was how they thought the results would turn out.

"Don't believe the polls," Arnie said, "He may be behind, but I feel certain LePage will be reelected governor. And easily. In fact, I predict we'll see a Republican sweep across the country."

"Why's that?" I asked. My read of things was that the GOP had a good change to take control of the Senate but thought Dems would do well in governors races.

"That's because we liberals don't get off our fat asses for midterm elections. We save our political energy for those years when presidents are elected. But we're good at complaining--in fact we make an art form of it--but when it comes to taking action we're not so good."

"Wouldn't you think," Jim said, "that women, young people, and minorities would be racing to vote this time around? Because if they don't, say goodbye to reproductive health care and, for that matter, health care more generally. And what do you think will happen to voting rights and education funding, especially money to help low-income youngsters pay for college?"

"When all the votes are in," Arnie said, "we'll hear all the whining and moaning and groaning on MSNBC."

"And excuse making," Jim added. "How the system is broken. Blah, blah, blah."

Sure enough, things turned out even worse than Arnie and Jim predicted and, yes, there is now all that liberal finger pointing.

Back in New York, after the election, I took up the conversation with other friends. They too complained that the system is broken. When I asked them what they had done beside sending out some checks to favored candidates and causes they avoided eye contact. I'm not even sure they voted. But they were full of jizzum about, again, the broken system.

When I said that I felt the system was broken only for us liberals, that conservatives are feeling pretty good these days about the system, that they are looking forward to that system getting government out of their lives (that should only be) and out of the business of spending their tax money on people who don't want to get off their duffs and work to feed their kids.

"Well," Sarah said, "that's because they have all these beliefs, unverified ones by the way, about the natural order of things. A version of survival of the fittest where competition and the market will take care of our problems. That is, if we leave things alone. As you know from history, this just doesn't work. But, if they believe," she said sarcastically, "to them it must be true."

"I agree with some of that," I said, "But let me ask you something--in fact, let me also ask myself something."

"What's that?" an equally frustrated Doug asked.

"Are there any beliefs that we have? Liberals I mean. Beliefs that are equally not verifiable from evidence?"

"You mean all the research and talk about the fundamental, even neurological differences between belief-oriented versus evidence-oriented people and how that affects political behavior?"

"Maybe. But not to get into that discussion, which in my view is based on still insufficient evidence, I'm simply asking if we who consider ourselves open-minded and minimally fact- or scientifically-oriented, if there are things we just believe."

Both Sarah and Doug stroked their chins, trying hard too come up with something they believe that was based on something like faith. I too sat sipping my coffee, asking myself the same thing, admitting it's not something I had thought too much about, satisfied as I am with how objective and rational I considered myself to be.

"Wait, I have something," I said all excited.

"I can't wait to hear this one," Doug muttered.

"Here's something I think that goes to our political and ideological core--don't we believe, without supporting objective evidence, that government should play a significant role to help our most vulnerable citizens?" Sarah and Doug stared at me blankly.

"You know, in health care, education, housing, things of that kind?"

"I'm not following you," Doug finally said.

"Look, I support all of these programs. At least the ones that work, which is a whole other conversation. But what hard evidence can we cite to support these beliefs?"

"The evidence that student loans help millions go to college who otherwise couldn't afford to."

"Again, I favor that. But that's about outcomes, not the truth from nature that tells us what must to be done. To support programs of this kind is not written on tablets but is based on following a set of beliefs about how we should behave toward each other. It's the right thing to do, I feel certain about that, but it's justified by how I feel about our various roles as citizens. I believe that's how we should behave as individuals and governments. With 'feel' and 'believe' underlined. Again, these core values are not evidence-driven. Maybe the outcomes are objectively measurable but not the underlying principles about the appropriateness or requirement that we act this way.

"Maybe," I continued, "we don't even having 'inalienable rights,' that these too are not from nature but socially constructed."

"In other words," Sarah offered, "you're saying we're no different than those who believe in a very limited role for government? Let the chips fall where they may in a survival-of-the-fittest mode?" I nodded. "I'm not interested in living in that kind of world."

"Neither am I," I said, "But I think it's a good idea to recognize, to acknowledge that we're not so different than conservatives in that much of our political core is as belief-driven as theirs. We obviously believe very different things and come to very different conclusions, but like them believe we do."

"If this is true," Doug sighed with a sense of resignation, "we are to some extent jerking ourselves around. Thinking about ourselves as superior--intellectually and, worse, morally superior to the Tea Party folks and their GOP enablers."

"Which is why," I said, "we too often sit around analyzing and complaining and excuse making. We're good at all of that and maybe even get it right--at least I believe that," I winked, "But I don't think it's helping us push back or do well at the polls--nationally, at the state level, and locally. We're losing on all those fronts. The other side is now even out-organizing us. They have the energy and momentum. OK, because they are more fervent in their beliefs; but since we share strong beliefs too we had better get up off our couches and turn off our iPhones and get to work.  Especially locally because that 's where the future leaders are coming from."

"I did notice a bit of a generational shift in last week's election results," Sarah said, "The Democrats felt old to me and the Republicans more youthful and energetic."

"Hillary beware," Rona said.

"One more thing," I said. "I know you have to run, but here's another problem that's under-discussed--Evidence is that minorities aside, Democrats, true liberals like us, are better educated and much more affluent than your average middle-class and rural conservatives--excluding billionaires like the Koch brothers of course--and we thus have been big beneficiaries of the Bush-era economic and tax polices, all of which were made permanent during the early Obama years."

Sarah was looking at me skeptically. "You, too have benefitted, " I said to her. "And me as well. Without getting into specifics, I have paid much, much less in taxes the past 14, 15 years than previously. And, I confess, I like that and thus do not feel that motivated to agitate to pay more. Even if it went to programs I believe in and at least theoretically support. I say 'theoretically' because I'm not that much good when it comes to political action and mobilization. I'll confess--I like my lifestyle and don't want to see too much of it change."

Doug said softly, "I think you're right," he glanced at me, "We have been too full of ourselves, believing that if we get the policies right the politics will follow."

"Obama said the same thing Sunday on one of the talk shows," Rona said.

"That view feels a little arrogant to me," Sarah admitted.

"I agree," I said, "I think so-called 'average people' perceive us and our policies this way. To them we come across as knowing better than they do what's best for them."

"I need to think about this some more," Doug said, staring into his empty coffee cup.

October 28, 2014--Gar-bage Time

It's Gar-bage Time in Washington, with the emphasis on the second syllable--Gar-bage.

As a basketball enthusiast, Obama knows about Gar-bage Time. It is now that time for Barack Obama and his administration.

In the NBA it's when LeBron James' team is 30 point ahead in the fourth and final quarter. Rather than continuing to run up the score and thereby taunt and humiliate their opponent, it's when the coach puts in the third stringers and they run up and down the court for the final 10 minutes making fools of themselves.

In this case, the Obama administration is 30 points behind and there's only a little over two years left in his term. He's entering the fourth quarter of his eight-year term.

I know, this will feel like an eternity. Just as it always does during Gar-bage Time. But with Obama there are things he and his team can do to avoid making fools of themselves.

Before turning to that, to drive home the basketball analogy, in 2004, just before delivering the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention that launched him--the "One America" speech--to pump himself up as well as to give us a rare glimpse of his ego, Obama proclaimed, "I'm LeBron, baby. I can play at this level. I got some game."

He really said that.

That may have influenced the Nobel Prize Committee, which in 2009 awarded him a premature Peace Prize, but for those of us paying attention during the first three quarters, Obama's initial six years, to paraphrase Lloyd Benson's barb delivered to his hapless VP opponent Dan Quayle, who had the chutzpah to compare himself to John F. Kennedy, "I know LeBron James, and with all due respect, Mr. President, you're no LeBron James. In fact, you don't have that much game."

I should add that Quayle, George H.W. Bush's VP nominee, actually won.

Overnight I was thinking about what the first Wikipedia paragraph will say about post-presidential Barack Obama. Currently, the first sentence says he is the "first African American too hold the office of President." I assume that will remain and certainly the first paragraph will include Obamacare; but when it then comes to sum up the rest of the essence of his presidency, to highlight his major achievements, these will include extracting us from two George W. Bush wars, finally tracking down and killing Osama bin Laden, and playing a leading role--even before he was elected--in supporting measures to prevent the Great Recession from becoming the Second Great Depression.

Then, the rest of the Wiki entry will be a list of disappointments and out-and-out failures.  Here's a list--

The Obamacare rollout
The VA hospital scandal
The IRS scandal
The Arab Spring which quickly devolved into the Arab Winter
The Ebola response
The return of the Cold War
Reupping the Patriot Act and expanding its use
Supporting the extension of Bush's tax cuts
Edward Snowdon
Red Lines in Syria
Angela Merkel's cell phone
Losing the Democrat majority in the House and, soon, the Senate

So, in the face of this and the public's disenchantment with him, how can Obama avoid two-plus years of Gar-bage Time?

By being bold. Show that like LeBron you do have game.

Prodded by Nancy Reagan, Ronald Reagan during the doldrums of the last year's of his presidency, in the midst of Iran-Contragate, made a deal with the Soviets to effectively end the Cold War.

I can only imagine what Michele is now pushing for--

• An easy one--bring Cuba back into the fold of Western nations
• Stop the continuing flood of deportations being carried out by your administration and stand up forcefully and repeatedly for the "rights" of undocumented immigrants who are essential to our economy
• Put what little is left of your political capital on the line and honor your Nobel by personally and directly intervening in the Arab-Israel nightmare. If necessary, begin the process of cutting Israel loose since they are at the heart of the ongoing problem. Ignore the Israel Lobby. You don't need them. You're not running for anything anymore.
• Reiterate your agenda even though there is no chance whatsoever of any of it being enacted into law. Maybe some of your lofty ideas will influence future presidents. As with Teddy Roosevelt.
• Speak more about race. Reread your own amazing speech delivered during the heat of the Reverend Wright affair and get back to those themes. Many of us think much of your problem with Congress and with too many Americans is lingering racism. Who other than you can do this in ways to help get more of that malignant affliction behind us. 
• Most important, devote much of your remaining time talking about the American Dream to disaffiliated young people. Poor, middle class, and wealthy. Too many of them fear for the future. And they are right to do so. Someone has to help them understand what is happening and figure out how to deal with a host of new realities. 

Or, you can continue to drag yourself dispiritedly up and down the court, feeling sorry for yourself, running down the clock. And, one more thing, put Air Force One in the hanger and if you go anywhere travel commercial.

April 1, 2104--Progressives' Dirty-Little-Secret

Here's the dirty-little-secret--

Liberals and progressives like me are actually clandestinely happy with most of George W. Bush's policies.

That's why there are no large-scale protests. Occupy Wall Street came and went in a month. The rest is silence except for the occasional New York Times editorial and the shouting and smugness that passes for political discourse on MSNBC.

With the tax season culminating in two weeks, we liberals are especially happy with what the Bush-era tax cuts have meant for us.

Demographically, progressives are more highly educated, have better jobs, and earn more money than "ordinary" conservatives. Thus, all things being equal (which they are not thanks to the previous president) we affluent lefties have disproportionately benefitted from the 2001 tax reductions that Bush promulgated (to be fair and balanced, 12 Democratic senators voted for them) and Obama reupped in 2009, with Democrats in numbers again endorsed.

On Saturday from our accountant we received our filled-out tax forms for 2013. We had a good earnings years and needed to pay a little more than in 2012. But, but, as the result of the Bush-Obama tax cuts we owed about $5,000 less than we would have had to pay under Clinton's more progressive tax polices.

Furthermore, how many liberals are out in the streets protesting cuts in food stamps and aid to education; slashes in spending for medical and science research; less available for environmental protection; cutbacks in support for women's health programs; Supreme Court decisions to allow unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns and the effective rollback of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

We're even OK with Bush's Patriot Act and Obama's use and expansion of it since we care more about protecting our comforts than our privacy.

And, since we have an all-volunteer military and our children and grandchildren are not in danger of being drafted, much less inclined to sign up and be shipped off to Iraq or Afghanistan (or Ukraine), beyond spouting rhetoric about how awful all this is, how perfidious and hypocritical Republicans are (they are), we secretly smile when we sign our tax forms, sit back on the deck at our vacation homes, and sip Chablis while streaming House of Cards.

Hey, if these policies don't affect me directly why get all out of joint much less use Twitter as they do or did in Egypt and Venezuela and Russia to mobilize? It's cold out there, it might rain, and I might even get my head busted by an overzealous policeman.

Even if half the states so restrict abortions as to make them unavailable, we live on one or the other of the coasts--so no problem.

Actually, for the fortunate us there are few problems with anything.