February 6, 2020--Enough Already

Before they do more harm to themselves, the Democrats need to get to where they're going. And fast.

By this I mean to their final two. 

After all the polling, debates, and now Iowa, it is becoming obvious that among current strivers for the nomination only two are viable--Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg.

They are making powerful and effective cases for their ideas and electability. And they are the only two who have all the money needed to run a 21st century campaign. No one else comes even close.

Pete Guttigieg is clearly attractive, has some money, but with essentially no support in the African-American community doesn't have much of a chance to be nominated much less win in November. Bernie also has his own version of this problem. As, in fact, does Bloomberg (recall Stop and Frisk).

I do not understand why Warren's support has been shrinking for nearly two months--perhaps because of her Medicare For All ideas and their cost. Bernie has this problem as well and then some but for some reason is getting away with it. Probably sexism has something to do with that.

On the other hand, I think I know why Biden is turning out not to be viable. Mainly because he feels like a fragile old man whose time has come and gone. In addition, recall, the other times he ran for president. Though he was far from old, he was an unsuccessful candidate, securing 0.5 percent of the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire and never rising above 5 percent in the polls. When he aspires for the presidency there is clearly something about him that deters voters.

All the other candidates are mired in or close to one-digit territory. Amy Klobuchar is the one exception, now hovering in the 10 percent range.

In other words, the Democratic candidates are either flawed or politically weak. All the more reason to clear the field and let the final two hone their messages, get out of the business of self-destructive bickering, and compete meaningfully with each other. An on-going crowded field is not helping.

As to ultimate electability, can a 78 year-old Jewish socialist who wants to eliminate private health care insurance win a national election? 

Then, assuming by some version of a miracle Bloomberg can win the nomination (the process is rigged to undermine an outsider's chances to do so), can another 77 year-old New York Jew who is fervent about protecting a woman's right to choose, can he win in enough blue-collar swing states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College?

Bernie versus Bloomberg could turn out to be a great contest with clear and stark ideological differences separating them--can Bernie, the representative of the anti-capitalist ninety-nine percent defeat one of the most successful capitalists in American history (whose most profitable product is financial software) with enough wealth to place him in the top one-tenth of one percent?

I know my friends who are eager supporters of Mayor Pete or Elizabeth Warren will not welcome this ultra-practical suggestion. But we're in a dog fight with Trump, who is very good at this, while  also busy shooting ourselves in the foot.

August 2, 2016--Run the Government Like A Business?

A friend said, "It's just another Republican scheme designed to fool people. I'm tired of hearing about it."

"You mean those people who say they want to see the government run like a business?"

"Exactly. It's a crazy idea born out of frustration. Which I understand. The frustration. But businesses are all about making profits. Governments aren't."

"True," I said, "But let's take a step back to see what they really might mean. I agree with you on at least two counts--people are fed up with what they see to be failures of government to do legitimate and high quality work and, also, claim to want to see them work more like businesses to stick it to people like us who they feel are anti-business socialists. That we want a nanny state where government takes over roles more appropriately carried out by individuals, families, charities, and churches. Spending hard-earned taxpayers' money as if it's their own."

"Well put," my friend said, signaling to get his coffee cup refilled. "That's exactly what's going on. Can you imagine the country being run like a business? Especially by a Donald Trump who it appears more every day isn't really that good a businessman? Too much of what he apparently did was based more on scams than the result of more honest competition."

"Can we agree that as hard as it is to do, let's try to talk about this without making reference to him because, theoretically at least, it could be interesting to think about what a legitimate, big-time CEO from business might do as president. For example, Google's Eric Schmidt, General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic, or Facebook's COO Sheryl Sandberg."

"Seeking to make a profit? That's the bottom line. Literally. And so . . . ?"

"Let's also try to deal with the profit business, to get it out of the way and hopefully, for the sake of this discussion, put it in a better context."

"Lot's of luck with that," he said.

"Of course, in capitalism, in business the focus is on P&L and at the end of the day making money. But more thoughtful people who think about what it would it be like to run the government more like a business know that though a government obviously wouldn't be seeking profits, it could benefit by running more according to well-established business methods and practices."

"Keep going," my friend said, seemingly at least a little interested. Or maybe the coffee was going down well.

"They look more at the methods than the bottom line. Accepting the fact that governments at their best also have bottom lines--not profits but the quality and efficiency of their services and even their goods. With goods usually thought of as all the manufactured goods the government procures (weapons systems front and center) and the services it supplies, among others, in education, health care, sponsored research, food and housing assistance, drug quality control, a strong military, intelligence gathering, and environmental protection."

"This is worth thinking about. I can see how certain so-called business practices might help with some of these."

"In big picture terms, without getting into too many specifics, one thing that frustrates business-inclined people is the fact that among government workers--appointed as well as Civil Service--there seems to be little value placed on efficiency or accountability. Both things at their best are characteristic of businesses. If you do well, you're rewarded with promotions, salary increases, and bonuses. If you do poorly, you're let go. There's a little of that in government but very little. Proponents of business applications to government work claim--and I think with some credibility when they're not just being mean spirited--that we have too many redundant and under-performing, unaccountable government workers with too many of the good ones discouraged by an indolent work culture and, as a consequence, either move on to private industry or essentially sit around counting the days until they can collect their pensions."

My friend said, "There is undoubtedly some truth to that, especially in regard to redundant and obsolete programs, but I think the extent of this is greatly exaggerated. Though I'll grant you there are too many $500 toilet seats."

"What's your evidence that the critique is exaggerated?"

"What's yours regarding the case about governmental incompetence and goldbricking?"

"Fair enough. This kind of argument on both sides is usually based on impression, anecdote, or ideology. So here are a couple of statistics--excluding the military, back in 1940, seven years after Roosevelt took over during the Great Depression and after there was a leap in the number on the federal payroll, there were about 700,000 federal workers. Now we have nearly 2.1 million. Also, the 1940 numbers are after years of new government hires to stimulate the economy. Back in 1930 there were only tens of thousand of government employees."

I paused to take a breath. My friend said, "I have to think about this. But don't forget that the country's population doubled during those years."

"It actually more than tripled. From about 100 million to more than 325 million. But I'll have to think about what you're saying. While doing so, while we're talking about the size of the government workforce, when was the last time--again applying business methods--that we took a truly objective look at the increased and expanded rolls government now plays? I can't believe that X percent of that couldn't be eliminated and in some cases even privatized. Any efficiently run business would do that, does that routinely. And by the way," I added, "shouldn't we liberals who see a large and essential role for government be the ones clamoring for efficiency and accountability? Why do we leave that political plum to conservatives?"

"I'm still stuck on profit being the bottom line for business and how that focus would be applied to not-for-profit government. Wouldn't it lead to harmful and cruel cuts to safety-net programs beyond what would, in pruning terms, be healthy or acceptable?"

"This is a necessary concern and caution. One final thing then," I said, "During the Bill Clinton years, especially during his second term, the government, after cutting 'welfare as we know it,' as they said, and other programs, plus of course a relatively booming economy, generated substantial budget surpluses. Trillions. Sort of like profits," I winked, "which, if George W. Bush hadn't taken us into war in Iraq and Afghanistan and had paid for his prescription drug plan and hadn't insisted on multi-trillion dollar tax cuts, that surplus would have eliminated the national debt in a decade. That sounds like good business practice to me."

"As I promised," my friend said, "I'll give this some more thought. That is, assuming you also agree to do so." He winked.

March 10, 2014--Amerika

I've been rethinking what I wrote the other day about Vladimir Putin. When I speculated that he would back off from a full-scale crisis in Ukraine because the Russian economy is now fully globalized, billionaire kleptocrats within Russia are worried about the value of their ill-gotten assets, and Putin likes being a part of the post-modern civilized world and doesn't want to be tossed out of the G-8 club.

That was last week.

This week he seems to have no problem dispatching Russian troops to Crimea (albeit without the uniform patches that would identify them as Russian); racing ahead with a referendum there that would allow Crimea to secede from the rest of Ukraine; and he is not hesitating to push back against American sanctions pressure, even, in uncensored ways, calling us hypocrites for lecturing him and Russia about human rights violations and acting, by annexing Crimea, unconstitutionally and in violation of international law.

How constitutional is it, he is chiding President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, to move quickly to recognize the new government in Ukraine, a government that seized office two weeks ago by ousting the admittedly corrupt but legitimately elected president, Viktor Yanukovych? That does not sound constitutional, much less consistent.

And, as to international law, Putin is enjoying poking us by asking what's worse--Russia sending a few thousand troops to Crimea or the United States launching a full-scale "preemptive war" against Iraq? A war that not only led to the overthrow and execution of Saddam Hussein and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but also to the military occupation of a sovereign nation for nearly a decade by the U.S. military

Putin also seems fed up being hectored by Obama and Kerry about democracy and human rights when, he points out, we continue to have and use our prison in Guantanamo Bay and in many states, abetted by our Supreme Court, efforts are vigorously underway to deny voting rights to people of color.

And, while he's at it, Putin has taken to pointing out that our vaunted free market economy is not as open or free as we claim. It is getting more difficult in the U.S. to move upward socioeconomically, gaps between rich and the rest of us are widening, and for many who have been most successful it is because the system is substantially rigged in their favor.

As unsavory as Putin may be, he has a point.

Not only has he had it with us, but, sadly, many others around the world are also tired of our holding ourselves up as the governmental and economic model to which everyone else should aspire.

Now that we are virtual paper tigers--unable, really, to impose our will anywhere--nations big and small are feeling no hesitation to expose our inconsistencies and internal contradictions.

We appear to be interested in directing Putin to an "off ramp," a way to back down without feeling humiliated. But it may be that we too need an off ramp of our own.

November 15, 2013--Midcoast: Bill In A Swivet

Bill came in all agitated.

"What's the matter?" Ken asked.

"Did you see this?" He thrust his newspaper toward us. He was fuming. I thought maybe there was bad news from the Middle East or something terrible happened up in Augusta. He's very political and ordinarily responds passionately to the news of the day.

"I'm not seeing what's got under your skin."

"Me neither," I chimed in.

"The story about Coca Cola. Not really about Coke." He pulled the paper back. "About the soda business. About what's going on with them."

"With them?" Ken was puzzled. "Let me take a look."  Bill handed the paper back to him and tapped on the page where the article was that had him all in a swivet.

"About how they're selling about as much water now as soda?" Ken read from the headline.

"That's my point," Bill said to Ken. "Terrible. Terrible."

"I really don't see why that's so terrible. You yourself never drink Cokes or Pepsis."

"That's not my point."

"What is it then?" I asked.

"That they, or anyone, would make money selling water. Water." He shook his head for emphasis.

"That's what got you so riled up?" his close friend Ken said, trying to calm him down.

"You know me," he looked toward me, the one liberal at the table, "I believe in making a profit. That's part of the magic of America. Business. The profit motive. All those good things. But from water? That I can't believe."

"True," I said, "it basically costs them nothing--the water's free--and they put it in a two-cent bottle, spend another two cents, if that, shippin' it, and then sell it for 99 cents. That's what I call making a profit!"

"I'm OK with those numbers," Bill said. "Again, starting businesses, inventing things is part of what made America great; but no one should make a profit from water."

Ken said, "They make almost as much selling soda. How much do you think the syrup costs? Again, maybe two cents a bottle. And they charge more than for water. So, I'm not seeing--"

"At least the syrup is something they concocted and have to manufacture. Water just comes out of a well or the tap."

"We do," I said, "pay tax on water both here in Maine and in New York."

"You know what I think about government in general and taxes," no need for Bill to remind me of that, "But the tax on water is to pay for the cost of getting it to you and making sure it's safe to drink. The town here and the city don't make a profit from it."

"Fair point," I conceded.

"But that's not what's upsetting me."

"What is it then?" Ken asked.

"You and I are getting on in years but have pretty good memories of the way things used to be."

"You can include me in that," I said.

"We still have a few years on you--"

"Just a few," Ken teased me.

"And we remember, don't we Ken, when it was illegal to charge for water."

"Illegal?" I was confused.

"Illegal indeed. If someone came up to your door and asked for a drink of water--and people actually did that back then--you had to give them a glass and you weren't allowed to charge them anything. Not that anyone would; but making it illegal was another way of saying that if someone was down and out, down on his luck, it was our responsibility to help them. Including with a glass of water."

"But the water they sell," I suggested, "is in the supermarket to people who don't want to drink tap water."

"Probably true for most," Bill conceded, "But by putting a price on it, marking it up so much, turns it into something other than being necessary to life."

"And as an opportunity to do good to strangers," Ken said. "Now I get your point."

"Me too," I added. "One more thing--what would happen if someone showed up at your door and asked for a glass of water and while you were getting it for him he smelling a homemade pie coming out of the oven and--"