Davis will go into the spring, for the first time in a long time, not talking about layoffs or school cuts. That is the good news, but it was a rough ride last year getting to that point.
The district attempted to avoid further layoffs through employee concessions, but could not get the Davis Teacher’s Association to agree. The result was roughly 50 layoffs.
Unfortunately, by summer, the district had two looming crises. It faced automatic trigger cuts if the voters did not approve the governor’s tax measure – Prop 30. And it faced the expiration of Measure A passed in 2011 as an emergency two-year parcel tax.
Board member Richard Harris decided to forgo his reelection and instead pushed for a parcel tax, Measure E, that would renew Measure A while, at the same time, providing potential funding to the district should Prop 30 not pass.
The district still faced a potential problem. Should Measure E pass but not Prop 30 (a distinct possibility), the district would have faced the loss of funding from January until June when Measure E would begin collecting parcel tax money.
Once again, the district entered into contingency plans should Prop 30 fail – they asked for concessions from the DTA, CSEA (California School Employees Association) and administration – they gained concessions for the two latter groups, but not DTA.
Fortunately for all involved, the crisis and final showdown never came. Despite some early returns that undoubtedly caused some nervousness, in the end both Measure E and Prop 30 passed relatively easily.
As Richard Harris told the Vanguard the morning after the election, by any reasonable measure, 69% is a landslide. We agree and Richard Harris deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing the district to act when they would not have, and seeing it through until the end.
Without Mr. Harris’ impetus there would not have been a Measure E on the November ballot. While it may have been true that the district would have come back this spring, we do not know. What we do know is that 24,000 people cast their ballot this time and 69% of those said yes.
With that said, the Vanguard believes that the voters and the taxpayers have done their part and it is now time for some other groups to step forward here.
As Bill Storm, Ingrid Salim and Greg Brucker wrote immediately following the election, “The passage of these measures also removes the specter of imminent labor conflict between DJUSD and the Davis Teachers Association.”
They add, “This conflict has been ill-conceived and entirely unnecessary, bringing this system so highly treasured by Davis citizens to the edge of labor warfare because the State of California cannot see fit to put its schools on a decent financial foundation. Inflammatory rhetoric, half-truths and divisive communication has characterized the communication style of past DTA leadership, establishing a path of certain conflict which would have led to a strike next spring had Prop. 30 and Measure E not been approved. It also put in place an extremely unhealthy foundation for negotiations over contract renewal in Spring of 2013.”
It is clear that there is a problem within the leadership of DTA. These are good and well-meaning people, but at the same time, they are not realistic about the budget structure in Davis.
Meanwhile, at the state level, Democrats, now with super-majorities in Assembly and Senate, are looking into reforming the parcel tax system.
Democrats are looking into placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot making it easier for school districts and county education offices to raise taxes.
Currently, parcel taxes for elections require a two-thirds vote, but only 55 percent support for school bonds which go for facility improvement but not classroom operating expenses.
One bill sponsored by Senator Mark Leno would reduce the threshold for parcel taxes to 55 percent. While on the surface that might not appear to affect DJUSD, which has now passed five parcel taxes at 67 percent or higher support since 2007, it could.
Then again, argues columnist Tom Elias, the parcel tax is probably the least fair of all taxes. Because of Prop 13 and the Serrano v. Priest court decision, the parcel tax is the only way that local districts can pass a local tax that allows the money they produce to stay locally.
“Why are parcel taxes unfair?” Mr. Elias asks. “Because they have nothing to do with the value or use of any particular property. Parcel taxes assess owners an identical sum for each property they possess. That means the tax on a small one- or two-bedroom cottage is identical to the levy on a luxury hotel or a large shopping mall. The owner of a 33,000-square-foot mansion pays the same as the owner of a property one-twentieth as large.”
This is the point that parcel tax opponents have repeatedly made without gaining much traction. The reason is that school districts will really have no other choice.
Mr. Elias argues that while “there’s little doubt about the need,” the “need for a public service does not justify an unfair, inequitable method of taxation like parcel taxes. To be fair, any levy on property must take value and uses into account; parcel taxes do not.”
Mr. Elias also notes that until the Democrats won two-thirds majorities in both houses, “it was impossible to get these proposals onto the ballot because of unified opposition from Republicans.”
That calculus has changed. All it takes now is a majority vote of the voters to approve lower thresholds.
He notes, “If the public believes all these types of services need more money, there are other ways to raise it, methods that are far more fair.”
What he does not make reference to, however, is what the legislature can do or the political realities that the Democrats face. The Democrats know that the best way to ensure that they lose their two-thirds majority is to use that power to raise taxes. So they will do so only sparingly.
That means that while they might allow the voters to lower the threshold on parcel taxes, they are going to be reluctant to fund other tax-based funding mechanisms for education.
The result is that education in California will remain on the boom-bust model – with money available during good times drying up during down times.
The district seems poised now to ride out the rest of the economic downturn. The economy, barring the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling crisis, seems poised to finally, if slowly, improve.
The district needs to focus on critical issues like the achievement gap that have been, if not ignored, put on the backburner during the all-encompassing focus on funding and budgets of the last six years.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Fiscal cliff/sequestration issues may result in cutbacks to federally funded programs, such as Title I, Free/reduced lunch, and special ed.
Free/reduced lunch needs to be cutback, there are too many cheating that system.
rusty49: [i]Free/reduced lunch needs to be cutback, there are too many cheating that system.[/i]
How do you know who’s cheating?
Here’s just one of many articles on the cheating:
[url]http://educationnext.org/fraud-in-the-lunchroom/[/url]
rusty: now go back and read the first comment on that article.
rusty: Would have loved to see an article that went into a little more depth. First, free/reduced lunch does serve children of families who are a little above the poverty level. The childhood poverty level shows decline through to about 2006; what about the childhood poverty level through to 2012? News says that it’s increased over that time. I remember that fact being used as an argument for voting against Obama.
But the correlation argument as presented is very weak when you examine eligibility rules. If we accept that childhood poverty rates have decreased over the time indicated, does this mean that the number of children living between 131 and 185 percent of poverty level should also have shrunk proportionally? That argument isn’t clear. Students living at those levels also are eligible for free/reduced lunch.
[img]http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1243&dat=19800604&id=1yZYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3PYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4563,1085818[/img]
I can keep the articles coming for days. The program is ripe with fraud.
[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1243&dat=19800604&id=1yZYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3PYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4563,1085818[/url]
[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-01-13/news/ct-met-cps-lunch-fraud-20120113_1_free-lunches-reduced-price-lunches-lunch-applications[/url]
Do you want more? Somehow I have a feeling you won’t bother to see the truth through those rose colored glasses.
Re: 12/28/12 – 01:37 PM: An article from 1980? When Reagan was president? Surely he corrected that.
My take on free school lunches: Yes, sadly, for great numbers of children, they are very important ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/[/url]). We must provide them.
These kids come from homes where, in most cases*, their parents made bad choices in life which culminated in them either being unable or unwilling to feed their kids. Without free school lunches and food stamps, these innocent children would be harmed, and perhaps that malnutrition would negatively affect them for the rest of their lives.
The bigger question is [i]what are we doing[/i] as a society to discourage at-risk young people (mostly under age 25) from bearing children before they are prepared to provide a stable, safe and fiscally secure home life for themselves, let alone dependents?
What liberals rarely point out–almost as if they think this is the fault of someone else, perhaps the fault of dreaded corporations?–is that the reason we have so much child poverty in the United States is because low-income mothers (invariably unmarried) have fertility rates which are many times greater than middle- and high-income women. Kids are not growing up in poverty by accident. This is the result of poor moms popping them out.
It seems to me that, with the exception of making birth control much more widely available than it once was (and this is a very, very good thing), we are doing too little. As I have written in my Enterprise column, I would favor giving a lot of cash to any young woman** who comes from difficult circumstances (such as being raised in poverty or having a parent with addiction problems or having a parent in prison) who waits until she is at least 21 years old and married for 1 year to her baby’s father or until she is at least 25 years old to have her first child.
How much cash? About $50,000. That sounds like a lot of money. It would clearly make life a lot better (or at least give a young woman who gets that money a chance to make her life a lot better) for those who receive it. We now spend about that much for one year for an adult in prison. We spend tens of thousands of dollars per year per poor child in welfare and police services. If a 15-year-old impoverished girl who otherwise would have had 5 children by the age of 25 waited a decade to finish her education, get married and then start a family, we would save hundreds of thousands of dollars in societal expenses. And the child she later have would have a much better chance in life.
*Obviously there are exceptional circumstances which drive people into poverty (illness and or death of a parent, for example).
**We could make the same kind of payments to young males who wait to father children. The main reason I think an incentive should be focused on females is because, obviously, they are the ones who get pregnant, and because, sadly, they almost always have to raise the child without its father.
Added note from research on why high-risk mothers have higher birth rates: [quote]Recent analyses of data from the National Survey of Family Growth ([url]http://www.prb.org/Articles/2012/us-teen-birthrate-income.aspx[/url]) suggest that teenage girls of lower socioeconomic status, in regions of high income inequality, are far more likely to “keep their baby.” Teenagers of higher socioeconomic status—with college-educated mothers—and in regions with less income inequality have lower birth rates. … On teenage childbearing, Kearny and Levine argue that “when a poor young woman perceives that socioeconomic success is not achievable to her, she is more likely to embrace motherhood in her current position … When there is relatively more hope of economic advancement, it is relatively more desirable to delay motherhood and invest in human or social capital.” … Results clearly suggest that women of low socioeconomic status, whose mothers dropped out of high school, are more likely to give birth as a single teen if they live in a region of high income inequality. Interestingly, teens of high socioeconomic status are not necessarily less likely to get pregnant, but are more likely to experience a “pregnancy failure,” typically meaning abortion.”[/quote]
Federal anti-fraud efforts: [url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-07/news/ct-met-school-lunch-fraud-0308-20120308_1_lunch-program-school-lunch-free-lunches[/url]
Note that this federal action appears to be in direct response to the Chicago Tribune news story rusty linked at 01:41 PM
[i]”An article from 1980? When Reagan was president?”[/i]
What was Ronald Reagan the president of in 1980? It was not until January 20, 1981 ([url]http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/12081a.htm[/url]) that Mr. Reagan was inaugurated as POTUS.
RR: [i]”And the child she ______ later have would have a much better chance in life.”[/i]
I need to fix that sentence: And the child she [b]would[/b] later have would have a much better chance in life.
Fixed.
[i]”It was not until January 20, 1981 that Mr. Reagan was inaugurated as POTUS.”
[/i]
Right you are. And he then had eight years to correct the fraud and waste in the federal government, an issue which was always front and center in his campaigns.
Rifkin: [i]It seems to me that, with the exception of making birth control much more widely available than it once was (and this is a very, very good thing), we are doing too little. As I have written in my Enterprise column, I would favor giving a lot of cash to any young woman** who comes from difficult circumstances…[/i]
I suggest that a more thorough sex ed. curriculum in the public schools would be an additional improvement. What I have in mind as “more thorough” accepts that homosexuality is natural, that specifically addresses outercourse ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outercourse[/url]) as an alternative to intercourse, and would also extend into aspects of home economics, such as family budgeting that includes evaluating the cost of raising a baby, and, ideally, the practical experience of changing a poopy diaper, and possibly getting a baby to sleep on schedule.
The subject of outercourse, in my view, would not necessarily have to cover all of the varieties discussed in the wiki article I link to, but just enough to get across the idea that “having sex” doesn’t always and automatically mean intercourse.
I know this curriculum would always be contentious for a certain segment of the population, but no more contentious, I think, than your proposal of fronting reward money.
While he’s at it, I guess he’ll have them ask everyone they encounter to produce a legally acceptable birth certificate (meaning anything from Hawaii will be unacceptable):
Arizona sheriff orders armed ‘posse’ to patrol schools ([url]http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/28/16215255-arizona-sheriff-orders-armed-posse-to-patrol-schools?lite[/url])
[i]”I suggest that a more thorough sex ed. curriculum in the public schools would be an additional improvement.”[/i]
Agreed.
An interesting fact is that teen pregnancy rates have been falling nationwide and among all racial/ethnic groups for about a decade–I think this is mostly due to more available and better birth control–with the exception of those very conservative areas which preach “abstinence” sex ed. In those places, teen birth rates are the highest and have not fallen.
[i]”What I have in mind as ‘more thorough’ accepts that homosexuality is natural (for those who have that biological orientation) …”[/i]
Not that I disagree, but I don’t think teaching that affects the birth rate one way or the other among those would be parents who are not ready to provide a nurturing home for their children.
[i]” … that specifically addresses outercourse as an alternative to intercourse …”[/i]
You will probably enjoy this song ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0Qxg1Ixrsg[/url]) (warning: crude) which my friend, Kevin Hench, wrote. Unfortunately, the audio is ruined a bit by overtalk.
Rifkin: [i]Not that I disagree, but I don’t think teaching that affects the birth rate one way or the other…[/i]
I agree with you, here. But I include that component because it has been a shortcoming of sex ed. in the past. Including it, I think, would reduce some bullying, adolescent anxieties, and maybe suicides.
Rifkin: [i]…with the exception of those very conservative areas which preach “abstinence” sex ed.[/i]
Outcourse meets a certain definition of abstinence. But if one defines abstinence as avoiding any form of sexual pleasure outside of marriage, then it is a non-starter. But the latter position is also unrealistic, because ultimately you have to prohibit “gateway sexual activity” ([url]http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/412838/april-18-2012/the-word—gateway-hug[/url]), such as hand-holding, kissing, hugging, and eye contact. But they have discussed such prohibitions in Tennessee. We can wait and watch what happens.
Wdf1:
These are all great ideas. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for this to happen, though, because I think implementing these in schools–even in the more moderate and liberal areas–would face major objections from the religious right.
While outercourse does meet certain definitions of abstinence, to promote this in the schools as an alternative to sex would be (to the religious right) tantamount to de-coupling morality from sex, and naturalizing it as something to be enjoyed outside the bounds of proper marriage.
The right believes that a stronger Christian influence will reduce unwanted and single mother pregnancy.
The left believe that more sex-ed will reduce unwanted and single mother pregnancy.
I don’t know, but it seems logical to me that both would have some positive impacts.
however:
[quote]There are large differences by race and Hispanic origin in the share of births to unmarried women, with non-Hispanic white women and Asian or Pacific Islander women much less likely than women in other groups to have a nonmarital birth. In 2011 (preliminary estimates), 72 percent of all births to black women, 66 percent to American Indian or Alaskan native women, and 53 percent to Hispanic women occurred outside of marriage, compared with 29 percent for white women, and 17 percent for Asian or Pacific Islander women.[/quote]
So, if we really want to solve the problem, we would find ways to increase the number of whites and Asians and decrease blacks and Hispanics.
But seriously (because I wasn’t)… I think we are barking up the wrong tree. The correlation, as Rich points out, is economic. So, the best way to reduce unwanted unmarried birth is to lift the economic circumstances of low income people… the socio-economic group that black and Hispanic people are over-represented in. How do we do that? Completely reform and change the education system so that we significantly improve education outcomes and reduce dropout rates for the kids in these groups, and implement government economic policies that get the US back to healthy economic growth.
Religion and sex-ed are not going to get the job done. Apparently, neither is Barack Obama and Jerry Brown.
Actually, availability of low-cost or free contraception, and education about how and when to use it, will reduce unwanted pregnancy. That is provable. Nothing else is. That means over-the-counter, including Plan B.
JB: [i]Religion and sex-ed are not going to get the job done. Apparently, neither is Barack Obama and Jerry Brown.[/i]
Rifkin and Don have a point. Apparently more of those godless, collectivist blue states are on to something with teen pregnancy policies:
[img]http://10cities10years.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/teen-pregnancy-rates-by-state.jpg[/img]
I understand these numbers to be number of teen pregnancies per 1000 teens, ages 15-19. It almost looks like an electoral map, with Utah being the outlier.
Source ([url]http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=37&cat=2[/url]) for map.
Another source ([url]http://10cities10years.com/2012/01/19/teen-mom-and-what-it-means/[/url]) that aggregates this data, along with trends over time, and how “devout” each state is.
There is no doubt that the worst sex ed programs are in the states with the highest numbers of conservative Christians–that being The Bible Belt. The lack of availability of contraception for unmarried teens in that region is likewise a greater problem than it is in the rest of the country.
However, because there are wide racial/ethnic differences in these rates, part of the problem in The Bible Belt is a disproportionately higher percentage of black teens. Another factor is that the South is still poorer than the rest of the country. And poverty is a factor, too.
What would be interesting would be to compare lower income black teens in a city like Boston with their counterparts in a city like Birmingham. And do the same for lower income whites in Massachusetts and their counterparts in Alabama. If the sample size were high enough, you could state more definitively the effects of a better sex ed program and the effect of having more widely available birth conrol.
One thing no one can doubt … well, check that, there are still 3 people who don’t understand global warming science …
One thing few still doubt is that better and more available free birth control has played a big part in reducing teen pregnancies in the last 10 years. Even the Born Agains admit that fact ([url]http://www.christianpost.com/news/free-birth-control-lowers-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-study-claims-82809/[/url]).
“
Free/reduced lunch needs to be cutback, there are too many cheating that system.”
I disagree.
First, as you know we have taken some family members kids, that’s one of the only benefits along with Medi-Cal that we get for them. It’s not a lot, but it is a few meals during the school year that the state provides.
But the other thing you need to understand, for a lot of kids, those are the only meals they get regularly. It’s very sad, but unfortunately true.
How did we go from my article to sex ed and school lunches? I don’t see either of these issues as critical in our district.
[quote]Actually, availability of low-cost or free contraception, and education about how and when to use it, will reduce unwanted pregnancy. That is provable. Nothing else is. That means over-the-counter, including Plan B.[/quote]
I agree with you Don. We have ample evidence from this country as well as others that the most effective means of prevention of unintended pregnancy is early and ongoing sex education coupled with free and readily available contraception. So I would agree with OTC availability of birth control pills, plan B and the Nuvaring and
free provision of the LARCS ( long acting reversible contraception) which include the two types of IUD, the Nexplanon ( progesterone rod placed in the upper arm) and DepoProvera. All the LARCS have effectiveness rates essentially equal to permanent sterilization.
And David, what does this have to do with your original article? Simply read your very next article. You said it
as well as anyone could.
I’ll fall on my sword on that one. Good point.
[i]Actually, availability of low-cost or free contraception, and education about how and when to use it, will reduce unwanted pregnancy.[/i]
I will repeat:
[quote]it seems logical to me that both would have some positive impacts.[/quote]
[quote]Religion and sex-ed are not going to get the job done. Apparently, neither is Barack Obama and Jerry Brown.[/quote]
Unless you are happy with the rate of single-mother birth rates in these inferred enlightened liberal collectivist blue states (I am not) then my point still stands.
What you sex-ed focused problem-solvers would create is a larger group of poor jobless people that understand everything there is to know about sex, and have access to all the birth control they want. Like I said, that is not going to get the job done.
Besides, how can you educate them about sex when over 50% of them dropout of school?
Seems to me that moral teaching, sex-ed teaching, much better education outcomes, and a robust job market where more people can successfully climb the ladder of prosperity… this is the comprehensive solution. But lacking the education and economic improvements, the other components won’t help enough.
Interesting in the book “Freakamonics” the author connected Roe V Wade as a reason that crime dropped due to a reduction in unwanted children. We can keep increasing access to birth control and abortion and keep trying to educate the low socio-economic groups how to do it and use it, but I would prefer to replace unwanted children with wanted children that have real hope for a good life. That hope is only powered by a high quality education and plentiful job opportunities where a person can advance.
JB: [i]Unless you are happy with the rate of single-mother birth rates in these inferred enlightened liberal collectivist blue states (I am not) then my point still stands.[/i]
So because the number isn’t 0, then those programs in the enlightened liberal collectivist blue states are failures relative to the more wholesome values-grounded conservative red states?
The conservative model of abstinence-only education is clearly failing.
JB: [i]What you sex-ed focused problem-solvers would create is a larger group of poor jobless people that understand everything there is to know about sex,…[/i]
So ignorance about sex and “OJT” (“On the Job, Training”) sex experience is more preferable?
JB: [i]Besides, how can you educate them about sex when over 50% of them dropout of school?[/i]
Here’s the thing. In our schools, we are so focused on math, English, and science, and we steadily discard and devalue home economics, shop, voc-tech, visual and performing arts.
The vision of top-down reform, which you seem to have an affinity for, is first to get the kids all at a high level of proficiency in reading and math, then maybe introduce the other stuff. No wonder the dropout rate is so high. Kids don’t see immediate relevance to learning math, English, and science. So they dropout.
But sex is very relevant compared to those other subjects. You will get adolescent students a lot more interested in sex-ed than in anything else. I say this as a parent volunteer facilitator for a sex-ed program in our church, similar to what I described above (it also includes a heavy section on values and morality that I left out). It is one of the most popular programs that we offer. Why? Because it isn’t offered elsewhere in Davis.
People like having information that helps them to make good choices and be in control. That’s what sex-ed allows.
If you think limiting sex-ed in the schools is a good idea, well then kids will get sex-ed from their peers and from the media. By the time kids are adolescents, most don’t want to have that discussion with their parents.
JB: [i]…I would prefer to replace unwanted children with wanted children that have real hope for a good life.[/i]
Then give serious consideration to adopting kids. And be open to adopting kids who aren’t “white”. I adopted two kids (Latino), and you know that David G. & wife adopted.
Jeff
[quote]What you sex-ed focused problem-solvers would create is a larger group of poor jobless people that understand everything there is to know about sex, and have access to all the birth control they want. Like I said, that is not going to get the job done.
Besides, how can you educate them about sex when over 50% of them dropout of school?
[/quote]
First, I am totally at a loss about how you think that sex-ed would create a larger group of poor jobless people.
When you are an experienced gynecologist with the background of having many, many uneducated teens and women in their early 20’s as well as some in their late 30’s and early 40’s show up to your clinic unintentionally pregnant because of mistaken ideas they had acquired largely due to inadequate education coupled by embarrassment over asking the pertinent questions, compared with the few unintentional pregnancies amongst women who actively seek information, then I will be much more likely to take your beliefs about “what will get the job done” more seriously.
As for the question of how you can educate them about sex when over 50 % of them dropout of school ? The answer is very simple. First graders don’t typically drop out. Neither do second, third, fourth or fifth graders.
So, stop treating sex as though it is some kind of super secret that has to be guarded until that magic age of junior high. Sex is a part of life, as any one who grows up on a farm or rurally ( as I did ) can tell you. We do a huge disservice to our children by separating it out as some “hush, hush” subject that can only be dealt with,
as you are implying, when they are either too old to listen, or gone from the system. Age appropriate instruction is certainly a possibility if we would consider dropping our own puritanical views of sex and treating it as the normal part of life that it is.
JB: Okay. Let me ask something to clarify your point. What makes you think that “enlightened liberal collectivists” are not interested in teaching values-based sex-ed?
Jeff
[quote]file://Republicans Must Support Public Financing for Contraception – NYTimes.com.html[/quote]
If I have failed in linking, just google Juleanna Glover, NYT op ed of 12/27/12
While the author is a Republican strategist who is paid to think of ways to “outflank” the Democrats, I see this as a place where right and left could collaborate to obtain better outcomes on which both sides could agree. This would include fewer unintended pregnancies, fewer abortions and fewer families and or single parents attempting to raise children in poverty.
Since prevention is well recognized as the best means to avoid an undesired outcome, it would seem very logical to work with rather than try to fight human biology and provide effective contraception for free to anyone responsible enough to seek it, and to educate everyone in an effort to increase the number who will responsibly seek it.
Republicans Must Support Public Financing for Contraception ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/opinion/republicans-must-support-public-financing-for-contraception.html[/url])
Good article, medwoman. I wish there were more like-minded Republicans.
The lack of “like-minded Republicans” is a myth perpertrated by the left and left media in their winning pursuit to keep the GOP brand tarnished so they can maintain their political power even as they f**k up the country.
[quote]We are pleased to share with you the results of a new national public opinion survey conducted on behalf of the National Women’s Law Center and the YWCA-USA of 1,000 Republican and Independent voters on an array of public policies to improve reproductive health care.
The survey, conducted by Public Strategies, Inc., found that Republicans, and to an even greater degree Independents, support a number of key legislative proposals to make contraception more affordable and accessible. The survey also found that Republicans and Independents strongly support comprehensive sex education, particularly as compared to abstinence-only programs.
This support exists not only among more moderate Republicans and Independents, but extends to more conservative “strong” Republicans as well. Importantly, nearly three-quarters (73%) of Republican and Independent voters are concerned that government is too quick to involve itself in people’s personal lives and private decisions when it comes to sexual behavior and pregnancy.
Other key findings include:
Contraception: 63% of Republicans and Independents favor legislation that would give states the flexibility to expand insurance coverage for contraceptives under Medicaid.
Nearly three-quarters (72%) of Republicans and Independents favor legislation that would make it easier for people at all income levels to obtain contraception, and 70 percent favor legislation that would help make birth control more affordable.
Only 2 percent of Republicans and Independents would like to see government restrict access to contraception. A majority (64%) would like to see government provide more information about contraception, and 33 percent would prefer that the government play no role.
A strong majority of Independents (67%) and nearly half of Republicans (49%) have a favorable opinion of emergency contraception.
Sex Education: Only 8 percent of Republicans and Independents think the government should support abstinence-only programs. A strong majority of Independents (76%) and Republicans (62%) believe the government should support comprehensive sex education programs that include information about abstinence, as well as information about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases.
Self-identified “strong” Republicans prefer comprehensive sex education over abstinence-only programs by a 56 percent to 14 percent margin.
Two-thirds (67%) of Republicans and Independents prefer a Senate candidate who favors teaching comprehensive sex education in public schools over a candidate who favors teaching abstinence-only.
Pharmacy Refusals: Overall, more than half (51%) of Republicans and Independents strongly favor legislation that requires pharmacies to ensure that patients access contraception at their pharmacy of choice, even if a particular pharmacist has a moral objection to contraceptives and refuses to provide it.
Self-identified “strong” Republicans favor such legislation by a 55 percent to 36 percent margin.[/quote]
[i]JB: Okay. Let me ask something to clarify your point. What makes you think that “enlightened liberal collectivists” are not interested in teaching values-based sex-ed?[/i]
I can’t answer that because I don’t believe it to be the case.
[i]First, I am totally at a loss about how you think that sex-ed would create a larger group of poor jobless people.[/i]
Me too. But since that was never my point, I am at a loss to know why you are thinking this way.
The larger group of poor jobless people is brought to you by the crappy economic policy work of Jerry Brown and Barack Obama plus the Democrats protection of the status quo in our crappy education system to pay off the teachers unions for their campaign contributions.
But let’s teach those kids about sex so at least we have that to brag about!
[i]”Nearly three-quarters (72%) of Republicans and Independents favor legislation that would make it easier for people at all income levels to obtain contraception, and 70 percent favor legislation that would help make birth control more affordable.”[/i] Etc.
Then their party leaders should stop trying to block funding for Planned Parenthood, stop trying to eliminate Title X funding, stop opposing Plan B pills and stop misrepresenting them as abortifacients, and stop trying to impose restrictions on early-term abortions ([url]http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf[/url]).
[i]Then their party leaders should stop trying to block funding for Planned Parenthood, stop trying to eliminate Title X funding, stop opposing Plan B pills and stop misrepresenting them as abortifacients, and stop trying to impose restrictions on early-term abortions [/i]
Then the left media should have a muzzle put on it for its one-sided attack of moderate Republicans which then results in few of them in office to combat the right extremists.
You know it Don, there isn’t a moderate GOP candidate alive that you would ever accept as reasonable. If you disagree, then I challenge you to name one. I think you are a dyed-in-the-wool leftie with a “moderate” pin on your lapel. Hence, you really don’t have a problem with a biased liberal media hostile to everyone and everything on the politial right. You, and people like you, are part of the big reason that we don’t see many moderate Republicans in office. It is a biased-left media and the fact that most moderate Republicans are too busy to run for office because they are raising families and growing businesses.
[i]there isn’t a moderate GOP candidate alive,[/i]
or any past Republican president.
I didn’t have much problem with many of the positions held by Gov. Schwarzenegger, and preferred him to Angelides for various reasons.
The two senators from Maine were fine with me. Lincoln Chafee was another moderate Republican who has left the Republican Party due to its increased extremism.
In California we used to have legislators like Ken Maddy who were moderate Republicans. Pete Wilson ran as a moderate Republican, except on immigration issues, and was consistently pro-choice throughout his career. Chuck Hagel is fine. The loss of Richard Lugar and Bob Bennett to Tea Party challengers was unfortunate.
Richard Nixon governed as a moderately liberal Republican on domestic issues, and on those aspects of his presidency I think he was very good.
I could go on. Basically, you’re wrong. You’re just too conservative to know what a moderate is any more.
Kind of a skinny list Don, and I don’t see any current candidates.
And I am not too conservative. I am a right-leaning moderate… fiscally conservative like a lot of left-leaning moderates. But I think you are too liberal to recognize it.
Come to Nebraska and North Dakota with me and I will introduce you to some real conservative Republicans. And guess what?, they have not changed much in the last 30 years despite what the liberal media says about them.
Don, I’m interested in your opinion of what I have written or said that makes you see me as too conservative or even strongly conservative. Maybe I can learn something new about myself that I currently don’t see.
[i]Kind of a skinny list Don, and I don’t see any current candidates.
[/i]
That should tell you something about the current state of the Republican Party.
Here’s what has happened to Republicans:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/nominate-house_medians_custom.jpg[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/nominate-house_medians_custom.jpg[/url]
DS: [i]”Richard Nixon governed as a moderately liberal Republican [b]on domestic issues[/b], and on those aspects of his presidency I think he was very good.”[/i]
Forget the fact that I don’t think Nixon was so good on domestic issues, he was more liberal in his foreign policy than he was in his domestic policy. He was also, unfortunately, terribly dishonest in both arenas.
Nixon inherited Johnson’s mess in Vietnam (and btw, Johnson inherited a terrible mess in Vietnam from JFK). Despite a lot of idiotic delays and needless carpet bombing and despite crossing into Cambodia (illegally, of course), Nixon rather quickly drew down our ground troops in Vietnam and ultimately capitulated (though that is not what it was called).
With Russia, Nixon pursued a let’s-get-along policy of detente. He effectively gave up the Kennedy policy of actively trying to overthrow pro-Soviet communist regimes, and with the exception of Chile, Nixon did not have a long record of overthrowing democratically elected anti-American governments in order to keep them out of the Soviet sphere.
Perhaps most importantly, Nixon made peace with China. He did so in order to triangulate the Russians. But the long-term effect, once Mao died, was ultimately good for everyone.
[i]”That should tell you something about the current state of the Republican Party.”[/i]
There is an important historical component of the change in the Republican Party: all the old, right-wing, socially conservative Southern Democrats became Republicans. This began slowly in 1964. It picked up steam after they helped elect Carter in 1976 (who, surprisingly to them, was not a right-winger, despite his conservative religion), and really took off with the election of Reagan in 1980.
I don’t know where to find this, but I’d be especially interested to see a record of the 1981 Reagan tax cut vote. A lot of House Democrats voted in favor of it. What I wonder is how many of those House Democrats were from Confederate or border states, and how many of them ultimately left the Democratic Party for the GOP.
[i]”Johnson inherited a terrible mess in Vietnam from JFK …”[/i]
I’ve read at least 50 long histories regarding the Vietnam War. None is better than Neil Sheehan’s book, “A Bright Shining Lie.” Mr. Sheehan makes it perfectly clear just how badly things were going in Vietnam under Kennedy. And how the Kennedy Administration was lying to the American people about its failures; and how JFK was hiding his massive troop build-up.
Johnson’s policy in Vietnam is indefensible (although there is always a moral case to be made for preventing any country from becoming communist). But Johnson’s policy was not a departure from Kennedy’s. It was just more–a lot more–of the same idiocy and lies and bad leadership and so on.
[i]”With Russia, Nixon pursued a let’s-get-along policy of detente. He effectively gave up the Kennedy policy of actively trying to overthrow pro-Soviet communist regimes …”[/i]
It is worth pointing out that Ronald Reagan, first in 1976 and then again in 1980, voiced a strong, conservative critique of Nixon’s foreign policy. Reagan wanted us to actively attack Soviet puppet states. He also opposed most of the arms control deals. And he wanted to re-arm in order to strike fear in the Kremlin. Reagan saw Nixon as an unacceptable liberal, and worse, in Reagan’s mind, a man without a moral compass.
JB: [i]Then the left media should have a muzzle put on it for its one-sided attack of moderate Republicans which then results in few of them in office to combat the right extremists.[/i]
This is the narrative in the conservative universe? It’s the (leftist) media’s fault?
I understood that more conservative candidates were threatening moderate Republicans in primaries. In worst case instances, Dick Lugar, Bob Bennett, Lisa Murkowski (who still managed to hang on).
Back more to the original issue. Cuts to federally funded K-12 programs would be on the order of 8.2%, but wouldn’t take effect until next September (source ([url]http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2012/12/fiscal_cliff_advocates_brace_f.html[/url])). Still means that it’s a factor in preparing the 13-14 school budgets.
A bunch of old people, most of whom have no contact with young people, talking about birth control and sex-ed. It is pretty funny. Why don’t you guys donate that old pack of condoms …? Oh forget it they are past their use by date.
How about arranged marriages? That will reduce the out of wedlock birth rate.
Pay people not to have kids? We can’t even raise the money to educate them in decent schools. i know Rich, tax the Rich. It was right there in front of me the whole time.
School lunch corruption should prevent us from trying? Really, Oliver Twist revisited! Jail the perps when you catch them. What school lunch programs need are smaller portions of healthier food. Obesity in kids is stabilizing, I read the other day, could it be because we got the soda out of the schools? The horror of interfering in free commerce!
Jerry Brown and the liberal media and the Unions? Where do you get this stuff. Republicans have reached super-minority status in California. Maybe you should stop blaming others and start trying to understand how the GOP got so out of touch with more than 2/3 of the voters? Just as it is not my place, having never been a Republican, to advise you on your failure, it is not your place to blame me for your failure. Still I will offer you one hint, stop being against so many things.
Nixon was a great leader who didn’t like to overthrow people? Especially himself! I’m laughing so hard I’m crying. Okay he killed fewer people than Hitler, Stalin or Mao but then I think he might come in a little shy of Pol Pot. Of course when he was Vice-President his administration overthrew popular governments in Iran, Guatemala and Algeria, to name a few, but maybe it doesn’t count if you are only Vice. I guess Cheney should get a pass on Iraq too. While you cite Chile you forget the efforts to suppress nationalist movements in Indonesia and Argentina. Maybe you missed those as the bulk of the mayhem happened under Ford with Nixon’s hold over at the State Department Kissinger advising the militaries there with his standard line to get it over quickly. Of course if Nixon gets a pass for carpet bombing Vietnam because of Kennedy and Johnson ( You forgot that US involvement in Vietnam started when Nixon was Vice) surely Ford gets one keeping Kissinger around to support the SAVAK and the Shah until it blew up on Carter. Oh and don’t forget when Nixon resigned most of South America was under military dictatorships. Panama, Chile, Argentina and Brazil come to mind.
Finally, to be on point, David’s article is moot. The union waited to see how the election turned out and fortunately crisis was temporarily averted. Now the real question remains how do the schools dig themselves out and reduce class size back to pre-crisis levels.
“A bunch of old people, most of whom have no contact with young people”
Of the discussants which ones are old and which ones have no contact with young people?
I’m old but I spent 23 years teaching sex ed in high school.
You could always make Biology interesting if you could bring in sex. I even had a lesson on biological diversity I called “Why Sex.”
I’ll never forget the answer of one student named Pat who replied “Man, you don’t know?”
I knew I was old. That happened when I was 36. Pat had three children although his girlfriend lost the first one only to get pregnant again in the 12th grade. I remember expressing my shock to the school nurse. The nurse explained to me that it was common for girls who miscarry to get pregnant again. I thought they would be more cautious not more promiscuous. My guess is its about proving their biological fitness as defined by Darwin. Pat never graduated but the mother of his children did eventually. I wonder how those kids are doing today they would be in their 20’s. Maybe Pat is a grandfather. I don’t think paying his girlfriend not to have kids would have worked.
I also saw young girls who were completely out of control have a child and realize they needed to get a high school diploma in order to care for their child. Some of these young women became decent students and loving mothers.
I guess my point is that unless you have contact with these kids you can’t really understand them. In fact, as an adult, even if you have contact you probably won’t understand them either. The best thing is to make it so they have access to health care and education so they can make good choices. Women who have access to health care tend to have fewer children. People who have more formal education have more earning power to provide for their children. By providing the support young people need to have fewer children and more education we can have a better shot at breaking the chain of poverty than by imposing our vision or morality upon them.
Don, the Chamber and Party Medians graph does not prove that Republicans have grown more conservative, it only proves a rise in party voting in Congress.
Here is an example of how the left and left media continues to help filter out moderate Republicans:
[quote]The Democratic-aligned Majority PAC has unleashed a new negative ad against businessman and U.S. Senate hopeful John Brunner attacking his business record in the run-up to next week’s GOP primary.
Brunner, who is facing off against former Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman and U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, is widely considered the GOP front-runner. The Democratic ad accuses Brunner of saddling his personal care products company “with $245 million in debt.”
The ad appears to be part of a two-pronged Democratic strategy for the GOP primary of attacking the front-runner and reinforcing the conservative appeal of Akin, who polls the weakest against incumbent Claire McCaskill. To that end, they’ve been running ads that flaunt Akin’s conservative image, something that appeals to the GOP base.
[/quote]
Note the last sentence. How about that for liberal editorializing?
The Democrat advantage after spending their piles of union PAC money is that the media takes off with their campaign talking points and attack ads… and this serves to amplify the anti-candidate message. They attack the moderate Republicans first and foremost. Then we end up with fewer Republicans in general, and the concentration of more conservative Republicans causes greater polarization in Congress. Then folks like you eat up the media narrative that Republicans have become more conservative.
So, what is the value of left-leaning media in politics? How much does David Letterman’s constant jokes about Romney and the dog on the roof of the car hurt Republicans and help the Democrats? How much does SNL’s skits poking fun of Romney while carefully keeping Obama portrayed as cool hurt Republicans and help Democrats? Politics is the art and science of image making. It is forming a brand. How might a company like Pepsi do if most of the mainstream media and Hollywood routinely communicated a subtle and not-so-subtle bias against Pepsi and for Coke?
The Media and union money is the reason the Democrats continue to be successful. Democrats don’t have much to brag about in terms of outcomes and results. Just about everything they stand for is in a crappy state of being… poorly performing, over-budget, inefficient, broken, etc. The ONLY way they can stay in power is to make sure the opposition brand is continually tarnished. It is only for all the help they get from the mainstream media and Hollywood that they are able to continue with this winning strategy. The sheep are buying it at their own peril.
Jeff: Dr. Keith Poole, who developed the image I posted, has shown that Republican officeholders are more conservative than at any previous time in history. ([url]http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494[/url]). So you are essentially saying that Republican officeholders are more conservative than Republican voters, and the reason for that is Democrats and the media? Somehow I think the reason Republican officeholders are so conservative is because Republican voters are conservative.
You’ve cited one instance where the opposing party worked in the primary to get the more conservative candidate selected for the general election. Yes, and that happens in the other direction as well — and it is rarely successful. But if you’ll recall, candidate Akin was actually favored to win until his infamous statements.
Not only are Republican officeholders more conservative than ever, they are more intransigent than ever. If you have some evidence that, on a broad range of issues, Republicans in general are more moderate than their party, please provide it. And if they are, why do they keep nominating and voting for troglodytes? Notice which Republicans decided not to run in the presidential primary: Daniels, Pataki, Christie. Why not? Because they knew they couldn’t get the nomination.
This whole thread went into this territory because wdf posted about impact of the ‘fiscal cliff’ on local school funding. It is the intransigence of the Tea Party base in the House, which Boehner can’t even control, that is going to propel the country over the ‘cliff’. I feel quite sure that Boehner, Pelosi, Reed, McConnell, and the president could have bridged their differences and come up with a compromise. It would have made both progressive caucus and Tea Party members mad, but it could have gotten through. But it is the extremely conservative Tea Party base that is blocking any solution.
We don’t have to cut funding to school lunch programs, or the Pentagon, or any of the myriad programs that would be affected in 2013 by the sequester. It’s really simple. Republicans need to be realistic, negotiate in good faith, accept a bargain that reflects about how well their party did in the 2012 election, and move on. But I’d be willing to be they won’t.
Stop blaming the media, Letteman, and unions for the results of your party’s ideological extremism. If you think moderates have a future in your party, start supporting them.
TOAD: [i]”Of course when (Nixon) was Vice-President (Eisenhower’s) administration overthrew popular governments in Iran, Guatemala [b]and Algeria[/b], to name a few …”[/i]
I’m confused. You say the Eisenhower Administration overthrew a popularly elected government in Algeria? Really?
The most notable thing about Eisenhower’s policy in that country’s “War for Independence” against France (which raged more-less non-stop when Ike was in office) was that Eisenhower had a passive, “hands-off” policy in colonial wars, including Algeria.
Ike’s biggest critic for not getting involved in Algeria was none other than Sen. John F. Kennedy. JFK, in 1957, famously gave a speech called “Facing Facts on Algeria.” His critique of President Eisenhower was a call for America’s active involvement against the French.
The historical irony of Kennedy’s speech is that its lessons were lost on him, when he became president. Most of what Kennedy said in 1957 still looks good. It should have informed him of the folly of his misguided policies in Southeast Asia and Latin America.
[i]”You forgot that US involvement in Vietnam started when Nixon was Vice (President).”[/i]
No. It did not. U.S. military involvement in French Indochina began in 1945 when Harry Truman was president.
After the French were defeated at Ðiên Biên Phú in 1954 and withdrew and Vietnam split in two, Eisenhower helped prop up the South Vietnam regime. But unlike Kennedy, Eisenhower did not engage American forces there in active fighting. That was in part due to the fact that Hồ Chí Minh from 1954 to late 1960 was building up the Communist forces in the South. So Ike was able to keep a small number of advisors there, who did not have to fight for the Vietnamese.
Not really Kennedy’s fault, but things began to fall apart for S. Vietnam right after JFK became US president. From that point until the Battle of Ap Bac in January, 1963, the ARVN was collapsing and slowly being replaced in command fighting positions by the rapidly growing American military. After Ap Bac, for the first time in the long history of the Vietnam War, it became an American war. That is pretty much what Johnson inherited and later what Nixon inherited.
[i]”I’m old but I spent 23 years teaching sex ed in high school.”[/i]
Given your misunderstandings about history, hopefully you never taught that subject.
JB: [i]Then folks like you eat up the media narrative that Republicans have become more conservative.[/i]
You were predicting a Republican victory this past November. So many Republican pundits and operatives also seemed certain. No you’re allowing that the party that prides itself on the value of personal responsibility blame other entities besides itself. Is there not irony here?
Mr. T: [i]A bunch of old people, most of whom have no contact with young people, talking about birth control and sex-ed. It is pretty funny.[/i]
I don’t know about you, but I’ve always imagined myself to be only a little older than Justin Beiber, but way cooler.
[i]No you’re allowing that the party that prides itself on the value of personal responsibility blame other entities besides itself. Is there not irony here? [/i]
Blaming others? No, blaming institutions.
But don’t mistake my points as being any form of excuse. We know what needs to be done. And one of things that needs to be done is ratting out the media for what it is. And what it is has little resemblence to the institution protected with our First Amendment.
[i]If you think moderates have a future in your party, start supporting them.[/i]
I did. I supported Romney.
[i]It is the intransigence of the Tea Party base in the House, which Boehner can’t even control, that is going to propel the country over the ‘cliff’.[/i]
Don, that is so one-sided… but why am I not surprised? So, the Party that didn’t even ever pass a budget… the one with the House minority leader, and the Senate majority leader saying that they don’t need to cut any social spending because they already cut enough… from your perspective this other Party has nothing to do with the lack of compromise? Must feel good to drift about in that rarified air of righteousness without responsibility.
I’ll give you Algeria but my argument holds for Iran and Guatemala.
If a deal is going to be reached it will happen today and be voted on by tomorrow. The Republicans will be dumb to say no. Obama told them on Friday that they only get a tax break up to $250,000 in income after New Years with $400,000 on the table now. I’ve never seen regressive bargaining in government. It shows you who is in the catbird seat. By the way, I don’t get this I’m not going to vote to raise taxes nonsense. Didn’t the Republicans vote to raise taxes when they voted to let these rates expire? It didn’t just appear in the tax code from no where.
JB: [i]Blaming others? No, blaming institutions.[/i]
Okay, so institutions are not “others”… I smell cognitive dissonance.
“And what it is has little resemblence to the institution protected with our First Amendment.”
You mean like muskets and militia vs Semi-automatics and crazy people. Oh I’m sorry I’m confusing my literalist interpretations.
Honestly, I don’t get this fixation on the right about the media. The is no shortage of conservatives getting their message out. The problem is your message not the messenger.
[i]”I’ll give you Algeria but my argument holds for Iran and Guatemala.”[/i]
Considering your remarkably poor knowledge of history–Algeria? Ike?–I have no idea what your argument is. That Nixon, as an impotent VP, should be blamed for the Anglo-American decision to restore the Shah to power in Iran (on behalf of oil companies) and that Nixon is the one you blame for Allen Dulles’s clumsy coup (on behalf of United Fruit) in Guatemala? That is your point?
If you had any historical knowledge, you would know that Nixon was completely out of the loop on these CIA actions. Eisenhower himself barely knew what nonsense Allen Dulles was pulling off in those rather remote countries*. Partly because of the independent, conservative power base of the Dulles brothers–John Foster was Sec. of State–Ike did not fire ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/2012/12/3-found-dead-in-san-jose-apartment-blaze.html[/url]) Allen Dulles after the Guatemala disaster.
When the Dulleses later came up with their plans to overthrow Castro, Ike vetoed the plan. Unfortunately, John Kennedy did not have the sense or experience of his predecessor. Every cockamamie plan the CIA came up with to attack Castro, or kill him, JFK went for. The result was the Bay of Pigs and other similar fiascoes. LBJ, likewise, was under the CIA’s spell, and kept up Kennedy’s policies of killing foreign leaders and mounting multiple coups.
*Remote? Yes. Guatemala may be relatively close to our southern border, but given the state of communications, it was out of the sight and mind of almost all U.S. media and out of the conscience of American leaders (save those connected to United Fruit, the banana company). Iran was much more important, because of its oil. But, again, it was very far from the United States, there were very few American reporters stationed there, and no one in our country (save a few oil interests) gave a crap as to what was going on there or who ran the place. But for the Tehran Conference of late 1943, I doubt most educated Americans in 1953 would have realized that Iran and Persia were the same place.
[i]I did. I supported Romney.[/i]
By the time you supported him, he was no longer a moderate.
Romney seemingly moved to Alabama.
[[edit]
It would be interesting to make a list of all the positions Romney took when he was governor and when he ran for the US Senate and then compare those with the positions he claimed to have when he ran for president in 2012. Obviously, these sort of religious conversions are all phony. But that aside, Romney moved from a moderate-liberal business executive–a Warren Buffet type, though not [i]that[/i] rich–to a [b]Stars and Bars[/b] flag-waving conservative who renounced everything his own father ran on years prior.
Don: [i]By the time you supported him, he was no longer a moderate.[/i]
Rich: [i]to a Stars and Bars flag-waving conservative who renounced everything his own father ran on years prior. [/i]
And I thought I was confused about politics.
Again, I think you are just regurgitating the left media template.
So, let’s talk about his opponent. The Senator with the most liberal voting record in 2007 then magically transforms to a moderate in his stances and campaign platform.
So, apparently you two prefer to label the ideological bent of a candidate on his campaign platform, and not his prior record of real actions and votes. Don and I have gone around on his opinion that Obama is a centrist, but I am surprised that you, Rich, are taking up this same position.
Romney campaigned to the conservative base because that was his challenge. He expected his REAL record to cover his reputation as a moderate. The liberal media saw to it that he was painted exactly as your two seem to prefer. While the media has always worked hard to hide the liberalism behind in-between those two very large Obama ears. Rich, the confederate flag should be considered offensive given what it represents. Not cool.
While the media has always worked hard to hide the liberalism [s]behind[/s] in-between…
JB: [i]While the media has always worked hard to hide the liberalism behind in-between those two very large Obama ears.[/i]
Where do you see Obama as being notably liberal, more liberal than Bill Clinton, for instance?
Obama’s ramp up of EPA regulations, Obamacare and his constant rhetoric against successful people… these are just a few clear indication that this is no John Kennedy or Bill Clinton Democrat.
Also, he is ignoring the debt and deficit and piling on more. I think this is a sign that he is something more left than a liberal… and possibly has a connection with those that would rather see a US deminished than to accept it as designed.
Obama says that he wants to transform America. Has there ever been another President in recent history that has even suggested that?
Obama’s ramp up of EPA regulations, Obamacare and his constant rhetoric against successful people… these are just a few clear indication that this is no John Kennedy or Bill Clinton Democrat.
Also, he is ignoring the debt and deficit and piling on more. I think this is a sign that he is something more left than a liberal… and possibly has a connection with those that would rather see a US deminished than to accept it as designed.
Obama says that he wants to transform America. Has there ever been another President in recent history that has even suggested that?
[i]Romney campaigned to the conservative base because that was his challenge. He expected his REAL record to cover his reputation as a moderate. The liberal media saw to it that he was painted exactly as your two seem to prefer. [/i]
He changed his positions on nearly everything, and the media reported his changed positions.
[i]Obama’s ramp up of EPA regulations, Obamacare and his constant rhetoric against successful people… these are just a few clear indication that this is no John Kennedy or Bill Clinton Democrat. [/i]
The Affordable Care Act is considerably less ‘liberal’ than what Hilary was proposing in Clinton’s first term.
Republican party is ‘devoid of a soul’, says Jon Huntsman ([url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/9771589/Republican-party-is-devoid-of-a-soul-says-Jon-Huntsman.html[/url])
JB: [i]Obama says that he wants to transform America. Has there ever been another President in recent history that has even suggested that?[/i]
That sounds like stock political campaign rhetoric to me, that would come out of any number of presidential candidates. And I think some historians and Republicans would probably say that Reagan transformed America.
[i]”… you are just regurgitating the left media template…. I am surprised that you, Rich, are taking up this same position.”[/i]
I don’t pay any attention to a “left media template.” I’m not an ideologue. I find the left as impractical and immoderate and unacceptable as I find the right.
I am simply stating the obvious. Romney was a liberal-moderate governor and later a liberal-moderate candidate for the US Senate. When he ran for president in 2012, he rejected a long list of his old positions. His newly adopted conservative platform was that of the Alabama Republican Party.
You ascribe the same sort of thing to Obama. I would imagine as president some of his positions are different than those he held in the Senate. One I know about is that as a senator he irresponsibly voted against increasing the debt ceiling one time. However, I don’t know of any fundamental positions of President Obama which contradict the positions of Senator Obama.
By contrast, Romney changed from Pro Choice to Pro Life when it served his political needs. He said a few years ago that Roe v. Wade was a good decision. Then he flip-flopped and said it was unconstitutional.
He was in favor of mandating health coverage for everyone when he was governor and diametrically opposed to mandates when he ran for president.
He ran for senate claiming he was not a Reagan Republican. He ran for president saying Reagan was his “hero.”
He said a few years ago he was in favor of government funding for stem cell research. When he ran for president he said that stem cell research was not good science.
He was strongly in favor of increasing the minimum wage as governor. But when he ran for president he said “There’s no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs.”
He changed his position on privatizing Social Security 180 degrees.
I don’t think changing one’s mind is bad at all. It’s bad ideology to hold firm to old positions when new evidence suggests there is a better way to go. The problem with Romney is that his conversion does not appear to me to be credible. He is 65 years old. He is very wealthy and has a great and stable family life. He is very healthy. Other than opportunism, it is doubtful that man would flip-flop on so many positions after he turned 60 years old.
By the way, one thing I wish Obama would have flip-flopped on, but never did, was the stupid position he took as a candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2008. He said then that Iraq was the wrong war while Afghanistan was the right war. As president, he ended our efforts in Iraq and tripled them in Afghanistan.
The problem is that, while getting out of Iraq made sense–the benefit of staying (or getting into it in the first place) was not worth the cost–but tripling our commitment to Afghanistan was insane.
Iraq, at least, is an important country. It is centrally located an important region. It has a lot of oil. It is close to our allies in Turkey, Kuwait and Israel. It borders our enemies in Iran.
But Afghanistan is now and always has been an unimportant backwater. Obama has been spending $2 billion a week there for the last 200 weeks. What exactly did we get for our $400 billion? We don’t have to spend that kind of money to keep the Taliban off the throne.
[b]Obama Out Flip-Flops Romney[/b]
[url]http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/23/obama-out-flip-flops-romney[/url]
Key…
[quote]Most of the time, however, Obama’s reversals have taken a different form. Rather than openly reversing himself like Romney, Obama declares his position on a matter, fails to follow through with actions that support that position, and then when questioned about it insists that his position has not changed.[/quote]
JB quote: [i]Most of the time, however, Obama’s reversals have taken a different form. Rather than openly reversing himself like Romney, Obama declares his position on a matter, fails to follow through with actions that support that position, and then when questioned about it insists that his position has not changed.[/i]
Very clever weaseling, JB. Because Romney isn’t in a position to enact policy and hasn’t been for years, we can’t measure those kinds of flip-flops with him.
[b]Obama Out Flip-Flops Romney
[/b]
That headline is provably factually incorrect (compare Rich’s post to that actual article Jeff linked). But I guess you’re just regurgitating the conservative media template.
Jeff, rather than quoting that sort of silly nonsense you did (1:23 post), it would make your case if you could point to a list of say, 5 policy questions, where Obama in 2012 holds a fundamentally different position than he held 4 or 5 years ago.
I cannot think of any fundamental ones. Perhaps you have a list of them in mind.
Funny you should use a derivative of that word “weasel” wdf1, because that is exactly the word I would assign to Obama’s flip-flopping.
I had an interesting (I think anyway) thought watching our poor family dog growing terribly upset and confused hearing the sound of my oldest son’s voice and seeing his 2 dimensional picture on the Skype screen. He just could not connect the dots without also smelling the person he was hearing and viewing. A vet friend of mine explained to me that a dog’s sense of smell is over 50% of their vision capability. Another 30% is hearing.
I see a related tendency with people of different political stripes. But instead of smell, there is a difference in how people translate words or actions into “seeing” or “hearing”.
I think it is easier to virtually slap a left-leaning person with words than it is to do the same to a right-leaning person. Conversely, I think right-leaning people tend to more energized in response to actions rather than words. In fact, conservatives seem more apt to be blind to the emotive impacts of words, while liberals seem blind to actions lacking the right words that engage the right emotions. To a leftie, real material help without the right words accompanying it will not be accepted as adequate. For example, the Bush Administration’s prescription drug benefit should have caused a big lefty love-fest, if it wasn’t for the fact that Bush had zero skills for delivering words that pulled leftie heartstrings.
I know I am generalizing here, but I like to try and find explanations for how people from similar backgrounds and with similar education and life experience can see things so differently.
I think Obama can do what he does and continue to maintain the support from his left base because he is gifted at saying the right words. It is a conundrum for his supporters on the left, because they cannot argue about his actions and lack of actions (i.e., Obama’s crappy performance), but they still don’t “see” or “hear” the validity of the complaints about his inadequacy. Like my dog trying to recognize his Skyping playmate, lefties just cannot recognize what their heart doesn’t smell.
Related, a politician without the gifts to say the right words that will capture the correct emotions of the lefty will appear sinister beyond his real persona. That was Bush and Romney. Two guys lacking that gift and it generated a level of left vitriol and hatred far exceeding the justification. The media is just an extension of this because the media is dominated by left-leaning people.
There is a blessing in this gift of emotional processing and emotional connection. However, there is also a curse. The blessing is of course the fact that empathy and caring pour forth. The curse is that of manipulation. If I know people prone to highly sensitive responses to words and impressions, and I don’t suffer the same advantage… I can learn how to manipulate them. If I am really gifted in my ability to touch the right emotional queues, I can manipulate them to extreme. Even if I mess up and the manipulated discover my plot, I don’t suffer many consequences by the yelling of obscenities at me. Words just don’t affect me the same way.
My observation of the current political situation is that Obama is manipulating a cross-section of the country to extreme. He tweaks the heartstrings of those craving it, and they love him for it… even has he moves forward with an agenda that takes us on a spiral downward to lower prosperity and reduced safety. Conservatives see this. That is why we have a Tea Party. Young people and uneducated poor people don’t see it because they too busy doing what young people and poor people do.
A person like Obama does not come around very often. We should be thankful for that even we love him.
Actually, we tend to share his values, prefer his policies, feel that he’s done well considering the gridlock, and we recognize his achievements. Now maybe you can try answering Rich’s comment above. Romney didn’t lose, IMO, because of a lack of rhetorical skills. He lost because the country didn’t agree with his positions.
At no time in the last four years did I say to myself, ‘boy, I really wish we’d put McCain and Palin in charge of that situation’. Similarly, I’m guessing that at no time in the next four year will I say ‘boy, I really wish we’d put Romney and Ryan in charge of that situation’.
But back to the flip-flop thing. Proceed, governor….
[i]Jeff, rather than quoting that sort of silly nonsense you did (1:23 post)[/i]
Rich, I don’t get it. That was a post from the libertarian magazine Reason. That is not a right-leaning publication per se.
There are a significant number of Obama flip-flops. The healthcare mandate, the debt ceiling, Guantanamo, and Gay Marriage are four easy ones.
In terms of what he said and supported as Senator Obama and President Obama, you know that his list is short because he voted “present” or did not vote much of the time (He was at the Saul Alinsky school of liberalism to prepare for his presidential bid).
But he voted against supplemental war time military funding as Senator and then blew the doors of it (still is) trying to make a legacy for himself in Afghanistan.
Voted in 2007 to force a reduction in troops in Iraq.
Said he would “bring them home in 16 months” on his campaign trail.
Voted against several foreign intel bills, and also against the Patriot Act and then played all the spy games and then some in office.
Voted for lobbying and donation regulations and said he would not take money from corporations.
Said he would keep the health care debates open on CSPAN.
As a Senator, voted Nay to prohibit undocumented immigrants convicted of aggravated felonies, domestic violence, stalking, violation of protection orders, crimes against children, or crimes relating to the illegal purchase or sale of firearms, from gaining legal status.
Voted for the Bush Prescription Drug Benefit and then blamed the GOP for it. Voted to block oil exploration and production expansion, and then claimed that oil production had increased during his Presidency… inferring he was responsible for it and in support of it.
Supported the gun ban in Chicago and hen authorized his Administration to give them away to Mexican nationals in the Fast and Furious program.
Allowed embassy employees to be murdered in Benghazi instead of risking a troop response that could have created an embarrassing issue for him at election time.
Here are six pages of Obama’s broken campaign promises:
[url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/?page=1[/url]
The biggest Obama booger is his rhetoric about being for the working class and the middle class while his economic policies have ensured high unemployment. There is a clear connection with Democrat and union political gains when unemployment is higher.
There you go Don and wdf1, that should give you enough to cherry pick to debate, instead of allowing yourselves to eat the whole comprehensive enchilada.
RR: “Jeff, rather than quoting that sort of silly nonsense you did (1:23 post)”
JB: “Rich, I don’t get it. That was a post from the libertarian magazine Reason. That is not a right-leaning publication per se.”
Libertarians are ideologues. I am looking for something more than philosophy. I want examples.
JB: “There are a significant number of Obama flip-flops. The healthcare mandate, the debt ceiling, Guantanamo, and Gay Marriage are four easy ones.”
I could be wrong, but I don’t know of any flip-flop by Obama on a healthcare mandate. I think he ran on the idea of imposing one and he then succeeded in that.
The debt ceiling is more of an exposure of hypocrisy than anything else. He cast a meaningless vote as a senator (it passed without him). That is the sort of irresponsible thing that people who live by “principles” do when they can get away with it. As president, he was forced to be responsible.
His failure to close Guantanamo, I think, exposes him and his more lefty partisans. You can call that a flip flop on his part. I think it mostly shows that presidents are expected to act responsibly, and in that regard he has. But as a candidate, he could say nonsense like he did about Guantanamo. Perhaps the parallel here would be with Romney’s idea to self-exile 12 million illegal aliens. He ran on that to win votes, like Obama ran on closing Guantanamo. But had Romney become president, he never would have done anything to implement his promise, like Obama has not closed Guantanamo. In neither case do I see, however, a fli-flop on a fundamental policy, the way Romney changed his views on abortion, taxes, healthcare, etc., when it served him, for example.
The one fundamental flip-flop I grant you to Obama is gay marriage. I think Obama likely was lying for years about what he truly felt. But then when the cost of admitting his actual position dropped, he “flip-flopped.” That does strike me as a fundamental lie, more like Romney’s lie about abortion. (Whether he was lying 5 years ago or lying this year, I don’t really know. I just doubt 62 year old men like Romney change fundamental positions on issues like that.
“Here are six pages of Obama’s broken campaign promises:
http://www.politifact.com/trut…en/?page=1
The biggest Obama booger is his rhetoric about being for the working class and the middle class while his economic policies have ensured high unemployment. There is a clear connection with Democrat and union political gains when unemployment is higher.
There you go Don and wdf1, that should give you enough to cherry pick to debate, instead of allowing yourselves to eat the whole comprehensive enchilada.”
Your whole post is a complete fail in terms of trying to prove your unprovable point.
The list at PolitiFact is of specific policy promises, in the cases I looked at, that he has not fulfilled — in some cases because he is unable to do so, in other cases because they have not been a priority. They aren’t examples of “flip-flops” in the sense of saying you favor choice, then claiming to be pro-life.
Your supposed “booger” is just saying you don’t agree with his fiscal policies. Not that he flip-flopped. You disagree with him.
I don’t feel like debating the rest of your supposed examples. Mitt Romney literally changed his specific position on numerous issues. He can be found emphatically supporting a woman’s right to choose, then emphatically saying he is pro-life. Over and over, on and on. This supposed equivalence of Romney’s complete political makeover vs. Obama is just more conservative media stuff that you’re regurgitating.
Jeff Boone said . . .
“My observation of the current political situation is that Obama is manipulating a cross-section of the country to extreme. He tweaks the heartstrings of those craving it, and they love him for it… [b]even as he moves forward with an agenda that takes us on a spiral downward to lower prosperity and reduced safety. [/b]Conservatives see this. That is why we have a Tea Party. Young people and uneducated poor people don’t see it because they too busy doing what young people and poor people do. “
Jeff, I realize I am coming late to the party, but regarding your bolded words above, how do you see our safety reduced? That is a point that whenever it is made totally bewilders me . . . it always has a Dr. Strangelove resonance to it.
Regarding the spiral downward, isn’t it reasonable to say that the entire Globe has been caught in a downward spiral over the past six (or so) years? Relative to the other significant economies in the World, is the US doing relatively worse or relatively better over that same period?
I am not anywhere near as positive about Obama as I was four years ago, but that has more to do with the realities of political compromise than it does anything else. I see Obamacare as a bastard half-way measure that may be a step in the right direction, but that could have been infinitely better if Obama had held firm and insisted on a single actuarial risk pool. Hope is a powerful thing, but reality more often than not trumps hope when one gets down to striking a deal. That is what I have seen happening over the past four years.
JMHO
[i]Regarding the spiral downward, isn’t it reasonable to say that the entire Globe has been caught in a downward spiral over the past six (or so) years?/i]
Yes. But I think the US is more vulnerable because we are on top. We have much more at risk for errors in political judgement. Weakening the military right now is idiotic in my opinion.
That is just ideology, not even analysis — much less fact. We aren’t vulnerable. We aren’t even threatened in any conventional sense. Our need to plan and budget for a conventional ground war right now is very low. Contingency planning, of course, is always done. But the threats to the United States and our allies are largely from non-conventional actors.
There is no rational basis for describing reduction in defense spending as ‘weakening’ our military. We have withdrawn our troops from Iraq and are removing them from Afghanistan. We don’t need to have 200 – 300,000 active duty troops stationed in those two countries, so the attendant costs of fighting two active wars are no longer necessary. We can reduce the defense budget by at least some portion of what it has been costing us to fight those wars.
If we need to fight another war anytime soon, we can ramp up spending again. And if we do that, we should institute a tax that every American pays specifically for the cost of that war. The flagrant dishonesty of Republican administrations in the budgeting of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was shameful.
You can’t possibly believe that every bit of military hardware is urgently needed right now, particularly the ones that are simply pet projects of certain Congress members.
Examples:
[i]”The Pentagon, which is facing end-of-year cuts that it says could cripple its ability to fight future wars, may spend billions in coming years on weapons systems and programs it says it doesn’t need but are favored by area members of Congress.
The Dayton Daily News analyzed proposed defense budgets for 2013 and identified five programs that Ohio’s congressional delegation is fighting for although Pentagon officials have called them unnecessary and unaffordable.
Critics say these big-ticket items are earmarks in disguise, using the Department of Defense budget for economic stimulus. They also point out that the multi-million dollar contracts are awarded to major campaign contributors.
Defenders of these programs say the Pentagon isn’t flawless, and sometimes doesn’t budget for things it needs. Plus, without the money, lawmakers say Ohio could lose thousands of jobs. The five projects favored by Ohio politicians that are under scrutiny:
– The Global Hawk Block 30 drone program;
– The C-27J Spartan cargo aircraft;
– Upgrades to the M1 Abrams tank;
– Air National Guard funding;
– A proposed East Coast missile defense system.”[/i]
[url]http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/20/congress-pushes-for-weapons-pentagon-didnt-want.html[/url]
So we aren’t weakening the military. Our military could easily sustain a reduction of 5% or so without the slightest threat to our security. You’re just regurgitating conservative agitprop again.
We should be able to reduce the military budget by at least this amount:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/trooplevelswars.png[/img]
Since we won’t be fighting two wars simultaneously in the foreseeable future, we can allow the flat line to drop somewhat and gain a peace dividend:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/defensepersonnel.png[/img]
Finally, a modest reduction in our military hardware spending would not leave us vulnerable to any conventional threat:
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/militaryhardware.png[/url]
Jeff Boone said . . .
“Yes. But I think the US is more vulnerable because we are on top. We have much more at risk for errors in political judgement. Weakening the military right now is idiotic in my opinion.”
I disagree on both points. We are only more vulnerable if you think only in terms of absolute dollars. In terms of relative effect on each country’s economy, I would say we are no more vulnerable than any other country, and in many cases much less vulnerable. Germany is out performing us, but what other industrialized nation is doing so?
What military power is a threat to the United States? My opinion is that any safety vulnerability that the United States has is not one that can be effectively addressed by conventional military spending. Further, what is becoming crystal clear is that conventional military thinking is adding to (feeding) a cancer that is eating our society from the inside out. Specifically all the young men and young women who come home with PTSD and are functionally disabled for the rest of their lives. Conventional military thinking is willing to see those young men and young women as expendable. That mindset will eat us alive if it is allowed to continue. We should be treasuring and nurturing the young men and young women of this country, not sucking them dry and discarding them.
JMHO
You don’t cut defense and expect to be ready when defense is required.
We need to cut entitlements, not defense:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/DefenseSpend.jpg[/img]
We are at significant threat, and we are vulnerable.
[quote]Last week, while discussing U.S. military planning for the Korean Peninsula, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned, “No question we’re within an inch of war almost every day in that part of the world.” As a follow up, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Secretary Panetta what other issues kept him up at night. He responded: “Well, obviously Iran, Syria, the whole issue of turmoil in the Middle East, the whole issue of cyber war, the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction, rising powers—all of those things are threats that the United States faces in today’s world.” (Yesterday, Panetta inflated the worrisome geography to include “transnational threats” like “turmoil across the Middle East and North Africa” and the “threat of natural disasters.”)
Panetta’s comments echoed a recent speech by General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the Kennedy School at Harvard University, where he expanded on his earlier claim that the United States is living in the most dangerous time since 1974 by introducing the “security paradox.” According to Dempsey, trends of greater peace and stability are negated by the proliferation of lethal and destructive technologies available to state and nonstate actors: “More people have the ability to harm us or deny us the ability to act than at any point in my life.” Thus, although “we still have a lot of tricks up our sleeves, the message is that the margin of error has grown smaller.”
These comments perfectly exemplify what I call the threat smorgasbord: an all-encompassing buffet of specific and generalized threats—emanating from states or nonstate actors (i.e., everyone)—which are presented in such a manner that there is always something lurking around the corner. Panetta characterizes the world as “challenging and unpredictable,” as Dempsey writes about “a more unpredictable and dangerous security environment.”
The problem with exhibiting these national security threats (borrowing Panetta’s colorful description of deep defense cuts) as “blind,” “goofy,” and “across the board,” is that they are completely void of context. Threats are not prioritized by likelihood, plausible impact on U.S. national interests, or appropriate military response—if any.[/quote]
We don’t know where the threats will come from, or what they will be. We can only be ready with a well-equipped, well-trained, well-funded military.
[quote]The next time you hear lists of emerging threats and future conflicts, bear in mind the following observations from senior military officials over past few years:
1. In October 2010, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen acknowledged: “We’re pretty lousy at predicting where we’ll go. We’re pretty lousy at predicting the kind of warfare we’ll be in, if the last 20 years, or so, serve as an example.”
2. In February 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told West Point cadets: “When it comes to predicting the nature and location of our next military engagements, since Vietnam, our record has been perfect. We have never once gotten it right, from the Mayaguez to Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Kuwait, Iraq, and more — we had no idea a year before any of these missions that we would be so engaged.”
3. In March 2011, General James Mattis, commander of U.S. Central Command, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee: “I think, as we look toward the future, I have been a horrible prophet. I have never fought anywhere I expected to in all my years.”
4. In May 2012, Major General H.R. McMaster admitted: “We have a perfect record in predicting future wars — right? … And that record is 0 percent.”
Given the acknowledged certainty of uncertainty from these officials, it is safe to say that the Pentagon does not possess an armed conflict crystal ball. This is especially the case if you believe that the world is becoming “a more unpredictable and dangerous security environment.” Given this inherent unpredictability, how does the Pentagon plan for the future? [/quote]
[i]what is becoming crystal clear is that conventional military thinking is adding to (feeding) a cancer that is eating our society from the inside out. Specifically all the young men and young women who come home with PTSD and are functionally disabled for the rest of their lives. [/i]
Matt, this is a non sequitur concerning defense spending. Are you making the case that by simply having a mililtary budget of a certain size, we are causing more men and women to have PTSD? That does not make any sense.
Nobody likes these things. We didn’t like it when so many died and were injured during WWII and for all other US military conflicts. But military spending on new intel, weapons and protection technology… plus spending to advance treatment and care for wounded soliers… have all helped prevent and improve this very situation.
[i]We can only be ready with a well-equipped, well-trained, well-funded military.
[/i]
And we have exactly that and would have it with a budget that was slightly lower.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Matt, this is a non sequitur concerning defense spending. Are you making the case that by simply having a mililtary budget of a certain size, we are causing more men and women to have PTSD? That does not make any sense.”[/i]
I hadn’t thought of it in those terms, but the answer is both “yes’ and “no.” The size of the military budget is much less of a concern for me than how we are spending the money we are spending. To put that comment into context let me ask you a question, “When was the last war that the United States won?” We are on the cusp of losing the Afghanistan war (as the Russians did before us). We have clearly lost the Iraq2 war. One could argue that we won the Libya war (more on that later). Iraq1 is a possible, but the presence of Iraq2 mitigates its validity. Grenada? VietNam? Korea?
Did the deployment of ground forces have any meaningful impact on the positive trajectory of any war since WWII? My argument is that we should only deploy ground forces as a last resort. Why? Because the chances that each and every soldier so deployed will become a permanent anchor on society is incredibly high. One could argue that there was a practical societal logic to the Japanese practice of kamikaze.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Nobody likes these things. We didn’t like it when so many died and were injured during WWII and for all other US military conflicts. But military spending on new intel, weapons and protection technology… plus spending to advance treatment and care for wounded soliers… have all helped prevent and improve this very situation.”[/i]
Actual death is merciful when compared to the living death that so many of our modern military and their families have to endure as a result of modern warfare. Do you really believe treatment and care is improving this very situation? I definitely do not.
With all the above said, why do we need the level of military that we currently have and historically have had? Said another way, what is the Return on Investment we are getting as a society from all the military spending?
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”We don’t know where the threats will come from, or what they will be. We can only be ready with a well-equipped, well-trained, well-funded military.”[/i]
When in the last 50 years have we been presented with a military threat that we didn’t know was coming?
How many military threats have we faced in that same 50 year period?
[i]When in the last 50 years have we been presented with a military threat that we didn’t know was coming? [/i]
According to our military and defense leaders, we have rarely gotten our threat planning right. The point is that the complexity for doing so has increased. You want to fund a military for known and quantifiable threats, but it will leave us more vulnerable to all the threats we did not plan for. The only solution is to have a very strong military… strength commensurate with the extent of our global interests and risks of loss.
A weakened US military emboldens those malicious leaders to act out against us and our friends.
Jeff, Jeff, the complexity of military threat planning has gotten infinitely easier. With the demise of the USSR, there really isn’t a nation on the face of the planet that can mount a military effort against the United States. Individual acts of terrorism, sure, but a military effort? Not a chance.
Didn’t you learn anything from our experience in Iraq? We sent hundreds of thousands of young Americans into that conflict to wage conventional war and what did we get for our efforts? Tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of disabled/damaged young people coming home to a nation that wants them to disappear. A huge collective “our of sight, out of mind” societal abdication.
Defense is no longer the bludgeon of tramping human feet. It is the delicacy and specificity of focused surgical intelligence gathering, and then equally surgical counter insurgency. War is like a steel foundry or an automobile plant . . . fewer and fewer people, more and more automation/technology, more and more specific skills that are closely tied to the automation/technology from the people who are still part of the process. It is remote, not retail. Our military expenditures need to reflect that changed reality.
According to [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces#Personnel_in_each_service[/url] there were 1,458.697 active military personnel in 2011 of which 688,628 were civilians. That means 770,000 non-civilians. I can’t help but wonder if we need more than 150,000 of those 770,000. We have 857,261 reservists (including National Guard). That would give us over 1 million immediately available ground troops in case of a crisis. I’d venture to say that we didn’t have that many on December 7, 1941. Throw in the 108,000 DOD personnel and we have 1.1 million. Arguably technological leverage will expand that 1.1 million by a factor of ten. That is what our 21st Century Military should look like.
JMHO
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”A weakened US military emboldens those malicious leaders to act out against us and our friends.”[/i]
How many soldiers did we put on the ground when Libya decided it would test us? How did that work out?
Matt, a strong military, including enough boots to put on the ground if needed, is an effective deterrent. I don’t have a problem investing in a modernized military that reduces the number of troops required, but just cutting is a mistake.
We have enough boots to put on the ground. You haven’t made the case for continuing the current levels of defense spending as we exit two wars. How big a standing army do you think we need if we aren’t invading, defending anyone, or occupying another country?
[i]just cutting is a mistake.[/i]
Just spending for the sake of spending is wasteful.
Jeff, as I said above reducing the standing military from its 2011 level of 770,000 to 150,000 or lower seems prudent. I have no problem spending money to afford ourselves 21st Century defensive technology that does not require human sacrifice.
As I said above, our current methods are creating a functional cancer within our society . . . damaged veterans who we are turning our backs on when they return from combat, because we don’t want to accept the fact that we have willfully created their mental problems. That needs to stop . . . permanently.
[i]Just spending for the sake of spending is wasteful[/]
I’m not advocating that any more than you advocate just spending on social programs for the sake of spending.
And defense spending by all historical measures is low, while non-defense spending has blown through the roof. It is hogwash that those on the left are going after defense spending… putting the nation in greater danger with a diminished and inadequate military defense… when it is the social spending that is out of control and is the greater internal threat.
Matt, you are I are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. It appears with your comment “creating a functional cancer within our society” that you don’t support combat of any type. The number of soldiers with these problems is terrible, but it is one price of freedom and safety for the country. And the numbers are significantly lower than previous wars. And the treatment they get is much better. WWII and Vietnam soldiers didn’t have anything like the kind of support our soldiers get now. The REAL problem is the lack of jobs, and that is a failure of this President and other politicians.
[i]putting the nation in greater danger with a diminished and inadequate military defense[/i]
You keep saying this, but you don’t support it in any way. It’s just conservative dogma, repeated without foundation.
What would be inadequate? How many troops do you think we need? What would we lose by cutting 5 – 10% from our budget in peacetime? How would that endanger the country? How would spending more on military hardware or a larger standing army have prevented any of the current threats to our country?
It doesn’t matter whether defense spending is high or low by historical measures. When we’re at war, we spend more on the military. When we aren’t, we spend less. The point I keep making is we are in a position to reduce our military expenditures because we are finally not at war, for the first time in over a decade. Unless you’re advocating that we increase our standing army, you are simply saying that we need to spend money on defense for the sake of spending money on defense. What do you want to spend it on?
If we are going to proceed in the direction of Simpson-Bowles, we are going to increase taxes somewhat, cut defense spending somewhat, and modify entitlements in a manner that reduces outlays somewhat. I support doing all those things, in tandem, gradually and not abruptly.
I don’t support the sequester process, because it would cause economic harm. In the defense realm, there are communities that depend on that spending, just as there are other public jobs that would be affected. So you phase these things in. Cutting the deficit and the debt is going to be a gradual process, and if you leave one part untouched then you have to cut more severely elsewhere — or raise taxes more.
I did support the military base closure process we underwent in the 1990’s, because it was obvious that we had far more physical infrastructure than we needed. By your logic, we would have kept all those bases open, just to look strong.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Matt, you are I are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. It appears with your comment “creating a functional cancer within our society” that you don’t support combat of any type.” [/i]
Ground combat like the Bin Laden take-out I support. Small tactical strikes focused on elimination of a specific target, and then withdrawal from the field. Those I support. Tactical combat like Clinton authorized in Libya. That I support. Mass combat deployments of human beings like Iraq and Afghanistan and VietNam. Those have been shown to been total wastes of both effort and human capital. We may win the military battles, but we have never won the hearts and minds of the people who reside in the combat theater and its surrounds. It’s a fools errand. We need to refocus our efforts on “working smart” rather than “working hard.”
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”The number of soldiers with these problems is terrible, but it is one price of freedom and safety for the country. And the numbers are significantly lower than previous wars.” [/i]
I heartily disagree Jeff on both fronts. How has our ground deployment in Iraq increased (or even maintained the same level of) our freedom and safety? How did our ground deployment in VietNam increase or maintain the same level of) our freedom and safety? Same question for Somalia.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”And the treatment they get is much better. WWII and Vietnam soldiers didn’t have anything like the kind of support our soldiers get now. The REAL problem is the lack of jobs, and that is a failure of this President and other politicians.”[/i]
Neither visual evidence nor the numbers support your argument here. Treatment for physical wounds is indeed much better, but think back to your youth. Can you ever remember seeing a person who was likely to be a veteran with PTSD? I certainly can’t. There is no shortage of them now. The treatment for mental ailments has lagged far far behind the treatment for physical wounds. I agree with you that a more robust jobs environment would help with our massive societal veterans problem, but the unemployment rate among Iraq and Afghanistan era veterans in November was 10.0 percent (up from 9.7 percent in September), and still sits well above the national rate of 7.9 percent. Those numbers are more than likely much lower than the actual veterans unemployment because the PTSD sufferers have taken themselves out of the workplace in large measure.
Matt, it is clear that this PTSD issue has you stirred up. As I remember reading, was called “battle fatigue” or “shell shock” in wars prior to Vietnam has stayed consistently about 20% of total combat veterans. It has always been understood to be one of the sacrifices that soldiers have to make. I will look for that article and get you a copy.
I have a nephew with PTSD. He served in Iraq and got hit with a concussion wave from an IED that exploded near him and causes him some ongoing cognitive issues. He is trying to get a medical discharge.
I fully believe that it is a big deal and Americans should all advocate for greater treatment and greater access. However, we also need to combat the social and professional stigma that exists that prevents some people from seeking treatment. PTSD is not only a condition for veterans. It can hit anyone having been through a highly stressful event or series of events. I read an interesting medial science article about the natural biological mechanics of PTSD and an accompanying theory that it might be a natural survival response… the constant flood of stress-chemicals in the bloodstream causing changes in brain connections and brain chemistry so that the owner is more alert and ready to act in a fight or flight response. It was also theorized that incremental and long-term stress actually reduces the occurrence of PTSD… basically grow a stress “muscle” or greater coping skills. That makes perfect sense to me… if you are used to a high level of stress in your daily life, then new stressful events would cause less of a hormone storm and/or you would know how to better handle it when it occurred.
My cop brother in-law took his life, and then his medical records were released. We discovered that he had been diagnosed with stress-induced tremors… and that the doctor informed him that moderate consumption of alcohol would help reduce the tremors. He was afraid he would fail his gun recertification. He was afraid that his shaking would be noticed by his peers and managers. He was a 45 year old detective that could pass for a younger man, and was working some dangerous case-work dealing with gangs and drugs, and he was afraid his shaking would create problems for him being undercover. He was also working on a very stressful case that was about to wrap up, and he was working around the clock without much sleep. During this period, he and his wife were told that his beautiful infant boy may be blind or near blind (turns out he has Nystagmus and is vision-impaired, but otherwise a perfect little boy). All of this stuff created a perfect storm of stress that led to depression and what was later recognized as PTSD. My point here is that life contributes to cases of PTSD, and it is treatable and not a sign of weakness. We need to combat the social stigma… including the fear that someone with PTSD will go off. Yes, anger can accompany the symptoms, but usually it is depression.
There is a program on TV called “Arm Wives”. It is a reality show about the wives and families of soldiers stationed overseas in combat areas. They cover the topics of PTSD and death and suicide. What is clear to me in watching this and reading the blogs and talking to soldiers is that MUCH of their problems dealing with PTSD (again, 20% will have it) is the difficulties they face dealing with the stress of family… a stress that is exacerbated by the high cost of living and lack of employment opportunities.
Better and more affordable higher education for returning soldiers and a robust economy that offers them much greater job prospects will do a lot to help them re-enter civilian life and deal with their PTSD. However, these problems with military PTSD does not present any rational argument for reducing the size of the military and decreasing our defense budget any more than the rate of suicide for cops (very high) is a rational argument for reducing the size of the police force.