Disaster Relief at the Federal Level

This video of candidate Romney has been making the anti-Romney rounds on Twitter and Facebook.  In it, he discusses that wherever preferable  the federal government should give up its functions (in this case, federal disaster response functions and FEMA) to the states and the private sector.  I'm sure this also includes education, energy policy, and a whole host of other topics, as per the Republican platform and many other interviews/debates.

There are several problems with this stance.

Moving things to the private sector opens up decisions based on the market, on private budgets, and even to  shareholder whims.  I would argue that central and central-adjacent functions like defense, education, regulation, and disaster relief should never be made private.  In these cases, the Federal government is and should be the 800-lb gorilla, able to throw itself around in order to get things done.

Shifting the power to states wouldn't be that objectionable except for two issues:  First, issues that cross state boundaries require a larger umbrella under which to be effective.  Can you imagine a purely state response to Hurricane Sandy with NY duplicating and not talking to NJ (and DC, and VA, and WV, and growing!)?  Or the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, or the massive coordination that was needed during 9/11?

And secondly, how would budgets be handled?  Many states have balanced budget amendments to their constitutions, so they can't borrow over their spending limit.  This means that it's quite possible that emergency response functions can get cut during the regular budget process.  When a disaster happens, you can't build up something quickly that isn't there due to last year's budget cuts.

I point to the state education mess that we are in:  overcrowded classrooms, lack of arts, music, physical education classes, meltdown of core STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) education, and other issues due to state budget cuts.  If anything, this single example of the state-run education system should cause anyone to rethink this approach.

The Federal government is the only large enough entity that can effectively cover all the above: it can coordinate a multi-state effort, can borrow as needed to fund disaster recovery and not be hampered by budgets, and reduce redundancies to have a centralized response.  And while I understand in theory that being controlled by budgets is a good thing, you should not take the time to quibble about budgets and money when lives are on the line.  For all these reasons, the Federal government is uniquely suited for this role.

Obama's Skin Color Loses Him 2 Percent - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast

Obama's Skin Color Loses Him 2 Percent - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast:

It's amazing things like this still happen in 2012.

NY Times endorses President Obama for President

"President Obama has shown a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth. He has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless. Mr. Obama has impressive achievements despite the implacable wall of refusal erected by Congressional Republicans so intent on stopping him that they risked pushing the nation into depression, held its credit rating hostage, and hobbled economic recovery.
Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has gotten this far with a guile that allows him to say whatever he thinks an audience wants to hear. But he has tied himself to the ultraconservative forces that control the Republican Party and embraced their policies, including reckless budget cuts and 30-year-old, discredited trickle-down ideas. Voters may still be confused about Mr. Romney’s true identity, but they know the Republican Party, and a Romney administration would reflect its agenda. Mr. Romney’s choice of Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate says volumes about that."

From the NYT endorsement. 

Hurricane Sandy, Mother of Storms

Headlines like this (Sandy Becomes Largest Atlantic Storm Ever) make me think of a great book, Mother of Storms by John Barnes, a fantastic sci-fi book about a nuclear accident causing a huge permanent hurricane. Highly recommended!

Joss Whedon endorses Mitt Romney for the Zombiepocalypse

Taxing the "rich" at $250,000

President Obama wants to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more.  Considering that I recently had a slightly heated discussion with a friend on this issue, I figured I would do some research and used this Wall Street Journal article to gather some information as an exercise.

If your household makes $25,000, you are in the 31%
The poverty level is $23,050 for a family of four in 2012 in the United States.


If your household makes $50,000, you are in the 56%

This is approximately the median income in the United States.  This is also the mean (i.e., average) income of Hispanic/Latino and Black households.

If your household makes $75,000, you are in the 70%

This is approximately the mean income of Asian and white households.

If your household makes $100,000, you are in the 81%

This salary is usually a nice round number for a lot of people. But you're already in the top 80% of households in the US.  Certainly not "rich", but let's call you "comfortable", yes?

If your household makes $150,000, you are in the 89%

If your household makes $200,000, you are in the 94%

Another nice round number.  Now we're talking lawyer and doctor, salaries.

If your household makes $250,000, you are in the 96%

We have reached our magic number.  Think about that: if you're here, you already make more than 96% of your fellow countrymen.  And if you make more than this, then yes, the President wants to raise your taxes on that portion of income that is above this number.  Please go ahead and tell the 96% of the people who make less than you that raising your taxes is unfair.

If your household makes $500,000, you are in the 98%

If your household makes $506,000, you are in the 99%

And here we are with the 1%, who make more than half a million dollars.

I don't know what this exercise proves.  But it does seem to me that if you make a six-figure household income, you are already in the elite and should count yourself as very lucky (even granted that those in the 1% are heads and shoulders ridiculously above everyone else).  I will grant you that 250k is somewhat arbitrary.  Why not 300k?  Or 500k?  But that answer is above my pay grade.

Supporting a candidate with eyes open

I found my discussions with friends (and strangers) on Facebook quite curious.  Maybe I'm in my own bubble, but it seems that most Obama supporters with whom I've talked to are aware of their candidate's positions in a way that the Romney supporters are not.

For example, those fiscal conservative/socially liberal supporters of Romney recognize he and his running mate are social conservatives but that they represent the Party of Small Government and therefore are also fiscally conservative.  So therefore they have decided that fiscal issues are paramount and will vote for the fiscal conservative.  However, Romney and (especially) Ryan are not fiscal conservatives.  Romney is not seeking a balanced fiscal role where every program is paid for and that the government  exercises prudence. In fact, their budget plan is quite radical.  By rejecting even a 10 to 1 cut/revenue increase in the primary debates, Romney has thrown all conservatism out the window and instead fully embraced Grover Norquist's "no new taxes--ever" mantra.  They seem to only want less and less regulation, more and more tax cuts, throw money at the military, and start another war.  They're an SNL parody of a right-wing candidate.

On the other hand, Obama's policies on the whole have paid for themselves.  Even the much derided Obamacare is predicated on the fact that it pays for itself via the individual mandate and things like the cuts to Medicare reimbursements.  And in fact, it was Obama who put our two credit-card wars and Medicare D expansion on the official books.  Is this not fiscal responsibility and small-c conservatism?

Obama has governed from the fiscal center.  He did not (to the Left's consternation) push for a single payer system, has continued his drone strikes, not yet closed Guantanamo, and introduced a surge in Afghanistan.  He has governed carefully, prudently, and almost too gingerly.  On the other hand,  everything Romney has put forth is quite a radical agenda that does not square with the conservative label, and yet he is the fiscal conservative and Obama the lefty liberal.

So I just don't get it, the cognitive dissonance is painful.  If you say you are a sane fiscal conservative, when looking at the facts on the ground, all I see is one candidate that meets that criteria and it's not Romney.