Something's Gotta Spend

This post is a follow-up to "A Little bit of Socialism Never Hurt Anyone." In wake of the financial crisis and the economic downturn that has plagued this country and the world, it has been reported that spending is down to its lowest level since 1980. As you may or may not recall in 1980 the state of our economy was the closest thing this nation has experience since the Great Depression. It would take a while and Reagan to do many un-Reagan things to get out of it.

Not only are we spending less, but our economy is shrinking. The GDP has actually shrunk by .3% and is expected to shrink as much as 2% before things start to get better. Now, I don't think we are headed for something analogous to the Great Depression, but it certainly will be similar to the recession of 1980. Now how do we make the best of this situation?

Well first we have to look at history and who and what this nation is. The fact is we are a consumer based nation and with spending in a downturn like this, it seems hard to imagine things getting better anytime soon, but if we are to shorten this recession, someone has to spend. During the initial years of the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover placed this responsibility on us, the consumer. How did that work out? Not well at all (depression got much worse).

Franklin Roosevelt decided that the government would start to spend more and by doing this things began to get better. Granted, the production that came with the war would be the silver bullet, but had it not been for the New Deal, our capacity to prepare for war would have been significantly smaller. So now we need some spending, and we aren't doing this. The next president must surely recognize this otherwise it will be tough. Not only should the government invest in our economy, but at least some of this funding should be through higher taxes for the wealthy. This may sound like a little bit like socialism, but when the country has been governed with far-right policies, the much more left policies would help to balance.

These policies at some point should return to a more centrist once the economy is stabilized. A more centrist policy will encourage more consumer spending and with a little bit better regulation, our markets won't take such downturn for a while. And that's the truth.

Corruption Isn't Partisan

I am sure many of you are all now familiar with Sen. Ted Stevens' conviction on seven counts of corruption. While this may ring with the likes of Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff and the rest of the Republican "cronies," we should remember that Democrats alike, even the most liberal, are not immune from this. In my home state of Massachusetts, the FBI arrested one of the most liberal state senators, Dianne Wilkerson. She was also the only black senator and for the most part did a lot of good for her community (some would argue so did Stevens for his state). When working on Patrick's campaign for governor, I remember her at rallies and her ability to mobilize disenchanted minority voters. Wilkerson did a lot of good for the commonwealth and her community, but she appears to be just as corrupt as the "cronies" we had sworn off. It's a sobering truth that maybe hard to swallow, especially if you follow this state's politics. But it's a reminder to us all that corruption isn't partisan and can affect even the most seemingly noble leaders. At this point I can only hope that voters are not put off by any of the corruption scandals and are still willing to participate and believe their are good people. While the pill maybe hard to swallow if you're a fan of Stevens or Wilkerson, Republican or Democrat, it's a reminder that your side isn't necessarily more noble than the other. And that's the truth.

McCain's Biggest Mistake and his Last Hope

As I sit here wondering why an election that was once deemed so close seems to have been wrapped up with still a week to go, the whiskey in me seems to have provided an answer. Some will say that the economy and George Bush's failed presidency led to this, and indeed it certainly had something to do with it. McCain had long dreamed of choosing Democrat defect Sen. Joe Lieberman, but the religious right that has propelled the Republican party to victories implicitly said no. Instead McCain was forced to pick someone that would enable him to rally the support of this side of the party and with the two obvious choices Gov. Pawlenty (MN) and Romney not good enough, enter Sarah Palin. She satisfied the requirements and intrigued McCain seeing as she might be able to garner the support of disgruntled Clinton supporters. McCain's buckling to the base of the GOP is a clear reflection as any, and shows us the McCain is not the McCain of yesterday.

McCain couldn't stand up to the party when he needed to more than any time before. If McCain had chosen Lieberman or even one of the governors this election would be different. His gamble has backfired horribly, with Palin becoming the butt of more jokes than Bush. This is a sad reflection of the party and has causes many prominent conservatives to either not vote or support Obama. Christopher Buckley, the son of one of the forefathers of the conservative movement (William Buckley), has endorsed Obama. So has Colin Powell, and that was not about race it was about the fact that he in all his wisdom could not help Palin become a heartbeat away from the office.

To tell you the truth, I think the party base still would have stuck with McCain and at the very least he'd still be leading in all the states he still is now. Had he put Lieberman on his ticket this would have been a reassurance to voters that he still is willing to stand up to his party. He wasn't. A McCain-Lieberman ticket would have certainly better numbers in the swing states, and Obama would not be making his "closing argument."

The stage has been set now and McCain can't do anything about it. The major issues have been established. There are no more debates. There are no more real game-changers. There is just now six days until history is made. McCain is facing an uphill battle. However, before Obama pops the champaign, it is not all over. McCain has one hope.

McCain's hope is that he has been very successful in what campaing strategists label "microtargeting." Microtargeting is a way of identifying voters based on a number of traits and then targeting them to get them to vote. If McCain can find the voters who are registered (registering deadlines have long since passed in most states) and would probably support him, then he must get them to vote. He has to mobilize them in a way that would impress Karl Rove himself. I doubt his ability to do this as he hasn't shown much capacity on any issue except for Iraq, which is probably doing more damage than good, but its a shot. Otherwise the first black president will be elected. And that's the truth.

A Little Bit of Socialism Never Hurt Anyone

As you may or may not have heard, General Motors is asking for $10 billion in government aid to help with its merger with Chrysler. If you thought that banks defaulting was bad, this is really bad. The car industry has been the core of the US economy and the fact that two of the big three car companies are seeking to merge is a telling sign. While I feel that a lot of why the car industry is struggling is through mismanagement and poor decision making, we cannot ignore the fact that GM alone provides jobs for 350,000 directly and another 4.5 million in related fields. Moody's credit rating has lowered both car companies ratings into "junk-level" and is considering to lower the other big US car company, Ford. Not only that GM's market value has dropped below what it was in 1929!! This is not good. The main problem I see is that since we are a consumption based economy and recently our economic standing has caused a lot of people to stop spending. Without them spending, we need someone to fill that void. Enter government. Now this will require some of us (the rich 1%) to pay a little more in taxes, so we can afford to not cut costs and invest in major US companies. While one presidential candidate has claimed that we need not raise taxes, and instead we should cut spending, this is exactly what we can't afford. That would be banking on the average consumer to spend, which as we can clearly see, he is not. Therefore, a little bit of socialism (as the conservatives have now labeled big government) wouldn't be so bad.

McCain and Syria

I don't know if you have heard about this in the news, but recently there was a US Specials Forces attack in Syrian territory, which has caused a lot of controversy. While both the White House and Obama declined to comment until more information was available, McCain decided to use this as an opportunity to score some political points. This is exactly what I was talking about before. Rather than trying to gain a full perspective, McCain decided to instead denounce Obama. This reflects the rash temperament that plagues many of our leaders and especially McCain. He then criticized Obama for willing to talk with the Syrians and went on to say a President Obama wouldn't have been able to carry out this mission. This is totally ridiculous because McCain had criticized Obama for willing to send missions into threatening regions in the Afghan-Pakistan border. Finally, Colin Powell and James Baker both support talks with Syria and McCain continues to refuses any dialogue. Dialogue with our enemies is exactly what we need right now and yet McCain seems to be sticking to this policy of overly aggressive action (when are more overstretched than ever before). And that be the truth.

The Double Truth, Ruth

One of the reasons I think this country is often so divided is because many of our leaders are not compassionate leaders, but rather partial leaders. Most leaders all have the same goals; they want to make America better. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have good intentions. However, beyond policy, experience and a change in how business gets done, there is something that is required in order to be president. That is true compassionate leadership. What you may think is right and true for you, is wrong for someone else. It is the partial truth. Too many leaders are partial leaders because they only see what they believe and this plagues both parties. A real leader is someone who is able to take a step back and look at all sides and perspectives and then make a decision. In the coming years, leaders will have to make decisions that do not have a clear-cut Republican or Democrat answer. If we are going to make the best decision, we are going to have to be able to understand all sides of the argument or conflict. This will become especially pertinent with respect to our foreign policy in the coming years. If we want to pacify the Middle East and decrease the terrorist threat, we can't look at the region as we have in the past. We need to be able to encourage dialogue (and yes, that includes Iran), and try to understand where these nations are coming from. Our failure to do this in the past makes young Arabs susceptible to joining terrrorist organizations. Both candidates have displayed compassionate leadership, but John McCain seemed to have lost this as he ran for his party's nomination. When he said he'd rather lose an election than a war, he also should have noted he would rather win the nomination than keep his credentials. Obama has shown that he does have these qualities and the temperment that we need right now. The ability to look at these situations from all sides will be more valuable than experience. America has prided itself on being leaders of the free world and if it wishes to continue this legacy it will need leaders who are able to see the whole truth and not just the partial truth. And that's the double truth, Ruth.

The DH

Now, as a Red Sox fan who has seen his favorite team enjoy a lot of success recently, it may seem odd that I am complaining about the designated hitter rule in baseball. David Ortiz is downright awful at fielding and is the epitome of a designated hitter. But this rule should be eliminated for it causes numerous problems and gives the American League teams an advantage. First, it corrupts baseball in the sense that it allows non-athletes to be considered athletes. Someone who just has three to five at bats a game is hardly the same as playing nine innings of baseball. Players can be bred to not have speed and just power. At the same time the National League has to play without this advantage and it severely alters the game. In the World Series when the National League teams use a DH, they do significantly worse. Another reason for this rule is so ridiculous is because it allows American League pitchers to throw at hitters without having to fear being hit themselves. In the National League the pitchers would know if they're going to throw at batters' heads, then they will see a ball coming at them. Baseball may not be the most athletic sport, but the game should be about the classic five-tool players and not celebrate those who just do one part of baseball really well. That's why even when David Ortiz puts up huge numbers and performs in the clutch, he should never be considered for an MVP award. That should be reserved for players who play the entire game. If this rule were to be eliminated and the Red Sox suffer, that is okay by me. At least baseball will have returned to its true form in both leagues.