guns guns guns part 2

As I continue the discussion about guns, there's been a lot of debate lately because of a recent school shooting which has raised the issue nationally.

Because the recent mass shooting was at a school, and school shootings are more alarming to the general public, the national discussion is all about school shootings rather than just about mass shootings.  This has led to the NRA making an absurd suggestion: place security guards in schools.  Here's a little bit of why this proposal is insane:

• The Right is who is proposing this... the Right also feels that we should reduce costs, this would certainly add costs for school systems nation-wide as we hire at least 2 people, and often several more, per school.
• Schools are not the only place where mass shootings occur.  In just the last year, we've seen mass shootings at a mall, a place of worship, a movie theater, and a random street (2 cops were injured in a shooting this past weekend when they tried to stop a guy walking up and down a street shooting people).  Are we going to put guards on every street and in every place of gathering?
• The suggestion was made with the rationale that we have armed guards at banks and in stadiums and in some stores, so why not in schools?  Well, see, people aren't tempted to ROB schools, we don't make investments in our schools in that fashion.  People are not only tempted but STILL DO rob banks and stores for the money and goods in them.
• The suggestion was started off with "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" (NRA President, Wayne LePierre).  O.k., then explain to me how an armed guard at a school would be better at stopping an armed bad guy than everybody at a military base (Fort Hood, 2009) or the armed guards at malls.  The truth is, even a good guy with a gun has trouble stopping a bad guy with a gun.

Here's what I would like to suggest instead:

• In my previous post about guns (http://darkwindrising.blogspot.com/2012/12/guns-guns-guns-part-1.html), I listed a number of reasons to be concerned about hand guns, so I would suggest there be some sort of additional controls to assist with guns in the home:
• Nobody says that registration and annual inspections of cars is infringing on car owner's rights, so let's institute registration requirements and annual inspections for guns, this way we can know who has what guns legally.  It's important to note that by far, most homicides and mass murders are committed with legally purchased guns and bullets.  That being said, there are loopholes in the laws surrounding the purchase of guns having to do with gun shows, we should get rid of these... nobody would ever suggest that we have a car show at which we let people to buy cars without going through all the required processes.
• Every person purchasing a gun should be required to pass a practical test.  These should include proper use of the gun both in being able to fire as well as securing it.
• The path we take to reduce mass shootings must be different from the path we take to reduce the more common homicides committed with guns.  The path to reduce mass shootings involves making it harder to do the shoot en-mass.
• Assault weapons must go.  The purpose of an assault weapon is to kill many people, nothing else, so can we make it illegal for individuals to own them?
• Likewise, large clips of ammo only serve to make it easier to kill more people without changing the clip, so let's shrink ammo clips for individuals so that it's a little slower and harder to commit mass murders.
• While we're discussing ammo, we should make it hard to purchase various types of ammo, such as hollow-point bullets and teflon coated bullets

guns guns guns part 1

To start off, I would like to point out that I am in favor of gun (and ammunition) control.  That being said, gun and ammo control needs to be broken down into a few different discussions. 

1. self-defense against individuals
2. hunting/sport
3. defense against other states
4. self-defense against our state

Let's start with the easiest of these, number 3.  The second amendment was designed with this in mind because at the time there was no standing army, nor a plan for a standing army to be created.  The colonists had militias to defend themselves from other nations, it's right there in the first half of the sentence-long amendment.  So, since we don't have a need for individuals to run out of their house to protect the neighborhood from a foreign state, the second amendment is no longer valid.... that being said, it's still on the books and requires some effort to overturn through constitutional amendment, therefore the rest of the discussion in this post will be about what should be and why, not an interpretation of what is currently legal (so those devoted to the second amendment based on it being the law should shut up and just listen for a bit).

Next up, hunting/sport.  This is actually one I'd appreciate feedback on.  I have no experience in hunting or using guns in sport, but it seems to me that hunting is more of a sport when you don't spray the target with bullets and instead have to aim at the target and use skill.  This suggests that military-grade and just below military-grade guns aren't necessary for hunting/sport enthusiasts.  Am I wrong?  In addition, it doesn't seem like extra-large clips of ammo would be required for hunting and hand guns certainly seem like they're not helpful.

Self-defense against our state is an odd one.  Most people in the US understand this to not be needed but there are those who feel that their guns protect them from the oppression that may come down from the US Government.  To these people, I would like to point out that the US military, and indeed, most major city police forces, would overpower them without too much difficulty, unless they were concerned with the loss of human life on the rebel side. 

Self-defense against individuals, now here's a meaty one.  I have several friends who fall back on "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."  While this is true, there's more to it than that.  First of all, we could limit guns to police forces and the like, in which case, not only outlaws would have guns.  The usual response is "but what if a little old lady needs to defend herself against an intruder."  I will reply to this with several thoughts:

1. The little old lady needs to be able to fire the gun with proficiency, aka training.
2. The little old lady needs to be able to manage the gun.  I've never fired a gun but from what I hear, they have some recoil that requires strength to manage.
3. It only helps the little old lady if she can get to the gun, get to the bullets, unlock the gun and load the bullets all before the aggressor catches up.  Gun safety (see below for why it's important) requires one to put the precautions in place to make sure you don't become the victim of the gun you have to protect yourself.  But those same precautions make it less likely for the gun to be useful to you in a bad situation.

There's also some statistics I'd like to point out:

• There are on average, in the US, about 26 murders each day using guns (2/3 of the murders that take place)
• There are on average, in the US, about 2 unintentional deaths caused by gunfire each day.
• A gun in the home...
• increases the chance of being killed by firearms 72%
• is responsible for a vast majority of children killed by firearms
• is 22 times more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or accident than to be used in self defense
• triples the risk of homicide
• increases the liklihood of suicide fivefold
• an abused woman is 6 times more likely to be murdered if there is a gun in the home

So, given these statistics and facts above, I have to say that guns aren't the answer to making our communities safer.

Responses to school shootings noted

So much to talk about....

Alright, let's start of with recent events.  Last week, there was another school shooting.  A young man went into an elementary school, killed 20 kids and their teacher, who happened to be his mother.  They found a dead family member at his house too.  In the aftermath of this event, people had different responses.

• Gun control advocates posted a lot of comments saying that we should do something to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again.
• People like the NRA: 
• Lashed back saying that gun control advocates were trying to take advantage of a bad situation and that it was playing politics.
• Proclaimed that if there were more guns, we'd be safer (e.g. if the principal had a rifle in his office)
• Touted the second amendment as they always do, saying that the gun control advocates were trying to curb their rights provided in the Bill of Rights.
• Others responded that we should not play politics with situations like this and we should simply show our support for the families who had lost children.

I will respond to each in turn, as each has a flaw:

• To the gun control advocates (full disclosure, I am one): There are several battles to be waged, and each one has a time and place.  I've seen a lot of discussion of generic gun control discussion going on, but whenever there's a shooting like this one, the person persecuting the crime wouldn't have been prevented from having a gun even if we had most of what we wanted.  Instead.  I would suggest focussing on the really troubling issue:  shooters often carry multiple guns, but they do most of their damage using semi-automatics with large clips of ammo.  It doesn't take long to reload, but it takes time, and that's time they're not a threatening to those who would stop them. 
• Ah... "gun rights advocates"... there's only so much of your b.s. that I'm willing to take.  First of all, yes, fine, lash back saying that gun control advocates are trying to take advantage.  That's reasonable.  Proclaiming that we're safer with more guns is ridiculous though, and the second amendment has to be twisted around in order to "protect" your rights.
• Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, any of these sound familiar?  That may be because they are the states with the highest violent crime rates of the US.  Or it may be because they also have extremely loose gun control laws.  That's right, the states with THE HIGHEST violent crimes laws have the loosest gun control laws.  Where's the benefit of having guns?  Shouldn't these states have lower crime rates if they have looser gun control laws?
• Second amendment.... oh second amendment.... all right, let's go.  "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Just over half of the statement agrees with your interpretation.  THE FIRST HALF DISAGREES.  A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of the U.S. because we have a well trained military.  The amendment was put forth during a time when the citizens had to protect themselves because we had no standing military.  "But Peter, what about the right of citizens to protect themselves against the Government."  Are you kidding me?  Name one militia that could go up against the US Military, or really any major city's police force?  Do you think we should have militias that have rocket launchers, armor piercing bullets, and automatic military-grade machine guns? Then shut up!  The second amendment was required once upon a time but is no longer relevant.
• O.k., I understand that we should be respectful, and if I had any friends in Newtown, I'd limit what I say, because they deserve some peace.  That being said, nobody I'm friends with on Facebook is from Newtown.  Also, if responding to tragedy with pushing for improvements to regulations or suggestions that would help avoid those tragedies in the future is poor form, did you complain when people responded to various markets crashing by asking how it happened and looking to improve/rework regulations?  Did you complain when, in response to a nuclear meltdown, people eyed nuclear power plants and asked if there were better security provisions that could be made (such as not putting the waste nuclear rods in a storage tank ABOVE the main reactor)?  Yes, there's a point when we go overboard and should be reigned in, but that doesn't mean we can't have meaningful discussions in reaction to events.  If you have a problem with that, go stick your head further in the sand and stop paying attention to anybody any time anything happens that causes us to pause and reflect to see if there are better ways of doing things.

I'm sure you won't be surprised when I post more about gun control soon, but I've written my fill for the time being.  I'll probably write more before the end of the month. 

"tighten the belt" ... reverse the coin and see what it says

Alright, back to taxes and the conservative statement that in these times of need, government shouldn't borrow and should act like every family does and tighten its belt.  I mentioned in my November 22nd post how ridiculous this statement is based on just the statement's premise and the role of government, but I'd like to investigate the opposite side of the statement.

If in times of need, government should tighten its belt just like families do, what happens in good times?  I actually happen to agree with this side of the coin.  Conservatives suggest that we should lower tax rates when times are good... should workers therefore tell their employers "hey, I can pay all my bills and still have some left over, you should pay me less?"  That's a horrible idea, right?  I completely agree.

In point of fact, in good times, families should invest in their future.  For one thing, you want to invest for college, retirement, a new house, but in addition to those things, families should build up some savings so they are at least a little prepared for emergencies.  The same is true for governments.  Admittedly, they don't have children to put through college or have to retire, but they sometimes have to buy new buildings and vehicles and build infrastructure.  These are investments governments have to make from time to time.  In addition, governments should prepare for economic downturns by building a rainy day fund.

Massachusetts has a rainy day fund that has cushioned the blow of the recent recession, but the problem for Massachusetts is that the residents decided to lower taxes in good economic times instead of recognizing that those good times would not last forever and that we should plan for the future.  In my last post, I commented that we did this and that we should restore our tax rates to pre-2000 levels (in 2012 MA tax rates are 5.3%, in 1999 they were 5.95%).

When times are average, we should make small investments in our future, just as families do.  When times are good, we should make larger investments in our future.  And when times are bad, we should use some of those investments in order to maintain services government provides to people, and even increase some.  We should not cut taxes just because we are bringing in more money than we're spending, just as we shouldn't raise taxes in bad times just because we can't fund everything out of the current tax income.  There must be a balance where we invest when we can and use those investments when we can't pay for everything with current tax income.

Public Transportation in Massachusetts

Year after year, I hear that the MBTA is running a deficit... like that's a bad thing.  First of all, keep in mind this is a government entity, not a for-profit business or even a non-profit organization.  The purpose of this entity is not to make money or provide a service at no cost to anybody that doesn't use it.  The purpose of government is to provide for the common welfare, and it's a good thing for us to have people have access to public transportation.... let's go into some of the reasons why:

1. Environmental: It's true, to some extent, that public transportation is better for the environment than everybody using cars to get everywhere.  I say "to some extent" here because it depends on how many people are using it.  Definitely, when the busses and trains are crowded, it is much more efficient at people-moving, but what about when the bus is less than 1/5 full?  So, rush-hour is definitely better for the environment and off-peak hours are sometimes worse.  So this reason isn't as strong as advocates might claim, but it's still strong.  Nevertheless, the findings from this claim would suggest that we should only have public transportation at busy times.... but that's only thinking from an environmental perspective, and there's more to public transportation than just environmental benefits.
2. Help thy neighbor: Public transportation isn't super cheap anymore, but it's certainly cheaper than some alternative forms of transportation, so it can be seen as a common good in so far as it allows us to more cheaply move about.... but I would suggest this too is not the biggest reason to be in favor of public transportation.
3. Traffic congestion and parking: Now we're talking!  It's all well and good to say that public transportation is good for everybody and it's instinctual to me to believe so, but for the optimal explanation to someone who's not interested in being nice to people and worried about spending tax dollars on things, here's the big explanation.  As you replace cars on streets with people walking/biking/being driven to public transportation, you reduce traffic and you reduce the amount of parking spaces you need everywhere.  When I think about people from Boston or Cambridge coming to Davis Sq. for the evening, I'm very thankful that not everybody has to park there and that many people come by bus or train.  It's worth a little of my money to help this take place, even if I'm not using the public transportation myself.

Alright, so, we've established that having public transportation is in the public's interest, next up, the financing.

First off, we have a general financing problem.  It's not the T's fault that we spent a ton on the Big Dig.  It's not the T's fault that we reduced our tax rates in MA.  Don't burden the T with the debt.  Instead, I would suggest we wipe the slate clean and have all debt for state agencies be consolidated into a general state debt.  Start fresh so we can plan properly and respectfully according to the agencies' needs and our interest in the agencies' support of our communities.

Secondly, we shouldn't use a tax on gas to pay for an agency that is supposed to reduce our need for gas.  That's just ridiculousness.  The budget for the MBTA should come out of the general budget and should not fluctuate with how much people drive.  This would further stabilize the agency, again assisting with being able to make planning possible.

One last item, which I'm sure I'll go into more detail later: Massachusetts tax rates are too damn low.  We, yes we since it was a ballot measure, cut our state income tax in 1999.  The plan was to reduce it from 5.95% (pre-2000) to 5%.  We stopped the decreasing in 2002 until tax income met pre-set amounts at which point we would decrease it by .05% per year.  Let's think about this for a moment.  Why did we stop the reduction in the tax rate in 2002?  Because the US economy faultered.  In point of fact, the US economy was going through a pretty good period in the 1990's.  Between 1992 and 2000, we had a GDP percentage increase of 5% or more 3 times as often as between 2000 and 2008, and we haven't even reached 5% since mid-2006.  So, since we were in time of prosperity, it makes sense that we would be bringing in enough taxes to pay our bills, but we should be using those times to build up our rainy day fund for times like we've been going through every since, where GDP growth has been minimal if any.  It should come as no surprise to anybody that we've been cutting our budget constantly for the last decade, and this is the reason, we saw some good growth years and thought they were average and therefore decided we could shrink our tax rate when in fact we should have been investing more and preparing for average and even lower than average years.  My suggestion, therefore, is that the income tax should be raised back up.

Cyclists, Pedestrians and Drivers

Alright, I've been writing a lot about politics, and while this series of posts (yes, there will be more with a similar name) will contain some political thoughts, it will definitely stray into the arena of common courtesy and thoughts about safety.

I live in Somerville, MA.  I've lived here for a while and have been a cyclist, a pedestrian, and a car driver.  It's a city, with city multi-modal problems.  First, a few quick tips to each mode.

A quick message to drivers:
Don't be idiots...  you know who you are, idiots.  Alright, let me give some examples:

• In Porter Sq., there's strip mall with a large parking lot.  Emptying out onto Elm St. are 2 different exits.  Facing Elm St., the exit on the left is exit-only and allows for 2 lanes (one to turn right, one to turn left) and the exit on the right has 1 lane to exit and 1 lane to enter.  Guess where you should go if you're going to turn left onto Elm St.  
1. The right one.  Because then you have to block traffic that's turning right which is an easier turn.... or ...
2. The left one.  Because you can get into a left-only lane that is almost always empty

That's right, idiots, you go to the left side exit... unfortunately, almost every time I use the right side exit to turn right, I find that some idiot, is trying to turn left and therefore takes forever to leave the parking lot.

• Whenever you're turning left onto street from a major street with people passing on your right, DON'T MOVE TO THE RIGHT FIRST.  I understand that when turning right you may move left first so as to make the turn a little tighter, that's fine and acceptable.... but for the love of all that is logical, why do you move right in order to turn left when you have a lane to go through so the turn doesn't have to be tight at all?!?!?
• Here's a more subtle one.  If you come to a cross street and won't make it across ... stop before the cross street.  Don't block traffic trying to make it through, even if there's no light at the intersection but one a block away.  Don't be the jerk that keeps traffic on that side street from moving forward because they aren't able to drive THROUGH YOUR CAR.
• And here's one that relates more with a later section of this post.  If you're on a one-lane one-way street with a bike lane, DON'T DRIVE IN THE BIKE LANE.  I don't care that you're turning right, so am I, and you're not getting by me cause you're NOT A BIKE so don't drive in the bike lane, IDIOT.

A quick message to bicyclists:

I know you want equal rights and you're more vulnerable and you hate everybody that's driving a car, but please be respectful and understand that you, too, sometimes are the problem as much as, if not more than, those of us driving or walking along.  O.k., a couple more things:

• Wear a helmet
• Respect the rules of the road
• Don't ride side by side down the road
• If you're turning left, don't block the road by standing in the middle of the lane so people driving down the street behind you can't turn right.

A quick message to pedestrians:

I know you can walk in front of a bicyclist or car and get hit and get hurt and don't care... but don't ask for it.  

• Walk across the street if people have stopped for you or if there's enough time, but don't just start walking across randomly.
• If there's a cross-walk 5 feet from you, I SWEAR, I'm more likely to stop for you if you go to the cross-walk than if you wait where you are.
• Don't step onto the street at a major intersection when you're still waiting for traffic... seriously, don't do it, just don't, just wait on the curb and don't step onto the street.

The Role of Government

There's been a lot of talk lately of balancing the budget.  This should lead to a discussion of the role of government, but it hasn't.  Instead it has led to a lot of people saying that the Government should handle its budget the same way that a family or a business would.  My answer to this is that it is the reverse way and these people haven't considered the role of government in our society at all.  I would contend that government should spend more than it takes in when the economy is faltering and reduce its debt in times when the economy is booming and to reach this conclusion, there are a number of factors, each having to do with the role of government, so let's discuss that role:

~Protect its Citizens from External Forces~
This task does not change based on the economy.  Military spending is not necessarily uneffected by the economy but the requirement for a military to be present to defend us remains unchanged and the amount of money required to continue the required defense is unchanged.  As a result, in relation to the economy, the government is spending more in bad times and less in good times, though the exact dollar amount does not change except as a result of

~Provide for the Common Welfare~
This can be split into multiple parts, and most require not simply sustained funding in bad economic times, but enhanced funding:

• Safety - To some degree, you might think that fire fighters and police do not need to have increased funding in poor economic times, fires don't increase in commonality and intensity because people don't have jobs.  On the other hand, crime tends to increase, so maybe a few more police officers might not be a bad thing.  On the whole though, it seems like funding for safety doesn't need to be increased, but it certainly shouldn't be decreased in poor economic times.
• Health - People without jobs tend not to have healthcare, so public funding for health related services is in higher demand in a recession than when we're seeing low unemployment.
• Parks and Recreation - This is an interesting one.  Parks don't need more service when people don't have jobs, but there is a need to help keep teens being productive rather than disruptive.  Public recreation services play a role in this, as do non-profit and for-profit organizations such as day-care or camps, but I would suggest that increased funding is essential here.
• Protection of the General Welfare - And by this, I mean protection of people against starvation and cold and the like.  This is where food stamps, medicare, medicaid, and social security come in.  This portion of the budget, by definition, increases in poor economic times.  There is also an argument to be made that by providing some capital to those who are not making money on their own is good for the economy because it increases demand, or at least keeps it from dropping as drastically as it might otherwise.
• Economic promotion - Here's the thing that most people forget.  Promotion of the national economy is a big part of what the Government does.  It's why we have public training programs and build roads and bridges.  Here's the key... this one, this one right here is the biggest reason why we should expect increased funding in poor economic times.  In these times, we can expect companies to shrink their work force as profits decline.  These newly unemployed citizens will decrease demand, even if they get some level of help from the government, and because of this diminished demand, companies' profits will fall.  Because companies' profits are shrinking, they'll shrink their workforce.  See a pattern here?  Corporations won't change this cycle on their own.  Instead, it is the government's role in recessions and depressions to prop up the economy a bit by hiring more people, which then has a similar reverse cyclical force (more people are working->more demand->people hired to supply for that demand).  This principle of creating more demand than you're creating supply is the foundation of trickle down economics.  Simple economics (the kind you learn in MacroEconomics or Economics 101) state that if a government spends more than it takes in, it will improve demand because citizens will have more money to spend.  

The problem is that trickle-down economics, or decreasing tax rates in general, doesn't work.  We have a century of experience to prove this.  There's a reason it doesn't work, which is pretty easy to figure out.  The rich in our current economic situation don't need much that they aren't already purchasing.  By increasing their ability to consume, you don't get as much actual consumption for every dollar provided.  By contrast, if you spend that same amount on government programs, putting people to work, building railroads or highways for instance, increases demand dramatically.  There's also the added benefit that you're building infrastructure (or repairing it) which is needed for sustained growth and national wellbeing.

But, surely government shouldn't be deficit spending when families and businesses can't afford to.  Surely government must play by the same rules.  You're forgetting that government is not a business nor a person.  Government is specifically there to help people and businesses.  As a result, government is in a unique position to be able to deficit spend to prop up people and businesses and general demand for services.  If government acts as a business, the cycle of recession just increases in intensity.  Instead, government SHOULD deficit spend, and do so to a dramatic extent, to offset the loss in demand for services created by businesses shrinking and family budgets disappearing.  This doesn't mean we're creating a class of citizens who will never work, it means that we're preventing the economy from falling further into depression so that we will rebound and have more jobs so people have the opportunity to work instead of being forced not to because there are no jobs.  By firing teachers and canceling/postponing public works projects, we're just hurting ourselves.  By putting public works projects front and center and not firing teachers and other public servants, we're not only stabilizing the economy but improving our national situation.

Yes, the debt is a problem, but a flailing economy won't be able to sustain a smaller debt.  Instead, a robust economy must be created so that when we're doing well, we can begin decreasing the debt.  This  was a lesson we learned under Clinton and failed to understand under W. Bush.

Corporations are not people, and governments are not corporations or families.  Let's end the simplification that would suggest that all entities are the same, because simply put, they're not.

Romney Insults Minorities, Women, and Young Adults for Loss

Alright, let's ignore for a moment that this was a tight election.  It was a lot tighter than many would lead you to believe and it was a lot tighter than it should have been given that Romney was the one running... and why is that important?.... that is the topic of this post.  Romney claims to understand what was wrong but the claimed understanding points to why he should have lost in a true landslide, not the shrug that nation gave while re-electing a moderate Democrat.

Romney spoke to his financial backers on November 15th and laid out his vision of why he lost.  Essentially, it's because Obama bribed minorities, women, and young adults.  And no, he doesn't mean that Obama went out and gave money to people to vote for him, he means that the initiatives Obama backed were those that minorities, women, and young adults would appreciate and would find financially beneficial to them.  Putting aside that this essentially means that Obama was better for these groups ON THE ISSUES and that he did his job in a way that these groups would approve of... a discussion for later on in this post, this is an astonishing claim.

For one thing, Romney made plenty of mistakes during the campaign.

1. He held firm with his message that he was the Governor of Massachusetts.... and every time he said anything about us, we retaliated with "you're a lying sack of sh@# and we're glad you're not our Governor anymore, now stop mentioning us you fu@#ing a$$hole".  Our education system was one of the best in the nation before you stepped in and kicked it around and it's still one of the best in the nation despite your best efforts to destroy it.  Our economy is good because we've invested wisely and have a great education system (see previous sentence).  Admittedly, our health care is almost half-way decent but 1) you're running away from the improvements you made to it and 2) again, it was already half-way decent before you came to down.
2. He ran to the far right at the start of the campaign and one of his staffers let it out that he would shake up his stances on the issues after the primaries.... yes, it's widely known that you pivot after the primaries, but you don't tell everybody about it, and you don't pivot as wildly as everybody knew he'd have to and as wildly as he did in October starting with the first general election Presidential debate.
3. Speaking of debates, while he was strong in the first debate, which was the first good step he had made since June, he then proceeded to try to man-handle the woman moderator of the second debate, got her so pissed off at him that she stepped into the debate and shut down one of his arguments.  He also spent the entirety of the second debate claiming he would create more jobs than Obama... the entirety minus 10 seconds where he repeated "Government doesn't make jobs" twice while speaking over the moderator.... classy move dipsh$%.
4. He made various public and private statements that ended up hurting him, such as that 47% of the country didn't pay taxes and therefore were going to vote for Obama no matter what he did (which is ridiculousness considering the make up of that 47% and the fact that many of them vote Republican) and his attack on the President in the midst of the Benghazi incident that came across as opportunistic and decidedly not Presidential in addition to highlighting his pathetic level of foreign policy knowledge and experience.
5. Speaking of foreign policy, his trip overseas was a disaster and yet he continued to try to attack the President on Obama's foreign policies toward Israel and the overall Middle East/Northern Africa region.
6. Because his credentials as a true Conservative were a bit shaky, he tried to sure up the base by taking on GOP wonk Representative Paul Ryan.  This was a bit interesting because it brought the budget to the forefront of the discussion... wait, no, it didn't because the very first thing every news company did after the announcement was go to how Ryan was a health nut.  After that we got to start talking about the budget.... except that their plans were too complicated to explain on news shows, so we didn't get to discuss them really, just the hypotheticals, sort of, in a distant far off kind of way to avoid specifics such as how we'd end up paying for the tax cuts and the military spending they wanted.
7. Republicans didn't help him out either, with a pathetic Republican Convention and with various Republicans running for office and touting that science isn't real (women's bodies have a way of shutting down a pregnancy if it's unwanted) and rape isn't so bad (if a pregnancy is the outcome of a rape, that's God's will and it's a blessed thing... which, by less stretching of the statement than Ryan's stretching the truth on his marathon run time, means that rape is a blessed thing).

Alright, back to his statements of bribery though... "The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift... He made a big effort on small things"... such as what, Romney? Don't stop there, give us something particularly juicy to sink our teeth into.

1. Free health care, he claimed, was highly motivational to black and Hispanic voters as well as voters making $25k to $35k/year.  
2. The administration's promise to offer "amnesty" to "the so-called DREAM Act kids" was a big influence on the Hispanic vote.
3. The administrations plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest and being able to remain on their parents' health insurance plans were big for the young adult vote.
4. Free contraception coverage under the heath care plan had pushed young women to be in favor of Obama.

I don't know about you, but to me, these seem like stances on issues that are backed by the Democratic platform.  The DREAM Act was an important piece of legislation that the Democrats brought forward and was prevented by the Republican held House.  This legislation was then partially put into practice by the Obama Administration's stated priorities in what cases they would pursue, a perfectly legitimate movement considering that there is far too much work to be done on the U.S. immigration front than can be reasonably expected to be done, so we have to prioritize the work that can be done.  Romney essentially said "Obama ran on the Democratic Party's platform, and that's not fair."

The explanation that these priorities and stands on the issues of the day are equivalent to bribery is somewhat interesting and the idea that people voted for Obama because they got free things plays directly into the 47% statement that Romney gave at another donor discussion that was also leaked.  Each of his statements was insulting to every group that the Republicans have to work on if they are going to be at all successful in the future.

It almost seemed like this Romney committing Seppuku for the Republican Party.  By deliberately insulting every group that he had alienated during the campaign, he places the blame for the loss squarely on the shoulders of his complete lack of understanding of the electorate and his utter lack of connection with the less fortunate (aka, the bottom 99.99% of this nation).  By taking the hit, he distances the Republican Party from himself and they have the opportunity to say "wow, can you believe that nut job?" just as they did with W. Bush.  I would be willing to bet that Romney won't appear at the nominating convention in 2016, just as W. Bush didn't appear at the nominating convention in 2008 or in 2012.

The future of the Republican Party?

So, I have this problem.  There are two things I want to happen, and they are drastically different from eachother... and neither one will truly come to be.

1. The Republican Party learns from the 2012 election and determines that they should come to face facts about certain things.  
• Global climate change is real
• Women should be treated as full-fledged citizens and equal in every way to men.
• There is no evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy... none, zero, zilch, and it's been tried again and again for the last century.
• The Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make up a fake unemployment rate in October to help Obama look better, the economy really was improving.
• Evolution is real, as is science in general... and scientists may not know everything but they're not lying about the crazy sh@# they discuss.
• Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence agencies knew he didn't.
• Moderate regulations on the insurance and financial services industries are not communism, or even socialism, they're the government doing part of its job: protecting its citizens.
• ... and with all these things accepted, we can start discussing actual policies and not the BS... and perhaps make some progress with the discussions needed
2. The Republican Party ignores the lessons from 2012, follows the Tea Party even further off the cliff and end up losing their power to the point of no longer being a viable political party (similar to the Green Party and Libertarian Party).  If this happens, I see a couple options for what comes next:
• We pretty much have a one-party system, which would hopefully mean that essentially we have no political parties and people have to run on their stances on the issues.
• Another party springs up in the power vacuum but hopefully one that is more sane and we have the result found in the Republican Party learning from their mistakes.

I don't really see either of these hopes coming true though, so the inner conflict I feel wishing for each to happen is really a moot point.  The Republicans are already saying that there's no need to change their stances on the issues and that it's really only about messaging.  The cynic in me suggests that Romney's coming out and saying the truly idiotic rationalizing of his loss (that Obama bribed minorities, women, and young people to vote for him through things like health care reform and the DREAM Act... a discussion for a different post) was really a setup by the Republican Party where they said "we gave you a shot, now go say this so we can leak it and call you a crazy person so we're not tainted by you."  All this suggests that they're ignoring the lessons, and they are, but I see no reason to believe that they'll fail to continue pushing their agenda successfully.  This country voted for Obama 51%-48%.  That means roughly half the country is so far gone that they actually voted for Romney.... for Romney, not the Republican Party, for Romney, the guy who is so slimy that he can't give a press briefing without smirking at the end, even if he's talking about people who are dying overseas, the guy who changes positions on issues so fast you don't even realize it's happened (you remember the second debate where he argued for an hour that he would create more jobs than Obama and then interrupted the moderator to yell "Government doesn't create jobs, Government doesn't create jobs").  Yes, the nation is this far gone that they voted for Romney over Obama, because the Republicans have convinced them that Obama is a Socialist, Communist, Nazi who will take their guns and money away and replace their health care with government run health care... none of which is true (unless you happen to be in the top 5%, in which case only 1 of those items is true).  Republicans are amazing at messaging and convincing people that the truth is wrong and that their explanation is true... and for that reason, I don't see my second ideal coming to fruition either.

2012 repeats 2008's message to Republicans

Dear Republicans,

I know you love Fox News and your Right Wing Talk Radio, but I think it's time for you to pay attention to what the electorate is saying... here's a bit of a breakdown of the glaring signs that you should take as warning messages:

Women:
In 2008 and 2012, women voted of Obama approximately 55% vs the Republican opponent 44%.  Why do women like Obama?  Probably because they like the Democratic Party, in general, more than they like the Republican Party, in general.  Why?  Perhaps it has to do with the long standing stances on issues that Democrats and Republicans have taken.  Democrats are pro-choice, Republicans are a range of sometimes-pro-choice-but-not-always to the-woman's-life-is-over-if-the-pregnancy-endangers-it.  Democrats are in favor of fair-pay for women, Republicans are in favor of women cooking dinner.  Democrats are in favor of helping children through college, Republicans are in favor of removing the tax cuts and low-rate loans that have been put in place to that end.  Get the picture?  Thought you might.

Minorities:

• African Americans voted in favor of Obama approximately 94% vs 5% for his opponent, the percentages didn't change all that much and before you dismiss this as just being that Obama is the first African American President, Kerry got 88% of the African American vote in 2004 and Gore got 90% in 2000 (and Gore and Kerry are both very very white).
• Latin Americans voted for Obama over McCain 2 to 1 and over Romney 71% to 27%.  That's right, more Latin Americans voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008.  Why?  It might have something to do with Obama supporting immigrant rights, or perhaps it has to do with Republicans being essentially an old, white, men's club.  This is an important factor, though, because Latin Americans are the fastest growing group of voters in the country.  If Republicans continue to push them away as they have been for the last decade, they're going to encounter more and more difficulties.
• Asian Americans also increased their voting for Obama, from 62% in 2008 to 73% in 2012.  Not for nothing but I think we're seeing a trend here... 
• "Other races" meanwhile decreased their voting for Obama in 2012, from 66% to 58%, but this is still a majority vote for the Democrat and continues to indicate that Republicans have a big problem with getting minorities to vote for them.

Age:

Alright, here's the real kicker.  Americans of two age groups reduced their support for Obama between 2008 and 2012: 18-29 year olds reduced by 6% and 45-64 year olds reduced by 3%.  But here's the thing, the young adult vote (18-29) still voted strongly for Obama (66% in 2008, 60% in 2012).  This is a problem for the old, white, men's club that is the Republican party because young americans are starting to vote more (they made up 17% of the vote in 2004, 18% in 2008, and 19% in 2012).  30-44 year olds are also strongly in favor of Obama vs his opponent, sticking with 52% in both elections, though they represented a smaller portion of the vote in 2012 than in 2008, dropping from 29% of the vote to 27%.  This, too, is bad news for the Republicans, because today's middle-aged voters will soon enough be the older voters.  

Income:

I think it goes without saying that lower income voters are more likely to vote Democratic, but in case you doubt that:

• 2012 - Those making $50k or less voted 60% for Obama, those making more than $50k, 45%.
• 2008 - 73% of those making less than $15k voted for Obama, 60% of those making $15k-$30k, and 55% of those making $30k-$50k.  Surprisingly, the Obama got nearly half if not a slight majority within higher income ranges, including 52% of those making $200k or more
• 2004 - 63% of those making less than $15k voted for Kerry, 57% of those making $15k-$30k, and 50% of those making $30k-$50k.  Those making more than $50k voted somewhat strongly for Bush (growing from 55% for $50k-$100k, 57% for $100k-$150k, 58% for $150k-$200k and jumping up to 63% for $200+)
• 2000 - 58% of those making less than $15k voted for Gore, 54% of those making $15k-$30k, and 49% of those making $30k-$50k (Bush got 48% of that group).  Like in 2004, the percentage of voters going for Bush in 2000 increased as the income range increased, peaking at 55% for $100k+.

The first three factors indicate a growing difficulty for the Republicans... the fourth is also a growing factor but only if the economy continues to the path it's been taking: larger disparity between the lower income and upper income and a larger percentage of the nation having a lower income.  I think the trouble is that Republicans are trying to pull a wool over women's and non-whites' eyes.  They're trying to convince people that they're on their side when they hold stances and vote in the opposite way.  Democrats have trouble here too, but it's about getting the word out that they are on minorities' and women's sides.  Many people have come to believe that all politicians are the same, but this can't be further from the truth, and all you have to do is look at how the two parties vote on a variety of issues and the party platforms.

So, what do Republicans need to do?  They need to change their plan and stop lying about who they are and actually change who they are.  They need to realize that doing lip service to people's issues isn't enough, you need to actually do something productive on those issues rather than hindering them.

compromise compromise, everywhere, but no sincerity in sight

O.k., election results are in, except for Florida for the Presidential race, because they've only had over 36 hours to tally up the votes and figure it out, not like they weren't expecting to be important or anything, just the state with the most electoral votes of the battleground states.  But I digress.  This post is not about the ridiculousness that is Florida, it's about the ridiculousness that is the Republican right.

Boehner came out and announced that "we're" eager for the President to lead, that "we" want him to succeed, and that "we're" willing to negotiate within limits.  The "we" could refer to the general population of the U.S., but I think it's more likely that he's speaking for Republicans in the House.  Let's take him at his word for a minute.  He's saying that Republicans are eager for Obama to lead (which he's been doing) and that they'll consider tax increases, but only if the tax increases are not only on the most wealthy.  I'm impressed that he actually came out and said it... the Republicans are unwilling to raise taxes unless they can raise taxes on the poor (Scott Brown admitted to this and Massachusetts kicked him out of office).  That being said, fine, let's just repeal the W. Bush tax cuts.  They helped the rich more than they helped the poor, but they did help the poor somewhat, so Republicans should be fine with it.  Admittedly, Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than $250k, but that's compromise for ya, sometimes you have to break your campaign promises to avoid the precipice.

That being said, Boehner negotiated with the President before in 2011 and couldn't deliver his end.  That's how we got here, remember?  Boehner and the President and Reed negotiated the "grand compromise", Boehner came back the next morning and said "nope, can't do it, the Republicans in the House won't accept the compromise, they insist on having it completely their way."... so, with the Tea Party backed ridiculously far right remaining in control of the House, should we really take Boehner at his word that he can negotiate for these wackos?  They've just been re-elected, they'll be feeling that their constituents have affirmed their standing firm and not negotiating.  They're probably looking at Romney's defeat and saying "he wasn't one of us, that's why he lost, if he had been a true conservative, he would have won."  Without having learned anything, with everything the same as it was a year ago, I see no reason to believe Boehner will have any more ability to pull his side to the negotiating table with him.

Election's over, bullshit keeps flowing.

Taxes - The Options We Face in Election 2012

Taxes are good, they aren't bad.  They are the way we help protect our common interests and pay for the common good.  Redistribution of wealth is another way of talking about this and is generally viewed in a negative connotation.  Redistribution of wealth, however, is how we move wealth from those that are working to those who are retired in a fashion we have benefited from since Social Security was passed into law.  Redistribution of wealth is what happens when you pay firefighters and teachers out of a common chunk of change.  Redistribution of wealth is how we pay for our military and the salaries and healthcare of those we elect to office.  Extreme redistribution of wealth may be more what you're concerned about, so let's talk about what's on the table.

Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy to ~gasp~ what they were before W. Bush took office.  This is not a huge increase in taxes.  It's not even close to what the taxes were 20 years before W. Bush took office.  Before Reagan took office, you have to go back to 1925 to find the last time we had the top tax bracket with a rate as low as the one Obama wants to implement.  In fact, you'd have to go back that far to find a time when the top bracket was less than 1.5 times the rate Obama is proposing.  That's right, from 1925-1981 we had the top bracket being taxed anywhere from 63% to 94% on the money within that bracket.... And there's where the tricky part is.... 63% to 94% doesn't mean that their income is taxed at 63% to 94%, it means that the money they earn over a certain amount (the amount that puts them into that bracket) is taxed at that rate.... the amount below is taxed at other rates, just like everyone.  If I make $50,000 and you make $40,000, and the tax bracket break point is at $40,000, then I'm going to pay the same taxes you do, plus $10,000 times whatever the new bracket's rate is.  This is, of course, after all deductions are taken out.  Deductions and credits are how we say "you are doing something that we want you to do and for which we feel your burden should eased a bit," such as purchasing your primary residence (morgage interest deduction), having kids (larger standard deduction), or paying for college (various options), essentially, we are making it more financially viable for those who make less to take these steps we consider to be beneficial to the greater good.

By contrast, Romney wants to reduce the tax rates of everybody and then remove deductions to pay for those tax rate changes.  As mentioned before, deductions and credits are how we help people improve their lives by lessening the financial impact of certain choices, so what Romney is saying is that he wants to reduce taxes to make the tax code simpler and increase the financial cost of certain activities.  When it comes time to name these certain activities, he's completely unwilling to do so, but the sheer cost of the reduction in tax rates essentially forces the removal of deductions and credits to be a larger burden for the lower and middle classes than to the upper class.

These are the choices we face.  Mind you, with a Republican (and very far right-wing)controlled House and a nearly even split Senate, it's hard to believe that Obama's tax increases will pass, though much easier to believe Romney's tax cuts will likely pass by with cheerful shouts of glee, deficit-hawkishness-be-damned.