Xenophobia, Homophobia, and the United States Senate

Today, December 18th, 2010, the conservative argument of working hard, individual achievement, and merit took a back seat to political tactics and false ideals. The long held tradition of judging a man not on the faults of his parents, but on the merit of his individual achievement has failed to be recognized by the current Repbulican minority via the DREAM Act. The Act was pushed by liberal leaders in Congress to allow young immigrants brought to the United States illegally by their parents a chance at citizenship through a college education or service to the People of the United States through the armed forces. As the vote finally came down on a Saturday session of the U.S. Senate, Republicans filibustered and Democratic Leadership failed to garner the 60 votes needed for cloture. This failure provides a context by which to begin a new dialogue as activists and campaigners begin thinking about 2012. The DREAM Act represents the first step in a commom sense approach to immigration reform. This commom sense has been stifled by Republican Leadership and the conservative mantra of self-determination has proven to be mindless rhetoric. Whether it be xenophobia, fear of liberal-leaning Latino voters, or simply the misplaced pride of a minority party, congressional Republicans have failed to live up to the American concepts of what freedom is. Empty rhetoric is not governance and it is hopeful that this display is not a preamble to the Republican Majority that will soon take the reigns in the U.S. House.

With the DREAM Act sufficiently squashed and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell at the forefront of a lame duck Congress, the U.S. Senate voted 65-31 to repeal a foolish policy and proving that the U.S. Congress is not entirely devoid of reason. With that said, the Nays on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell came predominantly from Republican Senators bent on pushing a false moral premise that is at odds with the very notions of freedom laid out by our founders over 200 years ago. Unlike the DREAM Act, conservatives see gays in the military and in society at large through the moral kaleidoscope provided mostly by the Christian Right. Though the rhetoric contains arguments concerning the well-being of those serving in the military via unit cohesion and war-time disruption, the truth is that many conservatives have a moral problem with openly gay members of the military as well as within the American community. As the Christian Right and their allies may see gay and lesbian citizens as representing some sort of moral corruption, the true moral corruption exists when freedom is denied. Consequently, this form of rhetoric mirrors those against blacks as the military moved to racially integrate the armed services over half a century ago. Those arguments failed then as they have today.

Contrary to the belief that the DREAM Act was a form of amnesty, the Act truly lays out a path to citizenship with some very difficult requirements. Under the Act, applicants would be required to wait 10 years, have a high school diploma or GED, pay back taxes and application fees, and either be attending college or serving in the military. Beyond that, applicants must be free of a criminal record; a requirement that many members of Congress would fail to fulfill. This ‘path’ is no easy task and represents a foundation for citizenship that many Americans have only through birthright. Without common sense immigration reform that is free of xenophobia and political gamesmanship, this nation will fail to live up to the ideals of freedom or what Abraham Lincoln called “the last, best hope of Earth.”

How the Left failed Obama

Copyright 2010 Universal Press Syndicate

Since the historic election of Barack Obama in 2008, the Left has gone from a state of euphoria to mannerisms resembling that of a snarling pitbull. As a liberal myself, I have watched the base of my own party begin to self-destruct since January 20 of 2009 as the other half of the country has refused to simply roll-over to some sort of progressive agenda. Sadly, many Progressives have failed to agree on just what that agenda ought to be in a not to dissimilar fashion to many Tea-Party advocates. The difference being, that the Tea-Party has now picked up the ball that the Progressive movement has dropped and kicked around since Obama’s inauguration. The results of this are striking. We have the most liberal president since Jimmy Carter being thrashed at his own left-flank, confused swing voters attempting to reach for solutions that have yet to materialize with an economy in tatters. As the Left postures to preserve its ideology, its stance no longer resembles pragmatism, but rage. That rage has not equated to the sort of grassroots organizing seen in the 2008 election cycle, but that of a drowning victim thrashing in the waters of electoral defeat.

Electoral defeat is the primary reason why the Obama Administration will soon have its hands tied far more than the Left-Wing could have surmised. As Ezra Klein points out well, the gender and racial breakdown of the voting public between the 2008 Presidential Election and 2010 Mid-Term Election didn’t change significantly. The breakdown among voters ages 18-29 as well as those over 65 however, has proven to swing the nation this past year. Voters ages 18-29 went from 18 percent turnout in 2008 to just 11 percent in 2010, while seniors over 65 went from 16 percent to 23 percent in that same time. With the partisan swing in Congress coming to down to less than 10 percentage points and closely matching the turnout numbers among swing voters, Democratic strategists and organizers lost focus in the 2010 cycle, just as they had during the healthcare debate in 2009.

Copyright 2010 Creators Syndicate

From pundits such as Paul Krugman this criticism from the Left has gone from one of merit to that of hyberbole. For Krugman it has come to such an extent as to contradict his own economic theories in recent weeks. His recent comments on Obama’s tax-cut deal with congressional Republicans is but the tip of the iceberg.

But while raising taxes when unemployment is high is a bad thing, there are worse things. And a cold, hard look at the consequences of giving in to the G.O.P. now suggests that saying no, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, is the lesser of two evils.

Bear in mind that Republicans want to make those tax cuts permanent. They might agree to a two- or three-year extension — but only because they believe that this would set up the conditions for a permanent extension later. And they may well be right: if tax-cut blackmail works now, why shouldn’t it work again later?

America, however, cannot afford to make those cuts permanent. We’re talking about almost $4 trillion in lost revenue just over the next decade; over the next 75 years, the revenue loss would be more than three times the entire projected Social Security shortfall. So giving in to Republican demands would mean risking a major fiscal crisis — a crisis that could be resolved only by making savage cuts in federal spending.

Krugman’s analysis here only proves the truth of Republican victory in this year’s mid-term. The Republican’s will agree to a multi-year extension with unemployment benefits renewed in the process. Yes the G.O.P. is attempting a long-term starve the beast strategy with the tax-cuts in relation to the overall national debt, but history has proven that strategy will ultimately fail. President Reagan attempted a similar feat and only ended with a higher national debt and coming recession during the term of George H.W. Bush. Furthermore, the Clinton era proved that a healthy economy is possibly the only period by which the national debt and revolving deficits could be reversed. Raising taxes with high unemployment and a stagnant economy is not only bad, it is the most important issue in the current economic and political climate. Krugman has stepped away from his Keynesian roots and become an intellectual polemicist. Without the beginnings of a solid and sustained recovery, there is no second term for Obama. The Left and its pundits expect Obama’s chance at a second term will depend upon appeasing them. They couldn’t be more wrong.

In the political sphere, the expectations game is in constant flux. It really comes from time honored strategies of negotiation and compromise. Focus on what it is you want, aim high and frame the negotiation around false expectations, and bear down until you have compromised enough to hit the desired target. Its the long form of the traditional bidding process found in used car dealerships every day and it works, except when it doesn’t. The Left has created an expectations game for Obama that was never possible, even under ideal conditions. The prime example of this is the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy for gays in the military. While this policy is entirely immoral due to its requirements for deception, it has been around for decades and as such cannot be so easily dismantled. The congressional G.O.P. has been using a circular argument in relation to DADT even as the Secretary of Defense comes forth to recommend repeal. This stalling tactic now gives the G.O.P. the capability to stand firm and hold up any vote until January lest a lame-duck Congress can be convinced to act surreptitiously. As Secretary Gates suggests, all roads on this issue lead to Congress. The G.O.P. has stalled this vote brilliantly until after the mid-term at a time which the odds would favor their position. This example once again highlights the political storm that has arisen from the 2008 election. Just as the Left found itself on the rise, the Tea-Party movement came in as an equal reactionary force to stem the tide, thus proving Isaac Newton correct. The election of Obama served as an example that political movements from the ground up are still possible, but also created such high expectations from the Left combined with a reactionary conservative force making Obama’s agenda a truly up-hill battle. If the Left has any chance of pushing anything that resembles a liberal agenda forward, they must begin to unite over shared values and drop the rhetoric of slash and burn on their own party leadership.

 

 

 

 

 

Public Priorities and Tax Dollars

My recent blog debate over tax dollars and attendence to a seminar about youth issues has given rise to renewed thinking about how our tax dollars are derived and conversely, how they are spent.

Congressman Keith Ellison reminds me that a nation’s spending of public dollars is often a sign as to where its prioities lie. For this post I will desseminate the funding and justifications for the construction of TCFBank Stadium on the University of Minnesota Twin Cities Campus in Minneapolis. The ultimate cost of the stadium equalled approximately $288.5 million. 52% of this cost came from the University itself, while 48% came from the State of Minnesota to the tune of around $225 million. As retrieved from Minnesota Public Radio, this comes to about $10 million per year (with interest) for the states taxpayers over 25 years to the tune of a rough $1.7 million per game. As students at the U of M well know, a student fee of about $12.50 per semester has also been assessed to help fund TCFBank Stadium. Though much of the University’s costs for the new stadium have indeed been raised via private donations, a significant burden remains upon Minnesota taxpayers and students (who also pay taxes).

This link connects to the stadium’s official website where “you” unsurprisingly can still donate; http://stadium.gophersports.com/about_financing.html  

With every debate over such taxpayer funded projects, TCFBank Stadium proponants look to economics as the method of justifying such expense. These arguments often revolve around notions including lifting local businesses, preserving and/or creating jobs via said project, increasing the revenue base for local and state governments, etc. For the University itself, promotion and prestige are often cited as justifications. The two primary questions that arise out this mode of thinking truly come down to the economic stream and what is the primary function of a major public institution such as the University of Minnesota and does this project help or hinder in fulfilling that function?

The economic stream concerning these projects truly exists in a twofold manner. The first is a question of where would the economic activity surrounding this stadium be if it did not exist and the second is what are we sacrificing via public spending to have this project? The idea that TCFBank Stadium is somehow creating “brand new” revenue streams and “brand new” jobs is fallacious on its face. Without the existence of the stadium, potential patrons would spend money elsewhere, whether it be on bills, everyay items such as groceries, or another form of entertainment, all of which support an economic outcome somewhere (maybe not where policy makers or proponants would prefer) and synonomously would support jobs associated with those dollars where ever they may be spent. Projects such as stadiums don’t “print” currency for consumption or create new jobs where none existed, lest the folks at the Metrodome had nothing to do with running a stadium. Ultimately, such projects and expenditures simply move resources around and propel one industry over another.

The University of Minnesota purports to conform to a “Mission” that contains three principles including: Research and Discovery, Teaching and Learning, and Outreach and Public Service. With this “Mission” in mind, does the building of TCFBank Stadium match the educational as it is laid out? The University of Minnesota, like all similar public institutions, expounds a standard of education as its priority and primary function. The University of Minnesota may forgive my skepticism, but as the tuition rate has doubled in the past decade, and nearly $300 million was collectively spent on a new football stadium, this “Mission,” this priority of education, appears to be the ramblings of policy-makers more interested in prestige, than in Minnesota’s students and workforce.

In the Fall of 2009, the primary revenue scales at the University of Minnesota finally tipped toward the students, as student tuition now shoulders the greatest burden of the University’s overall operating budget. As tuition has double in a decade, student debt has also risen 157% in that time, making the University of Minnesota an institution now built primarily on the debt of its students. One wonders how much of that $225 or so million the state committed to TCFBank Stadium could have alleviated some of this burden at the least. Considering the University’s proposed operating budget for fiscal year 2011 is $1.53 billion, the state’s portion paid for the construction of TCFBank Stadium is equal to 6.8% of that budget . That’s no insignicant number and that puts at least one contributing number to what we and our students have sacrificed to provide a football stadium for our largest public institution. The true cost of this decision among many others, is the educational standards our great state once held and the opportunity to meet those standards by our students.