Topple the 1%? Really?

Topple the 1%, That’s Your Strategy?

The View from the Middle

I’m really tired of the new politics.  It seems as if politicians don’t even care about laying out a platform for what they think is good for America.  They are only looking for focus group tested slogans that will win them votes.  President Obama, for example, ran on “Hope and Change”.  Did anyone know what the heck that meant?  And, if what we have today is Hope and Change, I want the old days of Ronald Reagan back.

The latest lab tested catchphrase is “Topple the 1%”.  It appeals to anyone who hasn’t done well over the last six years.  These are people who are not working or who have seen their take-home pay reduced, and unfortunately that represents a lot of people these days.  Down deep they are angry, and they would love to find a punching bag they can use to take out their frustrations.  This slogan gives them that target.

And it would probably work in terms of closing the wealth gap, which I agree has gotten too large in the US.  If the 1% gets poorer and the 99% stays the same, the wealth gap will get smaller, but no one’s life would get any better.  In fact we would all probably be much worse off.

If Hillary, or any President, would decide that the way to close the wealth gap was to punish the 1% (which, by the way, I am not a part of) he or she would discovery some disturbing realities.  We would all find out that these 1%’ers spend a bunch of money that stimulates the economy. When that spending declines, so would the demand that stimulates the economy and creates jobs.

We would also find that these 1%’ers employ lots of people, and if our government would decide to penalize them, it would likely result in a reduction in the people they employ.  In the end we would all experience the wisdom of the old adage, “Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.”  But we must ask ourselves, why does anyone have to be punished to close the wealth gap?  Instead of pulling the top level of earners down, why don't we encourage things that will lift the lower 99% up?

For example, did you know that we have lost over 8 million manufacturing jobs in the United States since our peak in 1980?  And almost 6 million of that 8 million has been lost just since 2000.  Getting just half of these jobs back would cut our unemployment rate in half.

And these aren’t minimum wage jobs either.  The average manufacturing job in the United States is right at $20 per hour.  With just a little over time, that job will generate a nice $50,000 a year job for anyone who has it.  This would put $200 billion into the hands of American workers to be spent, thus stimulating the economy, and to be taxed, thus reducing our deficit.

The point is we need politicians who are looking to make people’s lives better – all people, not just the wealthy and not just the poor.  When we hear politicians talk about “toppling” anyone, we should be skeptical.  Their jobs should not be about hindering or hobbling anyone, even if that makes many of the rest of us feel better.  We need leaders who’s goal is to lift people up, and my example above is just a small piece of what could be done if we ever got Washington turned around.

So, don’t fall for the clever slogan.  Don’t listen to the focus group tested catchphrase.  Our votes should be aimed at putting positive people in Washington who are after all of our best interests.  We can reduce the wealth gap, but we need to do it by lifting up we the 99%’ers.

Ding Dong Harry Reid is Gone!

The View from the Middle

For me, 2016 can’t come soon enough, and it has nothing to do with the Presidential elections.  It’s because Harry Reid, the most divisive, dishonest, hypocritical person in Washington DC will be retiring.  And when you are the most divisive, dishonest and hypocritical person in DC, that qualifies you for the title of “most despicable” person worldwide.  In fact, the next Despicable Me animated movie may have to pay royalties to Dirty Harry.

So, you ask, what are his qualifications for this prestigious title?  First, He lied to Congress and the American people when he said that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for ten years.  This was certainly a distraction in the 2012 elections and may have cost Romney the Presidency.  Now, he not only admits his lie, but he actually seems to be proud of it?  To quote Dirty Harry, “Well, he didn’t get elected, did he?”  I guess Harry is suggesting that lying and cheating are fine as long as HE get’s his way.  Now that’s a lesson we want all of our children to learn, isn’t it?  Maybe Harry should write children’s books for the soon to be incarcerated. 

He’s also a world-class hypocrite.  Before he was the Majority Leader in the Senate, the Republicans suggested changing the filibuster proof voting rule in the Senate (60 of 100 votes to pass a bill).  Harry Reid screamed in agony and suggested that would be “the death of democracy” in the Senate.  So what did Dirty Harry do when he became the Majority Leader?  First, he used the reconciliation rule improperly to pass the most important legislation since Social Security, Obamacare.  He then actually changed the Senate rules to allow a simple majority vote to confirm judicial appointees.  I guess it’s only the death of democracy if someone else does it.

Finally, he is a top-notch bully and divider.  He ran the Senate for six years to intentionally eliminate or at least minimize the voice of the minority party.  He eliminated honest debate over huge issues and protected the President from having to choose between signing or vetoing bills by refusing to bring those bills up for votes.  And just recently he was asked what he thought of the Republican candidates for President, to which he answered, “I don’t care, they’re all losers.”  Now, doesn’t that sound like a guy who is willing to reach across the aisle and work for the good of the country?  And this guy was the majority leader?

Now Harry is retiring and doing the country a favor, but there are others who will gladly step in and replace Dirty Harry as “most despicable”.  Nancy Pelosi comes to mind.  She was already rivaling Harry in her position as Speaker of the House, before the country had the opportunity to boot her out of that position by putting a Republican majority in the House.  It took a national effort, however, to do something that the people of California just can’t figure out.

But the point of this piece is to remind the people of this country that we have to get rid of the extreme, partisan and uncompromising people in Washington.  And if we can’t get ourselves to vote these “high name recognition” idiots out of office, the best way to do it is through term limits.

We should limit Congressmen and women and Senators to 12 years in office.  That is six terms in the House and two terms in the Senate.  If these people can’t get their agenda accomplished in 12 years, it’s time they move on before they get corrupted by special interest groups and the absolutely obscene amounts of our money that they spend (squander).  Before term limits are in place, however, I encourage everyone to self-limit these extremists by voting them out of office.  Take back the power from these fringe nut cases and give it back to the people, which will enrich the lives of all Americans.

Don’t Connect Every Dot

The View from the Middle

“Connecting the dots” is a favorite game of people who are trying to predict the future and those who are trying to assign credit or blame for the past.  If you are searching for truth, it is an important game to play.  At Procter & Gamble, where I worked for 37 years, many people played this game in an attempt to learn from the past and thus predict the future more accurately in order to improve our decisions and improve the company’s profit.  The ability to truthfully connect the dots is an important skill to have in the business world.

I have found, however, that politicians have subverted the “connect the dots” process because they have changed the goal from “finding the truth” to “defending my position” no matter what.  You see, you can connect some dots that have no business being connected.  Let me give you an example that you have all probably heard before.  “The rooster crows in the morning and then the Sun comes up.”  This does not mean, however, that the first thing (the rooster crowing) causes the second (the Sun comes up).  These are two dots that should not be connected. 

There are many examples of inappropriate dot connecting going on in the world today, but I’m only going to talk about four.  The first I will call “The Obama administration credit grabbing dot connecting game”.  It goes like this – Barak Obama has been President for the past six years (a big dot) so if anything happens in this country that is good (stock market rises, oil production goes up, unemployment goes down), the President is the cause, or gets the credit.  They connect these dots even though they are often as inappropriate as the rooster and sunrise example given earlier.

For example, the Dow Industrial Average has more than doubled (actually increased about 150%) since its low in 2009.  That is a fact.  Obama has been President since 2009.  Should we connect these dots?  Not really.  There are other reasons for this dramatic improvement.  First, back in 2009, the Dow was severely oversold and undervalued, so the base or starting point is too low.  Second, interest rates have been ridiculously low since he has been in office so money is just seeking a reasonable return.  It is normal for the stock market to increase when interest rates are low and Obama has benefited from these rates throughout his Presidency, not caused them.

There are other reasons for the stock market improvement and even the general improvement of the economy, but none of them can be connected to the Obama dot.  President Obama has been one of the least “business friendly” Presidents in modern history.  His preference for regulation and control of everything from healthcare to the Internet actually works against the growth in the Dow and the economy in general.  These things have happened in spite of him, not because of him.  Do NOT connect these dots.

Global Warming, I mean climate change, is another area that is raining dots, literally and figuratively, that should not be connected.  The name change alone should send a signal that something is not right here.  The second signal that something is fishy in this debate is that Climate Change activists immediately try to shut down the debate by claiming that this is “settled science” and of course anyone who would even question their arguments is an idiot.  This is straight from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.  In fact, it is rule #5.  Ridicule your opponent. 

But I do question the Climate Change zealots.  You can put me in the agnostic group.  Is the world getting warmer?  I think so, although there is evidence that temperature readings have been tampered with (adjusted).  Are we the cause?  I’m not sure.  We have been through wide temperature swings for the past couple hundred thousand years.  Are we at the peak of one of those swings?  Will temperatures naturally fall, globally, as they have done in the past?  I don’t know.

Climate scientists will have to admit that our global climate system is ridiculously complex, and I would agree with them.  I would also suggest that predicting it accurately even in the short term, let alone the long term, is impossible given our current knowledge and expertise.  This is why all of their predictions have ended up wrong.  Al Gore guaranteed the polar ice caps would be totally gone five years ago.  New York should be underwater by now and millions of people should be migrating to cooler patches in the world due to droughts and famine.  Scandinavia and Siberia should be teaming with these immigrants, but they are not.

Whenever you mix politics with anything, even science, beware.  Today, we have too many scientists who are invested in their predictive models chumming up with too many politicians who only care about money and votes.  Al Gore was at least specific with his predictions, although he was dead wrong.  Now Climate Change enthusiasts have changed their approach.  They will tell you that if we don’t make the drastic changes now (carbon taxes, coal and oil regulations, etc.) that all hell with break loose in 100 years from now.  Of course, conveniently, they will all be dead, their predictions long forgotten, but their money still made and spent and invested today.  Convenient isn’t it?

I’m always comfortable when I align with Charles Krauthammer on any issue, and I do on this one.  Remember, the key to all of their argument is the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, which they connect to human activity.  Did you know that CO2 represents on .04% of our atmosphere now.  Not one percent.  Not even one tenth of a percent, but four hundredths of one percent.

Now, do I believe we should go around trashing the world?  Of course not.  We should be good stewards of this planet, but right now we should be having the debate and doing the research to make good decisions about our present and our future.  Should we be trying to figure out how to develop solar, wind, hydroelectric and even nuclear power safely and efficiently.  Yes, but that won’t happen by killing coal and oil today.  And, by the way, the United States is on the leading edge of global clean up.  Other huge polluters like China, Russia and India are clearly not as concerned about this issue.

The bottom line is, this is NOT settled science, and anyone who is trying to close down this debate is the true villain.  Don’t let them connect illogical dots.  We need real discussion of this issue and research before we create real pain, especially for the economically challenged, in the short and long term just to enrich the already powerful and wealthy.

Social issues also often lead to improper dot connecting, and this is largely done for political purposes.  If a person is pro-life, they will be labeled as a misogynist.  Abortion is a traumatic experience for everyone involved.  Obviously, it is catastrophic for the baby, but the mothers risk real physical, psychological and social problems.  And remember, at least half of abortions performed are ending the lives of female babies.  Anyone who is interested in reducing the number of abortions done in this country or this world can hardly be called a hater of women.

Likewise, there are some who protest the idea of having the government pay for every woman’s birth control choices.  This is not anti-woman, it is pro-choice.  Every woman should have the right to choose whatever contraceptive device she likes, but when you begin to ask others to pay for it, you begin to violate their right to their beliefs and their money.  Some, like the owners of Hobby Lobby, strongly oppose the use of abortifacient drugs, and even according to the Supreme Court, this right must be protected.  Others, like me, object to supplying all contraceptive devices no matter the financial resources available.  Why should we be buying Chelsea Clinton’s birth control pills, or any other rich person who has the resources to buy them on their own?  If the cost of birth control is a true hardship, I’m in favor of helping them out, just not everyone.

So, don’t connect these dots.  Politicians will try to turn us against each other even when our differences are minimal or nonexistent, and they are doing it for power and votes. 

And the final and maybe most insidious dot of all is the race card.  As we swore this President into office back in 2009, I thought we might have our best chance to make some real progress in race relations in America.  Unfortunately, that has not happened.  In fact, virtually every gauge would indicate that race relations have worsened under this President.  Why is that?

I believe a huge part of this deterioration comes from the defenders of our President and also our Attorney General.  The mainstream media often suggests that any disagreements with President Obama or Eric Holder are driven by prejudice.  It is as if no one can disagree with either man on the merits of any argument.

For the most part, the President allows his surrogates to imply that disagreement with him connects to the racist dot.  Eric Holder has actually suggested that “some” people disagree with him because of his race.  Of course, as he makes these statements, it allows his supporters to attach bigotry to every disagreement. 

Hiding behind race is wrong in so many ways, but I will mention three that are obvious to me.  First, it is wrong most of the time.  For example, I disagree with both of these men on many fundamental issues (size and scope of government, etc.) but it has nothing to do with the color of their skin.  Second, this approach drives a wedge between black and white Americans.  And finally, it camouflages real acts of racism.  Connecting these dots does not serve black America or white America.  It only divides us.

So, beware of the dot connecting game.  When you sense people (especially politicians) suggesting that one fact automatically leads to or is connected to another, be suspicious.  Is there a personal gain?  Does this connection serve to attack or diminish or demonize an opponent?  If the answer is yes, it may well be a case of inappropriate dot connecting.  It could be a case of the rooster and the sunrise all over again.

ISIS - Just don't call 'em ISIL

First, Call ‘em anything but ISIL

The View from the Middle

I’ve never seen a poll that asked if war is a good thing.  I would guess that 99% of people would agree that war is deplorable.  And I would be in that group.  War causes tremendous pain, especially to the millions of young men and women who do the fighting, and scars the warrior in more ways than one.

Unfortunately, as horrible as war is, it cannot always be avoided.  There will always be evil in the world and psychopaths like Hitler, Stalin and al-Baghdadi (leader of ISIS) who will gladly ask millions to die or commit unspeakable atrocities to advance their causes.  At such moments, our leaders must make the tough decision to confront.

I think most of the readers would agree that FDR did the right thing when he, along with Congress, involved us in WWII.  Actually, we had been “involved” for quite some time, even before we declared war on Japan.

Did we want war?  Absolutely not, but FDR recognized that evil, unchecked, would eventually impact us.  Evil then was Hitler and the Nazis.  Evil today is ISIS.  So, how does today’s challenge with ISIS compare to the situation we faced in the 1940’s?

Germany was a world power.  Hitler was cruel and brutal, but he and his party hid their most abhorrent acts from worldview, and Hitler never suggested that he would actually attack the continental US. 

By Comparison, I actually agree with President Obama that ISIS is (or at least was) the JV team.  They do not have the structure or resources that Germany had all those years ago, but to extend the metaphor, if the Lakers (us) just sit on the bench, the JV will win the game.

ISIS is, however, in my opinion even more evil than Hitler and the Nazi’s.  These people not only behead innocents and set people on fire, but they actually advertise their brutality.  They are proud of it and only hope that this blatant display of barbarism will deter countries from confronting them. 

They have also made it clear that they intend to bring their savagery to the United States.  They constantly chant “Death to America”, and Baghdadi himself has suggested that he will see us in New York.  While they are not the power that Germany was in 1940, they’re more evil and have made direct threats to the US.

This is why most Americans believe that, while we hate war, we must attack ISIS with the intent of eradicating them.  But what exactly does that mean?

First, we must stop arguing about what to call them.  Call them extremists.  Call them terrorists.  Call them Islamic Terrorists.  Call them ISIS.  I don’t care.  I wouldn’t call them ISIL however, because that is what they want and it is an aspirational title.  Google “The Levant” (the “L” in ISIL) to understand what that includes.  Even if the President insisted on calling them ISIL – Fine!  As long as we agree we need to kill them.

Next, while bombing will continue to be an important aspect to this war, I have long believed that we will need to put boots on the ground in Iraq.  ISIS is embedded in towns like Mosul, Tikrit and Fallujah.  We can’t bomb these entire cities.  We’d kill more innocents than terrorists.  The good news is; we know where they are.  They’re not hiding in caves these days.

Unfortunately, this means that our guys will have to go door to door in order to extricate these thugs. ISIS has 20 to 30 thousand soldiers.  We probably need to match that with US troops and get a like amount from our coalition partners like France, England, Germany, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others. 

And we need to act now while ISIS is still the JV.  I’ve heard we are attacking Mosul in April.  That’s great, I guess.  “That we are going”, is great.  “That I know about it already”, is disturbing.  I don’t think we mailed our plans for “D Day” to Hitler.  Please Mr. President, stop telling our enemies what we will and won’t do and when we will start and stop our efforts.

Finally, Congress needs to approve whatever AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) the President wants.  Some would argue that he already has all the authority he needs from the 2001 authorization given to President Bush.  I would at least encourage the President not to handcuff himself by putting a three-year limit on the AUMF or by using language like no “enduring ground troops”. 

We need to do whatever it takes to eliminate this evil from the world right now!!  No country in the world supports these goons: not Iran, not Saudi Arabia, certainly not Europe or us.  We can worry about jobs for the poor, young people throughout the world when ISIS is gone!  By the Way – the biggest deterrent for recruiting for ISIS is killing their existing membership.

Can't Kill our way out of war

Marie Harf, spokesperson for the State Department, said yesterday, "We can't kill our way out" of the war with ISIS.  That sounds so clever, it must be true.  She adds that it's about creating jobs for these young people, and we'll twitter them out of existence.

Sometimes these statements are as stupid as they sound.  The best deterrent for recruitment to ISIS is to   kill existing members.  Our inactivity or lack of resolve has gotten us to where we are today.  The Administration will call it "leading from behind", another clever sounding statement that is actually as ridiculous as it sounds.  What we need is Leadership.  Where is the modern dayWinston Churchill?  We need him desperately!

New Twitter effort

Guys and Gals,
Use this link @viewfrommiddle to follow me on twitter.  I'll be sending out a "thought of the day".  They should be short (of course), current and original.  Give me a try!!
Thanks,
Kevin C

Twitter Launch

Follow me on twitter as I launch my daily comment effort.  Today's comment, "ISIS still is the J-V, but if the Lakers just sit on the bench, the JV will win the game."