The Militant Moderate

We are frequently advised by issue advertisers to write our congressman or senator about such and such a point. The newsletters we receive, both welcomed and unwelcomed, urge us to write our representative or senator. We have become accustomed to this sort of thing nationally.

As a matter of practicality, it normally makes little sense for a citizen in Enid, Oklahoma, to write his senator or congressman. Why? It is because all of ours already have their minds made up on nearly every issue, and nobody but their party leadership will change their position. If you write a letter, you get a response utilizing their version of their party line.

Regardless of its uselessness, this writer does on occasion write a letter to his congresspersons.

Several years ago when President Bush and the republicans were pushing to privatize Social Security and invest our money in the stock market, I wrote a letter citing the distortion of statistics and scare tactics being employed and detailing reasons why privatization was a bad idea. In return, I received two-page form letters ignoring my points and giving me again the faulty statistics and faulty reasoning to which I had objected.

That Social Security issue is exemplary of the various issues about which we are told to write our congressperson. It is a useless activity because our senators and representatives do not listen to any opinions contrary to their party line.

Further, our congresspersons do not effectively represent consumers and average citizens. They represent pressure groups with axes to grind and money to lubricate the process. They represent the donor class of citizens. They represent voter blocs of single issue, special interest people with a desire to bend government for their own gain.

The average Oklahoma citizen with no pressure group or lobbying affiliation, and with only a few dollars to drop in the campaign collection boxes, has little representation in Congress. Our pleas will turn no heads nor reach any receptive ears.

But please allow the drawing of certain exceptions to the rule just laid out.

If I am a hard-shell conservative with right wing tendencies, my congresspersons are representing me well. If I am a rich businessman, desirous of maintaining tax loopholes, dispensations, or other ways of avoiding taxes, then our congresspersons represent me well. If I am a member of their party, and remain so in spite of obvious disregard of my personal interests, then they represent my views. If I have never stopped to think and analyze political agendas and actions, and was born into or sold the party line in the past, then they represent me.

But if I am a fiscally conservative but socially progressive citizen, nobody represents me. If I am a citizen with a social conscience who believes in caring for others in need through government, then nobody represents me. If I am one who doesn’t scare easily by use of terms like “socialist” or “liberal,” but who is concerned about the issues themselves, then I have no representation. If I am a “populist,” who puts common people first, then I am not represented.

It is doubtful that anyone has ever made a study of the above characteristics and the proportions of those represented and those not, but one might well suspect that something over half of the people living in Oklahoma have no real representation in congress – despite the vote tallies.

Finding this a probability, it gives cause for concern about democracy in our state and nation.

Money and special interests have corrupted our political system. Considering what a candidate must do, and how much of himself he must sell, in order to raise campaign funds, it is remarkable that we have an electoral system that works as well as it does.

But we could do better, and we must do better.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Spokespersons for the Republican Party, aided by their media pundits, have made great efforts to make Americans think that the Obama stimulus plan has failed. Is this true? If so, then what is the republican alternative plan for the solution of the economic recession that has gripped this nation?

In answering these questions let us begin with a recent media flap over a statement of Vice President Joe Biden in which he “spilled” the truth. “We, along with most economists, misread the seriousness of the situation last January,” he said. “It was a lot worse than we thought.”

Republicans jumped all over the “we misread” portion of this honest statement labeling it as an admission from the Obama administration that they bungled the handling of the economic emergency and the stimulus package. Biden was pictured as making a major gaffe. Maybe he did – he told the truth. That is foreign to some.

But if we put certain observations together, we come up with some understanding of the problem:
(1) The situation was indeed worse in January than either economists or the administration thought.
(2) The stimulus package was only half as much as economists thought was needed, and only three-quarters of what the administration requested. The reason – Congress would not pass a larger measure because republicans wouldn’t help.
(3) Only about a quarter of the stimulus money has actually been spent.

The job loss rate has been slowed. Unemployment has not increased as fast. Markets have gained back some ground. State governments have been saved. Oklahoma filled a catastrophic $630 million budget hole with stimulus funds from the package that our republicans continually criticize.

Until republicans began their hoopla about the stimulus failing and the doomsday talk of the increases in the national debt, consumer confidence was coming back. To some degree the republican talk must bear some responsibility for any failures in the working of the stimulus package. It is difficult to be positive when so many are so loudly shouting that the country is going to hell in a hand basket. Of course, their leaders have said they wanted Obama to fail.

Addressing republican charges about the deficit as an aside, it would take two stimulus packages the size of the one passed to equal the national debt added by the unnecessary Iraq War. It would take two and a half stimulus packages to equal the debt created by the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Those listening to the outcries of republicans should put these costs into perspective.

All things considered, it is too early to judge whether the stimulus has been successful or a failure. What is success? It is not too early to say that it has indeed been at least a partial success, as per the afore-mentioned results.

Now, what have the republicans offered as an alternative? Good question. Somewhat belatedly, they offered tax cuts. Tax cuts also cause deficit problems. So, what kind of tax cuts? Who benefits from those proposed? These are significant questions.

Tax cuts offered by republicans are these:
(1) A tax credit (write-off, not income deduction) for businesses investing in new equipment and facilities. This means the government really pays for these improvements. Businesses profit.
(2) Accelerated depreciation for current investments, meaning all these could be charged off income at a faster rate than now allowed. This means that the government loses tax money. Businesses profit.
(3) Doing away with corporate income taxes. Again, this means bigger profits for corporations.

The idea is that old disproven “trickle down” idea again. Tax cuts have a mild, but not sufficiently effective, stimulus to the economy. Economists and past experiences have disproven that voodoo plan. By far the greatest stimulus effect comes from placing money somehow into the hands of average consumers directly.

There might be better ways of putting money into consumers’ hands directly than the Obama administration’s efforts through infra-structure projects for jobs, aiding states in maintaining education and social services, “green” initiatives, and the like. If so, then the detractors of his plan need to come up with such ideas, not the old disproven notions of the past.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

No matter what your political views, it is difficult not to feel a little bit sorry for Sarah Palin. She has been in over her head, and she has not handled it well. She is not fully coherent in her speech and sounds confused.

Our would-be Vice President of these United States has been having a great deal of difficulty governing one of the smallest ones. Not only is she not ready for prime time, she has not been ready for the midnight shift. She is not doing well enough in the bush leagues to merit a major league call.

Of course, Sarah Palin does have a certain charm, and like one of our last presidents, she might be fun at a party. But let’s not get into a really serious discussion, or give her any complex assignment. She talks a lot about point guards, pit bulls, mavericks, and such. She also talks about being a fighter, but she can only handle the give and not the take.

Sarah quickly becomes a victim when countered. She has been characterizing herself this way ever since the latter part of the election. The Katy Couric interview, the thing about charging the clothes, trooper-gate, Tina Fey, seeing Russia, the ethics complaints, and all such have just been nasty, dirty enemies attacking her. She says that the “mainstream media,” which means all except Fox and the Murdoch papers, have mistreated her.

Well, one does tend to feel sorry for her, that is until one remembers that she came into the national political game calling herself a pit bull with lipstick and unabashedly attacking her opponents with lies and half-truths. She seemed to relish her role until things began to come back at her.

News people began to check her background and her record. Although a brief record, there were already ethical and legal allegations against her. She dismissed these then, and does so now, with a naïve nonchalance.

If any public official in Oklahoma, state or local, had made the travel claims for one’s self and family, or collected per diem at home as she has, that person would be off to prison, or maybe just hanged. Either she did not know what was legal and what was ethical, or she did not care. One or the other would be an indictment against her suitability for public office.

Although Sarah Palin does have that certain charm, it does not speak well for those Americans who take her seriously as a person ready for high office. This has been difficult for thinking people to understand. What does it say for that 20% or so who still consider her a potential presidential candidate?

Sarah Palin, the pit bull fighter, has quit as Alaska’s governor after just over half of her term. In a less than coherent, rambling statement she “explained” her reasons. It was the harassment of ethics and legal complaints and legal bills. It was the need to be a mother and family person. It was the mistreatment of the mainstream media. It was not be a lame duck during the second half of her four-year term, and the good of Alaska. It was to be free to do good for the people of Alaska outside of government. It was a need to be free to speak her mind.

It is difficult to discern her real reasons from listening to her talk, but we can make some guesses. We will proceed to do so.

First, the ethics and legal complaints are potentially serious and could lead to her ouster from office. All these will not go away, but could be diminished. Second, she cannot stand the heat from political controversy, and she is a bit lost in the seriousness of her present job. She wants to escape from it.

But there is a more significant reason to which she alluded in only an oblique way.

Sarah Palin is a hot ticket right now. She draws attention; she draws crowds. She is smart enough to know that the limelight fell upon her suddenly, and that it could dissipate rather quickly. If she doesn’t go out now and take advantage of her status, the opportunity may be lost by the time she is free of office. She cannot make the big bucks for personal appearances while she holds office.

Sarah will soon be available to book for corporate and organizational events for a fee of perhaps $25,000 or more. It is the same kind of motivation that led Blake Griffin and Adrian Peterson to jump from collegiate to pro ranks at the end of sophomore and junior years in college. It is the cornerstone of the capitalistic system – money.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Headlines in the newspapers this week read: “California Issues IOU’s.” We are told that in meeting its obligations in salaries and other bills, California is issuing IOU’s because they do not have the money in the treasury to pay checks. Since that cannot be done in state government in Oklahoma and most other states, this becomes a news-making anomaly of our times.

(In the case of an Oklahoma shortfall in revenue, the state agencies are automatically reduced by that percentage unless the legislature meets and decides otherwise. We cannot run budget debt in Oklahoma; borrowing is only through bonding.)

These “IOU’s” are technically called “warrants.” That means they may be presented for payment when and if there is money in the treasury to pay them. Warrants usually carry a modest interest rate.

While warrants may be new to most, they are not beyond the personal experience of some of us who worked in the public schools many years ago. When this writer was employed for the first time in public schools as a junior high principal back in 1949, we received warrants instead of checks.

These warrants were boldly labeled NON-PAYABLE across the top. Of course, this tended to shake up the newcomers a bit.

The superintendent carefully explained to us that these were warrants and not checks, and that meant the school district might not yet have enough anticipated tax collections to pay those. He assured us that there would indeed be enough money there to pay us. He explained that we could readily cash them at the local bank for the full amount, but that some other businesses might not take them or would charge a discount off their value.

These warrants carried a 6% interest rate, and the local bank collected and held them. Eventually the bank was paid the amount plus accumulated interest at a competitive rate. Warrants were a way of financing public business in reasonable expectation that taxes would be coming.

During the Great Depression, warrants were used extensively. Frequently, the taxes coming in were not sufficient to pay the warrants. In those days, banks or well-to-do investors would buy up the warrants at a deep discount to compensate for the risk.

The losers were the salaried people and vendors who served the schools. The discounts were on their salaries and bills. Thus, a teacher with a contract for $75 per month might actually receive only $50 with no later recourse. On the other hand, the bank might eventually receive their $50 plus an amount not exceeding the face value plus interest. It depended on the taxes actually collected that year as a percent of that needed to pay all the bills.

The warrant system may not be the rule now in schools, and warrants are so sound that they have been viewed as checks. But the history is there, right in our own state.

Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate