The Militant Moderate

Once termed the Manic-Depressive psychosis, the popular term for the wild swings of mood is now Bi-polar Disorder. Those of us who have been closely associated with politics because of our careers in public service know the syndrome. Also familiar with the feelings of up and down are those public spirited citizens who actively involve themselves in public issues as a part of the functioning of a great democracy. All those who are interested enough to follow candidates and political events in the news are also afflicted to some degree.

The feelings of high and low have been described as the ecstasy of victory and the agony of defeat, and these occur regularly in the political arena. Following the recent Massachusetts election, the moods of people in large segments of the nation’s population have been gleeful excitement or momentary despair. So it is for all those who invest of themselves in our democratic processes.

Of course, there has been an avalanche of criticisms and blame pointing following the loss in Massachusetts. Probably some of it has some measure of validity. Likewise, there has been considerable credit-claiming for the republican win. Again, perhaps some of that has some merit. Certainly, republicans have been jubilant and democrats despondent. This is revealing of an unfortunate bi-polar chasm dividing our country. The depth and the width of that divide are unhealthy, as is the intensity of feelings on both sides.

Blame and credit may appear to be two opposites, each excluding the other. That is, if certain persons, trends, or happenings are really granted full credit for winning a contest or an election, then there is little room for blame in accounting for the result. Conversely, if there is a high level of blame to be placed or shared, then there is little room for credit on the opposite side. Taking these positions, the republicans, and the candidate himself, are taking entirely too much credit for their Massachusetts win. Likewise too much blame is being placed upon the democrat candidate, her party, etc.

But normally there is some degree of both credit and blame to attribute, and perhaps other significant causative factors not readily classified as either.

For instance, exactly how much of the 5% difference in the vote is actually due to gender bias? Nobody knows, of course. Might one guess that at least 5% of the electorate in Massachusetts thinks that women do not make as strong senators as do men? We would be inclined to bet on that in Oklahoma. If so, then therein lies the difference in the election, and neither bragging nor blame casting can be fully justified.

There are those who say the woman was not an aggressive campaigner and a weak candidate. But there are also those who point to the winner as a relative unknown, confident to the point of swagger, shallow, and given to coarseness of language and manner. But one ran as an anti-government candidate while the other was perceived as being pro-government. Rightly or wrongly, half or more of the electorate in this country is now displeased with the functioning of its representative government.

Over and over, we heard the winning candidate and citizen backers interviewed saying, “Send a message to Washington.” The questions of concern are: “Just what is the message being sent, and is it being carried by the right kind of delegate?”

If we are dissatisfied with our government, just exactly what did we want them to do different? Are we unhappy with Mr. Obama renewing our status in the world? Are we unhappy with Mr. Obama for pulling the financial industry, and the nation itself, back from the brink of the abyss? Are we really unhappy with the democrats for passing the stimulus package, with no republican help, to try to put the economy back on track and save jobs? Did we not want them to do these things? If not, what did we want?

Okay, lots of folk have been led to think that we are spending too much and increasing the deficit too much. They want to stop that. So, let us then ask: “Are the republicans noted for spending less and having smaller deficits?” The last president added to the deficit by cutting taxes for the rich while spending an extra $1.3 trillion in Iraq that we did not have. No emergency required either act. The last big deficit booster before that was Ronald Reagan. By contrast, the last democrat president balanced the budget before his term was finished.

That message then is flawed, indicating a distorted public perception or an ignorance of the facts. What about the health care reform issue? A lot of folks say they are mad about health care reform and how it is going to run up the deficit, cut Medicare, and tax their benefits. At least, that is much of what is left of distortions if we omit the accusations of “death panels” to kill off grandma and similar lies. But the fact remains that when the major features of the health care reform effort are taken separately in polls, an overwhelming proportion favors most.

It appears that lots of average people out there, about 80% or so with health insurance now, are feeling insecure about changes. They have been led to believe that health care reform threatens them. And, just who has been leading them to think that? Obviously, they have received and believed the message from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the tea-baggers, rowdy town halls, and the republican leadership. And, they may have also listened to the various special interest groups that have spent millions of dollars in advertising their distortions of proposals for health care reform.

While these beliefs give rise to negative, although invalid, messages for the party which is ostensibly in control, there may be another, less well articulated message that is being sent to Washington. “We are sick and tired of a representative government that is dysfunctional and does not work for us,” they say. This is the message that needs to be heeded by democrats in Washington.

Republicans in Congress have refused to vote for any of the change agenda, or the necessary corrective measures, on which the new president was swept into office. As a result of the obsolescent rules of the Senate, a super-majority of 60 is necessary to do anything. Consistently voting as a block, while democrats have not, republicans have succeeded in consistently obstructing the will of the majority. The health care deliberations have been a disaster, prolonged and prolonged. They have tried every maneuver.

Some democrats, in their arrogance or selfishness, have been obstructionists to their party’s goals and efforts to move legislation through. These party rebels have caused the entire party to be perceived as being unable to govern. Much of the frustration of the people has been fairly or unfairly focused on the president and on the democratic congress. Of this, the congress is guilty, and they deserve to be flagellated for their conduct.

But do we really think that the obstructionist party of negativism can do a better job? How would we know, except by history? They have not had a program of their own, except to be against everything being tried to save the country in times of economic trouble. Their last stint in control was nothing but trouble, flaunting of the law, unnecessary deficits, and the setting the stage for economic disaster. Would we really be better off with them?

The people may be saying to the Congress, “Do something! Stop playing politics and do something. We had an election that mandated change. Let’s see change. You democrats have been bickering and not doing your job.”

It will be most unfortunate if the democratic congress fails to get this message. If instead they get the message, “We are anti-government, anti-spending, anti-health care reform. We are going to defeat you in the next election if you do not back off on the Obama agenda and give in to the bullies and nay-sayers.”

From what we hear, we are prone to think that the democrats are getting the wrong message.

Once termed the Manic-Depressive psychosis, the popular term for the wild swings of mood is now Bi-polar Disorder. Those of us who have been closely associated with politics because of our careers in public service know the syndrome. Also familiar with the feelings of up and down are those public spirited citizens who actively involve themselves in public issues as a part of the functioning of a great democracy. All those who are interested enough to follow candidates and political events in the news are also afflicted to some degree.

The feelings of high and low have been described as the ecstasy of victory and the agony of defeat, and these occur regularly in the political arena. Following the recent Massachusetts election, the moods of people in large segments of the nation’s population have been gleeful excitement or momentary despair. So it is for all those who invest of themselves in our democratic processes.

Of course, there has been an avalanche of criticisms and blame pointing following the loss in Massachusetts. Probably some of it has some measure of validity. Likewise, there has been considerable credit-claiming for the republican win. Again, perhaps some of that has some merit. Certainly, republicans have been jubilant and democrats despondent. This is revealing of an unfortunate bi-polar chasm dividing our country. The depth and the width of that divide are unhealthy, as is the intensity of feelings on both sides.

Blame and credit may appear to be two opposites, each excluding the other. That is, if certain persons, trends, or happenings are really granted full credit for winning a contest or an election, then there is little room for blame in accounting for the result. Conversely, if there is a high level of blame to be placed or shared, then there is little room for credit on the opposite side. Taking these positions, the republicans, and the candidate himself, are taking entirely too much credit for their Massachusetts win. Likewise too much blame is being placed upon the democrat candidate, her party, etc.

But normally there is some degree of both credit and blame to attribute, and perhaps other significant causative factors not readily classified as either.

For instance, exactly how much of the 5% difference in the vote is actually due to gender bias? Nobody knows, of course. Might one guess that at least 5% of the electorate in Massachusetts thinks that women do not make as strong senators as do men? We would be inclined to bet on that in Oklahoma. If so, then therein lies the difference in the election, and neither bragging nor blame casting can be fully justified.

There are those who say the woman was not an aggressive campaigner and a weak candidate. But there are also those who point to the winner as a relative unknown, confident to the point of swagger, shallow, and given to coarseness of language and manner. But one ran as an anti-government candidate while the other was perceived as being pro-government. Rightly or wrongly, half or more of the electorate in this country is now displeased with the functioning of its representative government.

Over and over, we heard the winning candidate and citizen backers interviewed saying, “Send a message to Washington.” The questions of concern are: “Just what is the message being sent, and is it being carried by the right kind of delegate?”

If we are dissatisfied with our government, just exactly what did we want them to do different? Are we unhappy with Mr. Obama renewing our status in the world? Are we unhappy with Mr. Obama for pulling the financial industry, and the nation itself, back from the brink of the abyss? Are we really unhappy with the democrats for passing the stimulus package, with no republican help, to try to put the economy back on track and save jobs? Did we not want them to do these things? If not, what did we want?

Okay, lots of folk have been led to think that we are spending too much and increasing the deficit too much. They want to stop that. So, let us then ask: “Are the republicans noted for spending less and having smaller deficits?” The last president added to the deficit by cutting taxes for the rich while spending an extra $1.3 trillion in Iraq that we did not have. No emergency required either act. The last big deficit booster before that was Ronald Reagan. By contrast, the last democrat president balanced the budget before his term was finished.

That message then is flawed, indicating a distorted public perception or an ignorance of the facts. What about the health care reform issue? A lot of folks say they are mad about health care reform and how it is going to run up the deficit, cut Medicare, and tax their benefits. At least, that is much of what is left of distortions if we omit the accusations of “death panels” to kill off grandma and similar lies. But the fact remains that when the major features of the health care reform effort are taken separately in polls, an overwhelming proportion favors most.

It appears that lots of average people out there, about 80% or so with health insurance now, are feeling insecure about changes. They have been led to believe that health care reform threatens them. And, just who has been leading them to think that? Obviously, they have received and believed the message from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the tea-baggers, rowdy town halls, and the republican leadership. And, they may have also listened to the various special interest groups that have spent millions of dollars in advertising their distortions of proposals for health care reform.

While these beliefs give rise to negative, although invalid, messages for the party which is ostensibly in control, there may be another, less well articulated message that is being sent to Washington. “We are sick and tired of a representative government that is dysfunctional and does not work for us,” they say. This is the message that needs to be heeded by democrats in Washington.

Republicans in Congress have refused to vote for any of the change agenda, or the necessary corrective measures, on which the new president was swept into office. As a result of the obsolescent rules of the Senate, a super-majority of 60 is necessary to do anything. Consistently voting as a block, while democrats have not, republicans have succeeded in consistently obstructing the will of the majority. The health care deliberations have been a disaster, prolonged and prolonged. They have tried every maneuver.

Some democrats, in their arrogance or selfishness, have been obstructionists to their party’s goals and efforts to move legislation through. These party rebels have caused the entire party to be perceived as being unable to govern. Much of the frustration of the people has been fairly or unfairly focused on the president and on the democratic congress. Of this, the congress is guilty, and they deserve to be flagellated for their conduct.

But do we really think that the obstructionist party of negativism can do a better job? How would we know, except by history? They have not had a program of their own, except to be against everything being tried to save the country in times of economic trouble. Their last stint in control was nothing but trouble, flaunting of the law, unnecessary deficits, and the setting the stage for economic disaster. Would we really be better off with them?

The people may be saying to the Congress, “Do something! Stop playing politics and do something. We had an election that mandated change. Let’s see change. You democrats have been bickering and not doing your job.”

It will be most unfortunate if the democratic congress fails to get this message. If instead they get the message, “We are anti-government, anti-spending, anti-health care reform. We are going to defeat you in the next election if you do not back off on the Obama agenda and give in to the bullies and nay-sayers.”

From what we hear, we are prone to think that the democrats are getting the wrong message.

It seems that our news media are so often obsessed by the trivial. One would think that may be so because their audiences are so attentive to trivia. This is partially true, of course, especially if the trivia deals with celebrities in the sports or entertainment worlds. But then the media are frequently given to continuing binges on topics which have long lost their appeal to audiences, sometimes to the point of ad nauseam.

Just recently we have been fed daily updates and expansions upon such super significant happenings as the amorous dalliances of our golf hero, Tiger Woods. Can anyone truly say that he/she did not have more than enough of that coverage on round the clock television for days?

We understand that celebrity status, or that of a “public figure,” apparently gives all of us the privilege to pry into every nook and cranny of their lives, including the personal and private. Further, since we cannot look into all those nooks ourselves, we reward journalists and paparazzi who will serve as our proxies and do this prying for us, so that we may enjoy the vicarious satisfaction brought to us by the media.

Even the most avaricious among us tire of these stories, however, often long before the media sensationalism dies away.

As the Tiger story was on the wane, and just before the terrible disaster in Haiti crowded other stories out of the media spotlight, we were overdosed with media concerns about such inconsequential matters as a two-year old quotation from an off-the-cuff conversation with Senator Reid.

It seems that the senator spoke in a complimentary way about Barack Obama to somebody back early in the last presidential election cycle. In a bad choice of words, he remarked that Barack was a lighter black person and spoke fluently, and that he might well succeed in the presidential race. That comment was not offensive to Mr. Obama, and he dismissed it immediately. Other prominent black people did so as well. It seemed that perhaps the only black person offended was the chairman of the Republican Party. Of course, all of the white republicans on television were offended as well.

Although we understand the significance of the publicly spoken and the printed word, and the nuances of language frequently encountered, it appears that we do tend to make a bit much from the gaffes and goofs of public figures. We are prone to say, “Oh, let it alone. Let it lie there.” Or, we may want to say to some pundits, critics, and commentators, “Get a life!”

Of considerable more consequence and concern are the polls that indicate that Mr. Obama has a low approval rating among white people, although it is still around the 50% mark generally. Further, in some polls of white people, even George W. Bush was rated above Mr. Obama as a good president. These obscure findings are of real concern, downright disturbing to some, and they deserve further study and investigation.

Another triviality making the news cycle recently was the employment of Ms. Sarah Palin as a “contributor” to Fox News channel. Wow! Big news! Highly unexpected! It was a good fit. Her first remark set the tone for credibility, remarking that she was happy to join a news network priding itself on its “fair and balanced” approach. Nobody is that naïve.

Again, the unfortunate aspect of this event would be if it were not trivial. The scary part is that this woman is viewed as a viable candidate for high office by 35% of those polled. Of course, she has high negatives and no credibility with the other 65%.

Another of our celebrity trivia stories from the world of entertainment is the broo-ha-ha over late night television programs and schedules. This controversy has endured over too many news cycles. Although we probably have all or most of the facts at this time, the story seems to continue. In case there are any who don’t know that situation, allow me to recapitulate.

Everything was going along pretty well on late night TV, with Jay Leno usually winning the ratings battle against the late network news and fellow comedian, David Letterman. Conan Obrien was popular among a younger, late, late audience. Some dunce at NBC says, “Let’s keep Conan happy and promise him Leno’s time slot in five years.” The five years lapses, so they push Leno out, even though his show is still winning the ratings. Instead, they give him a consolation prize of an experimental earlier hour in prime time.

Then all Hades breaks loose.

Adult audiences move away from Conan’s show in droves, mostly moving to Letterman. Conan’s show goes down the ratings tube. Similarly, Leno’s prime time show is beaten out badly. NBC affiliates all across the country lose carryover audiences from the Leno hour, and their late news ratings sink along with their profits. Nobody is happy.

So, now they are trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Good luck!

From where this one observer sits and opines, Conan’s show is juvenile and silly. Jay Leno’s show monologues were mixed between being funny, coarse, and vulgar. He was preoccupied with sex, shock language, and with denigrating political, sports, and entertainment figures in a cruel, unfunny way. Letterman is usually humorously entertaining, although sometimes silly and repetitive. His much publicized foibles hurt not at all.

But most of us are unlikely to get worked up over all their petty, emotional affairs, not much caring who occupies the time slots at NBC. Although curiosity abating, extensive media coverage is unlikely to incite us to any drastic behavior.

One supposes that news on TV would not be nearly as lively and interesting, to say nothing of spicy, without some attention to lighter matters, insignificant in the great world of life changing events for millions. But it does appear at times that both we and our media tend to become somewhat myopic in our outlook on what is important. One might also say that our media may at times become narcissistic in coverage of its own.

If our media truly do tend to mirror the society they serve, as is often said, then maybe we need to do a little self-evaluation in our critical appraisal.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Too often today’s television news channels are simply a cacophony of critics. Participants vie for attention and air time, and those who are the rudest and the loudest win. Moderators consistently reach for criticism, rather than honest discussion about governmental, educational, business or any other leadership issues in our society. TV news anchor cynics demand that everybody must be either a critic or an apologist.

Controversy is too often the goal. They think that “sells.” Few seem to be really into valid information dissemination, which the “communications” industry is supposed to be about.

News channel programming and issue discussions don’t have to be a cacophony. Nor does a news channel have to be utterly partisan like Fox in order to avoid the constant harangue of arguments between guest partisans like CNN has too often become, in their effort to be “balanced.” There has to be a better way. And, its focus needs to be on honest coverage of news events and information about issues – not one-sided partisanship, and not a cacophony.

Recently, this writer visited a friend in his home. His family name is easily recognizable in Oklahoma politics. We are of different political persuasions, but we often have cordial and interesting discussions of state and national affairs. Of course, I could not but notice on entering the room that the television set was on the Fox News Channel. In a way, that accounts for many of our differences.

Quite often, my friend’s strategy in initiating a political discussion is to raise a question in a manner that implies that I might possess significant knowledge of that subject.

It was not too long until he began raising questions about the health care bill in Congress. Noting that nearly everyone seems to be against the health bill, he asked if I knew what was in it and why everybody was mad about it. That was a good question. I wish I could have answered it well. I doubt I did.

First, I said that it was not final, and nobody really knew for sure what would end up in it, so some attacks were irrelevant. Then I said that not everybody is against it, and most people actually favor the main provisions when polled on those separately and non-politically. However, some television channels, and certain special interest advertisers, had been very busy telling people that it was bad, and that they should be against it.

If anything is actually said in those ads about what is in the bill, then that is frequently misrepresented. A prime example is reforming Medicare hurting old people to save money. Actually the principal reform is to eliminate a 20% subsidy paid to private insurers in a Bush era effort to privatize Medicare with an experimental plan – saving around $400 billion over the next ten years.

On the other hand, I noted that we have a lot of folk telling us that it is good for us all, but usually mentioning only a few features over and over. Not much is said about the details, nor about the methods of financing to avoid increasing deficits. I said that we needed to communicate more real information about the bill. However, it is difficult to communicate too much about details of a bill that is not finalized yet. Likewise, it is a little early to condemn it.

Finally, I did try to name a half-dozen or so provisions of the senate bill. I pointed out that it was hard for anybody to be against those, and that most people are not actually against them. Then I mentioned financing proposals having to do with surtaxes on incomes of $250,000 a year or more (House version), and taxes on gold-plated benefits programs (Senate version) for high paid managers and for members of some unions -- amounting two or three times ordinary family health insurance premiums.

I suggested that it was from those business and corporate sources, plus the insurance industry, that much of the money came to pay for all the negative advertising against health care. Money corrupts politics, and it buys politicians, I said. Of course, the opposition party has simply been against any progressive proposal of any kind, and their leadership has sought to politicize health care reform negatively at every opportunity.

In due course in our conversation, he asked what I thought could be done. I replied that nothing can be done with such deplorable situations until we get the money out of elections and finance campaigns totally with public money and conscripted air time from electronic media. The McCain-Feingold bill in its base form would have helped, but it was contaminated with loopholes and rendered ineffective.

We had a good, healthy discussion. Nobody got angry. Nobody’s feelings were hurt. We parted cordially, and we look forward to another visit. That is as it should be.

On the subject of corruption of politics with money, there is a so-called “free speech” case now before the United States Supreme Court. It is being taken there by wealthy individuals and by corporations who claim that their “free political speech” is being unconstitutionally limited by laws limiting their campaign contributions and political spending. Some of us fear the conservative Supreme Court may be about to rule out all limitations on political contributions and spending. More money – more corruption!

God help our democracy if that happens!

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Week after week and month after month of this fiscal year, the Oklahoma media outlets have been filled with the news of revenue shortfalls and cuts in agency budgets. These reports have been followed by stories of the crisis in state services as a result of these budget shortfalls.

Schools and colleges have been faced with first 5% cuts in state funding and now with 10% cuts. Other state agencies and services such as corrections, mental health, social services for children, public safety, Medicaid, and even nutrition programs for the elderly have all made similar cuts. Some have furloughed employees; others have simply reduced services to clients in need.

The republican leader of the Oklahoma State Senate says that he looks upon this calamity as an “opportunity” to clean up state operations and bring more efficiency to state government. Heavenly Days! This is like the captain standing on the deck of the sinking ship, while crew and passengers slide into the water, and shouting, “Take courage, me hearties, we will be better off for all this!”

It is interesting how our media and politicians seem to blame only the economic downturn for our state revenue crisis. No one puts two and two together, it seems. There are bothersome inconsistencies in publicized reports of state economic data which should alert any thoughtful analyst.

As of now, Oklahoma is reported to have the worst revenue shortfall, relative to size, of any state in the country. Yet our economy has been reported to be one of the least affected by the recession.

Does anyone remember all those reports which said that the Oklahoma economy has not been nearly as badly damaged by the recession as the economies of other states? Has anyone looked at reported unemployment statistics in Oklahoma compared to other states? Has anyone noticed that our unemployment rate is one of the lower ones?

Has anyone wondered how Oklahoma’s economy can look relatively good compared with other states, have lower unemployment rates, and yet have the worst revenue shortfall problem in the country? Look no further. The answer is really not all that difficult.

Our current revenue shortfall is something around $900 million to a billion. Tax cuts by the Oklahoma legislature from 2004 through 2006 amounted to a total annual reduction in revenue of about $845 million. In 2008 some further tax breaks were given.

It is easy to see that Oklahoma would not be suffering such severe budget cuts today if the legislature had not been shortsighted and reckless with its earlier tax cuts. There would be a bit of a problem, but it would be a relatively minor one to handle. Retrenchment, if any, would be back to a higher base level.

So, let’s quit blaming the recession for everything, and start putting responsibility where it belongs – on the crowd-pleasing, fiscal foolishness of our own state legislature.

Another perplexing observation is how so many of our state political leaders, media, and citizens are so ready to criticize national spending in the recession stimulus package. They are ignoring the fact that those stimulus funds have already saved the State of Oklahoma from utter and complete disaster. Without federal stimulus funds we would already be nailing plywood on a lot of school house windows and public offices, shutting down roads and bridges, and turning convicts loose.

Why are we in Oklahoma so reluctant to give credit where it is due and place responsibility where it belongs?

Now, one would think that since those tax cuts have done the state’s finances so much harm, then surely they must have done somebody some good. Right? Well, yes. But perhaps we should look to see who benefited.

Cuts made in state income tax rates reduced revenue a total $579 million per year. Those in the lower 40% (under $28,000 income) of Oklahoma families received a cut averaging $29. Middle income families ($28,000 to $36,000) received savings of $128. The upper 1% received annual cuts of $11, 200.

How was the $579 million split proportionally among taxpayers? Which taxpayers walked off with all those tax cut dollars in their pockets? Well, 29% of those dollars, $169 million to be precise, went to the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. The predominant part of the money, a whopping $423 million, went to the top 20% of taxpayers. The bottom 40% of families ended up with just $17 million of those tax cut dollars. Surely, that is of some concern. The rich get richer, and state services get cut.

Disregarding inheritance tax cuts, the second largest source of revenue reduction has been the increase in the standard deduction for taxpayers. When fully implemented, this will total $266 million a year in cost. While one might surmise that this would really benefit lower and middle income people most, it has not turned out exactly so. Of this $266 million some 60% goes to the upper 40% of taxpayers, and conversely 40% to the lower 60%. Not exactly a level playing field there either, it seems.

So, who has benefitted from Oklahoma tax cuts of the last few years? Obviously, the wealthier among us, who would presumably not be greatly hurt at all by paying those taxes, have been the big winners.

Who are the losers in all this? That is easy -- everyone who lives here or utilizes state services is a loser. Every state career worker has a problem. Every school kid is facing austerity. Every family with a college age student is looking at increased tuition, or maybe just passing up higher education. The prison system is in disarray, and becoming ever more hazardous to inmates and possibly the public. Abused and neglected children are left to be abused and neglected. The mentally ill are on the streets with no medication. Old people on Medicaid will be rationed on nursing home entry. The state’s credit rating could go bad, if it fails to support pension systems and honor bond payments from pledged present revenue. Yes, all these and more.

It is easy and popular with nearly everybody to cut taxes. This certainly endears the politicians with the richer, campaign donor class they love so much. But legislative profligacy in tax cuts has its deleterious effects on significant state services. The proof is here and now.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate