Tag Archives: politics

My absentee ballot arrived: time to do my duty

Posted on by
9

On Friday, my overseas voter absentee ballot arrived from the Election Board of Johnson County, Kansas, where I am registered. I have the option of responding by email, fax, or mail. I have the right to vote as a citizen, even if I live overseas. And I have a duty to exercise that right. Here is my rationale why I will vote for Joe Biden for President. You are welcome to agree or disagree and, hopefully, you will exercise your right to vote your conscience if you are a United States citizen. I just want to share my rationale in case it helps anyone else sort out their own mind.

A candidate should be evaluated on two things: their position or accomplishments on issues and their character. The domestic issues that most matter to me are the economy, healthcare, and how we are progressing towards our founding promise of all people being equal. The foreign policy issues that matter most to me are security, diplomacy/international relations and climate change.

Let’s look at President Trump and Vice President Biden on these issues, considering their position and accomplishments:

The economy – the extent to which a President deserves credit for the economy is debatable, but let’s assume that they do for the sake of this argument. Until the pandemic arrived, President Trump’s economy was going gangbusters, building off an economy that began growing under President Obama after his administration inherited the Great Recession and turned things around. Vice President Biden had a major role in managing that recovery. Jobs creation under President Trump continued at roughly the same pace as it did under President Obama. However, there are now almost five million fewer Americans with jobs than when President Trump took office. The only part of the economy seemingly doing well now, is the stock market, which seems completely out of whack and benefits mainly the wealthy. “But it is because of COVID!” you might say. Well, if you want to take credit for the good times, you have to take responsibility for the bad times. And right now, the economic times are pretty bad.

President Trump led the renegotiation on NAFTA and has challenged China on trade issues, which were the right things to do, but have brought about seemingly little benefit. Especially on the China trade war, it has resulted in significant tariffs for imports which American consumers will pay and the recent attacks on specific technology companies seems poised to divide the world into two technological spheres, which will ultimately be bad for American companies and workers. President Trump continues to make promises about bringing back jobs in industries such as steel-making that are hollow and out of touch promises. President Trump’s tax cuts enlarged already historic economic inequality. While acknowledging that the Obama/Biden administration’s approach to China – hoping that by engaging them, the Chinese government would become more open and more democratic – was not successful, Vice President Biden’s economic positions seem better-placed to create economic growth for everyone, not just the wealthy.

My conclusion on the economy? President Trump rode a upwards wave, cut taxes for the wealthy, and has expanded the deficit. His approach is not sustainable. Vice President Biden will ultimately create more jobs and an economy which benefits everyone, not just the stockholders.

Healthcare – Here, the decision seems especially clear. Under the Obama administration, Vice President Biden helped enact the Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or “Obamacare” as Republicans dubbed it). This brought healthcare coverage to millions of Americans and is now very popular. President Trump has continued to attack the ACA and has continually promised to present his alternative, and missed his promised deadlines, multiple times throughout his term in office. I fundamentally believe that healthcare is a right. Vice President Biden’s approach is quite conservative, not a radical “Medicare for all” that his Republican critics claim, but he will move us closer to the goal of healthcare for all than President Trump will.

Related to the healthcare discussion is the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. While any administration would be challenged by a pandemic, President Trump is on record as having continually misled and downplayed the seriousness of the virus. His administration did not show leadership on this issue, domestically or internationally. And pulling us out of the World Health Organization does nothing to increase Americans’ health and safety. The Obama administration effectively dealt with Ebola, and despite Senator Mitch McConnell’s claims, left behind a literal playbook on how the Trump administration could deal with pandemics.

On healthcare related issues, I trust Vice President Biden much more than I trust President Trump.

Progress towards our founding promise – Our Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and we have been working on getting closer to that truth ever since, including expanding it to include women and to address the stain of slavery, America’s original sin. I see a system in America that structurally perpetuates inequity and the system needs to be changed so that all Americans have equal opportunity. President Trump does deserve some credit here: his administration championed, and he signed, the 2018 First Step Act, which led to reforms in the criminal justice system that disproportionately impacts people of color. There are additional bipartisan bills that he has signed such as the one that gives paid parental leave to federal workers and another that requires airports to provide proper space for mothers to breastfeed. And President Trump appointed five openly gay ambassadors.

And this is interesting to me, because since he first announced his candidacy, President Trump has been using divisive, sexist, and overtly racist language and statements. Under his watch, the State Department ordered embassies and consulates abroad to no longer fly the rainbow flag symbolizing LGBTQI rights during pride month. And the track record of his conservative judicial appointments seem to indicate a return to the 1950s rather than a reflection of the melting pot that America is today. The Obama/Biden administration has a stronger overall record of creating more equity, especially in representing women and people of color in their administration and in the judiciary. And the Biden/Harris ticket itself is simply more representative of the demography of America than the Trump/Pence ticket.

…

Security – In a world that is ever more interconnected, security remains a concern. One of the unfortunate legacies of the September 11th attacks has been an increased fear of Americans towards the world. Looking at the promises President Trump made around building a wall along the border with Mexico and deporting illegal aliens, he hasn’t accomplished much other than caging children and tearing apart families who are refugees or seeking asylum in the United States. And the Obama administration actually deported more illegal immigrants than the Trump administration has. Vice President Biden supports comprehensive immigration reform and are generally more friendly to immigration overall, which aligns with the approach I think we should take. Immigration should be managed but it isn’t a bad thing, and America should be a safe shelter for those seeking asylum and refuge.

Has the world become safer under President Trump? His engagement of North Korea has not produced any results and President Trump’s bromance with Kim Jong-Un has likely encouraged him rather than brought him closer to the negotiating table. President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal has undermined United States credibility, as has his abandonment of our Kurdish allies. Recent progress in relations between Israel and some Arab states is positive, so some credit is due there. On China, President Trump vacillates between antagonizing and praising Xi Jinping, sending mixed signals while the country has fully undone the “one country, two systems” agreement in Hong Kong and inches closer to domination of the South China Sea.

And then there is the question of Russia and President Trump’s odd fealty to Vladimir Putin. This is the biggest reason I don’t trust President Trump on security.

Diplomacy and international relations – Related to security, this is where I see a particular strength of Vice President Biden. Under the Obama administration and further under his career in the Senate, Biden fundamentally is oriented towards facing challenges in concert with our allies. President Trump has withdrawn from international commitments and left the world uncertain whether it can rely upon the United States. Vice President Biden has indicated the need to strengthen those relationships.

President Trump’s rallying cries are “America First” and “Make America Great Again”. His words and actions these past four years, indicate that he sees the world as a zero-sum game. “America First” means “America Only” and “Make America Great Again” means “At the expense of everyone else”. I fundamentally reject both notions. An American President is sworn to defend and protect the United States. I think this can best be accomplished by looking for ways in which to create more safety, security, and prosperity by working with other countries rather than trying to go it alone. As an American living overseas, I can easily see the damage done to our ability to influence world affairs, especially those that affect us, by President Trump. Vice President Biden can gain us a place back at the grown-ups’ table.

Climate change – The scientific consensus is that climate change is real and that it is happening because of human activity. President Trump continues to deny the science, support the fossil fuel industry and now wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. This is too important an issue to ignore, one that will affect our children – heck, one that is already affecting us! Vice President Biden’s track record in this isn’t perfect – he supported fracking and “clean coal” – but his plans to invest in renewable technologies and help shift us to a cleaner, more climate-friendly economy are a necessary step to address this issue.

Character – Finally, let’s consider President Trump and Vice President Biden on their character, tone and demeanor. The Presidency of the United States is a powerful bully pulpit. The occupant’s words and actions reflect on his or her fellow Americans. And the conduct of the President should serve as an example for us and for our children. They do not need to be perfect, but they should be someone to whom we can look up.

I had hopes that once he stepped into the Oval Office, President Trump would become a president for all Americans. To grow into the office, to appeal to the greater good, to inspire us to work for the values we share. Instead, from the very start, he has continued to demonstrate a pettiness and a divisiveness that is distasteful. And the lying. Politicians are known for bending the truth a bit but President Trump says anything he wants, with no regards for accuracy.

Vice President Biden is spoken well of by all who know him and all who have worked with him. He has three qualities that are critical in a leader: he is a fundamentally decent human being, he has the capacity to empathize with others, and he is humble enough to admit his mistakes and learn from them.

…

Every election is the “most consequential election of our time” because every election shapes the future. We won’t know for many decades, what the real impacts of these decisions are. But my sense is that politics in America are getting more extreme, more hostile, than is good for us. And the damage being done to our international standing, will lead to the decline of America being the greatest power – and a force for good.

I think Vice President Biden is a better choice to address where the United States is now, and where it needs to go in the next four years.

Bernie or Biden – reflections on choosing a candidate

Posted on by
7

Living abroad, I have found it helpful to remain slightly detached from the drama of American politics. I still keep myself informed of what’s happening, but for the sake of my sanity, I find it helpful to avoid marinating in the day-to-day detail. This is especially true, given the 24-hour media’s desire to amplify (and maybe even construct) the smallest conflicts, fanning the flames into brimstone and indignant self-righteousness.

That said, the Democratic presidential primary has reached an interesting, and nearly existential, point. And since the state in which I am registered to vote has not yet had its primary, I find myself facing a difficult choice: Do I vote for Joseph Biden, representing the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party? Or do I vote for Bernie Sanders, representing the more progressive – or, dare I say it – socialist wing?

Credit to the New York Times

One concern I share about both candidates (and President Trump) is their age. I think we are at a point where we need a younger president, someone who is more in touch with the factors that are affecting all aspects of our life. When I listen to interviews with both Biden and Sanders, I get a sense that they do not have a deep, first-hand understanding of technology and the digital revolution that is affecting every aspect of our economy and our society. Trump may know Twitter, but when he doesn’t understand why the influenza vaccine won’t help us with COVID-19, he seems equally out of touch.

Another concern I have about the candidates, is that they are white men. White men have run this country for nearly all of our 244 years. It’s time for some fresh perspectives. Yes, this will likely be symbolically addressed in the choice of a vice presidential candidate, but I think it’s time for a woman and/or another person of color to be sitting behind the Resolute Desk.

What about Elizabeth Warren, you ask? At this point, it seems that she has fallen to a point where her departure from the race is imminent. Of the three candidates, she is probably the most appealing but I think that ship has sailed. So let me consider the two most likely candidates.

Looking at how our country has become increasingly polarized, and how President Trump has practiced an incredibly divisive, juvenile form of politics, I find Biden appealing because he represents a more centrist, more civil form of discourse. This may be optimistic thinking on my part, but I would like to believe that there is a path that could lead use back to a more civil way of governing and I think Biden is better positioned to lead us there.

I also feel, from a social justice standpoint, Sanders is addressing some very important topics and has been addressing them, with consistently bold language, for a long time. The increased inequality in our nation is a huge problem. The system is increasingly rigged so the wealthy get wealthier while the rest get left behind. Politicians of both parties have done a poor job addressing issues of health, education and inequality and a fraying of the social fabric cannot be the definition of making America “great again”.

One of my biggest concerns with Sanders, is that he and his followers seem to be the liberal version of Trump. That is, equally extreme, equally uncivil, and leading us further and further from a path on which the majority of Americans can tread. That seems dangerous for our country and for the world as a whole. Sanders’ grand revolution will be meaningless if he cannot get any legislation passed and his track record in this is poor.

I do think Biden will do a better job when it comes to foreign policy. Living abroad, I see how important our place in the world is. And with the significant changes that are happening in the world, especially with Russia and China, we need to have a more stable hand running America’s foreign policy.

But I do have questions about Biden. What is he offering that is a vision of the future? It seems like he is offering a repeat of President Obama’s greatest hits. A lot of good was accomplished during Obama’s eight years in office. But those days are over and it is time for us to move towards the future.

When it comes to November, I will support the Democratic candidate, no question. Trump has been a disaster for America. It is a daily embarrassment being an American abroad, trying to explain to people from all around the world, how so advanced a nation could elect so ignorant and uncurious a buffoon to the White House.

But on the question of who should represent the Democrats and challenge Trump, I need to ask your help. Could you please share your perspective on why one candidate or the other is a better choice?

The ground rules: please keep your points civil and constructive. Name-calling and personal attacks do not move the discussion forward and are not welcome here. Thank you in advance for sharing your insights.

Coup Deux – Come Visit

Posted on by
13

Thailand is a country that likes its “collect stamps” cards. Patronize a business ten times and get a free coffee, or the like. When it comes to coups d’etat, it seems to have a similar proclivity. Depending on your count, this is the 17th, 18th, or 19th coup since Thailand became a constitutional monarchy in 1932. For me, I have collected two “coup stamps”. After my fifth, I get a free t-shirt.

Thailand-Coup-Broadcast

The last coup was in 2006. A link to some of my entries about it is here. As for why Thailand has so many coups, there is an interesting article here. And if you want some insight into what is going on and what the next steps may be, the Economist has a useful article here.

As soon as the coup happened, and even when martial law was announced two days earlier, I was flooded with messages from friends who were worried for my safety. Thank you to everyone for your concern, but I’m afraid the important message is this:

Keep Calm

The words “coup” and “martial law” seem to prompt a visceral response, aided and abetted by the media showing close-up photos of soldiers, protesters, and political violence. In reality, the political violence over the last six months has been limited – only 28 people killed. Not to minimize the importance of that loss of life, but we regularly have bus crashes on the road here that take that many lives.

Considering the size of the country, and even the size of the city, political violence in Thailand is not sufficient reason to be alarmed or for governments to issue travel alerts warning their citizens not to travel to Thailand.

The last thing this country needs is for its economy (which is teetering on the edge of recession) to be further damaged by tourists staying away. It is an excellent time to visit the country – the weather in the early summer has cooled a bit from the Songkhran highs but the full monsoon has not yet arrived. Plus, hotel prices are amazingly low because… well, because of the political unrest.

I would ask you to help me be a de facto ambassador for Thailand. As you hear people talk about the country, let them know that your friend Chris lives there and assures them it is okay to visit. And, if anyone you know is considering travel here, urge them to come! They can always contact me for recommendations!

 

Trying for Some Perspective on the Gun Control Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Half a world away, I have read, watched, and listened to the debate over gun control in the United States, dismayed by the rhetoric and disturbed at how two hyperbole-fueled extremes frame the discussion. That distance, I hope, has made it easier for me to step back and consider the subject.

As an attempt to add my two cents’ worth to the public discourse, I would like to share some conclusions I have reached. I do not expect everyone to agree with me and I welcome constructive comments. Just a forewarning: comments that are not constructive, that rely on name-calling or otherwise do not contribute to a civil discussion, will not be entertained.

Many of my friends and family members are gun owners and people who enjoy guns recreationally. While my first-hand gun experience ended with BB guns in late primary school, I recognize the appeal of guns and do not think that guns are inherently bad.  

Our Rights

I think we need to look at this discussion through the lens of “gun safety.” Our individual right to bear arms must be balanced with the right of all people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

The Second Amendment clearly states that people have a right to bear arms. Our courts have already confirmed several abridgments to those rights, though, for example limiting the types of weapons you can own (no nuclear or chemical arms – too many innocent bystanders harmed when you use them to protect your life or property).

Legitimate limits are placed on our constitutional rights routinely. My First Amendment right to freedom of expression is tempered when the safety of the larger public is affected. I cannot incite a crowd to violence. I cannot expose state secrets. I cannot shout “fire” in a crowded movie theater. 

The safety of the general public is a compelling reason to place some restrictions on our constitutional freedoms and I think this can be done in a way to balances those competing interests without unduly infringing gun owners’ rights.

Of the proposed Congressional actions, there are three I would like to see enacted:

  • Require criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
  • Increase criminal penalties for so-called “straw purchasers,” people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
  • Fund research by public health agencies into deaths and injuries caused by firearms.

The Effectiveness of Legislation

Some members of the gun-rights lobby make the claim that criminals do not follow laws, therefore any gun safety legislation we pass will harm only law-abiding citizens. This seems to imply that we should not bother setting any laws about anything, because criminals will break those laws.

The setting of speed limits and the passing of laws requiring seatbelt use do not ensure that nobody speeds and everybody wears a seatbelt. These laws have resulted in a reduction of deaths and injuries and provide a basis with which to prosecute those who break the law.

Universal background checks would work in much the same way. They will not prevent all gun violence – the Newtown shooting, for example, might still have happened. Currently, it is estimated that between thirty and forty percent of gun sales happen with no background check. (These would be private sales, gun show sales, etc.) Universal background checks will place an additional barrier in the way of people with criminal records or a history of mental instability, making it more difficult to get a weapon with which they can do great harm.

Conducting background checks on private gun sales and increasing criminal penalties for “straw purchasers” could help stem the flow of guns into the criminal underworld by closing potential loopholes. Many people purchase guns for personal protection. Making it more difficult for people who should not have guns, to obtain them, should help increase everyone’s safety.

Having a right to bear arms does not inherently give you the right to privacy when you purchase a weapon. Universal background checks would go a long way to ensuring that the people who purchase guns are law-abiding. 

The Need for More Information

On the issue of funding research, there is much we do not know about the causes and effects of gun violence. Congress (at the urging of the National Rifle Association) has routinely cut funding to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health when the results of studies they undertook demonstrated a need for gun legislation.

In fact, despite more than four million gun-related deaths and injuries in the United States over the last four decades, the NIH has awarded only three research grants on the subject. Compare that to diphtheria, which has caused only 1,337 deaths in those four decades but for which there has been more than 50 NIH-funded studies. Even influenza, which regularly kills fewer people each year than gun violence, receives much more research funding.

Effective legislation can increase public safety and it needs to be based on empirical evidence. Some things we should better understand, as outlined in a recent Atlantic Cities blog post, include whether magazine limits actually work, who should be excluded from owning a gun, and whether there is a relationship between levels of gun ownership and levels of crime.

What We Should Not Do

Among the proposed legislative actions that I do not think we need to take are reinstating the assault weapons ban. While I do not see a need for anyone to own an assault weapon, that’s the purview of an individual gun owner or collector. So long as he or she is law-abiding and undergoes a background check, it does not matter to me what kind of gun is purchased.

Without a doubt, this debate will continue. It is fueled by loud voices and, especially in the case of the National Rifle Association, a lot of money. However, I think it behooves each of us to try to move beyond the hyperbole, gather facts, consider our own values, and then add our voice to the discussion – especially by letting our legislators know what we think.

Well, that is my opinion on the matter. I welcome your comments and remind you that only constructive comments will be entertained. The First Amendment does not prevent me from squelching name-calling and uncivil discourse!

Dear Congressman

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the short email I just sent to my senators and congressman regarding the “fiscal cliff” and the larger budget deficit and national debt issue. All three of them are Republicans.


The election has come and gone and as your constituent, I want to make sure you’ve clearly heard the message: It is time for the Republicans and Democrats to compromise when it comes to addressing our country’s debt and budget deficit.

This means that revenue increases (including both reforming the tax code to close loopholes and deductions as well as increases in tax rates) are necessary in addition to spending cuts. Every reputable economist agrees on this.

I understand that the Republican Party wants to steadfastly hold to its values, but you were sent to Washington to govern, not to stonewall. Please start behaving like adults and work with the Democrats instead of acting like spoiled children who throw temper tantrums if they don’t get their way.

Many thanks. 

Honestly, it doesn’t seem to me that the country is well-served by either the Republicans or Democrats insisting on a “my way or the highway” approach to this issue. (Or any other issue, for that matter.) To tackle such a large issue, there is going to have to be give and take. All of us will have to sacrifice some of what we want in order to achieve a larger goal that we all agree is important: getting our fiscal house in order.

As near as I can tell, the idea that both parties need to compromise is a commonsense position that the vast majority of Americans agree with, no?

Want to Change the World? Choose a Woman.

Posted on by
Reply

Nobel Prize

While I’m wary of broad generalizations, today’s announcement of the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize winners, a trio of women who have promoted the causes of peace, freedom, and opportunity through nonviolence, led me to a conclusion: if we really want to change the world, we need to put more women in charge.

Leymah Gbowee (on the left) is a social worker and trauma counselor who organized a group known as the Women of Liberian Mass Action for Peace, a non-violent group protesting for peace that was instrumental in bringing an end to Liberia’s civil war.

Tawakul Karman (center) is one of Yemen’s most vocal and well-known activists.  She is also a member of the country’s main opposition party.  Using social media, she organized the first student demonstrations challenging the rule of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (right), a Harvard-trained economist, was elected in 2005 as President of Liberia.  She was the first female democratically elected president of an African nation.  She has promoted development after 14 years of civil war that devastated the country, leaving some 200,000 dead.

When women lead, they tend to lead people towards health, education, and peace.  Looking at the track record of men, which often leads towards war, abuse of power, and exploitation, it seems that all other factors being equal, a female leader would be preferable to a male one.

 

Is America’s Fiscal Future Safe in These Hands?

Posted on by
Reply

As part of the Budget Control Act passed this month, a twelve-member Join Committee on Deficit Reduction has been charged with recommending at least $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction over the next decade.  They have until November 23 to make their recommendations.

The committee’s recommendations will then be put to a simple up-or-down vote by Congress, with no amendments, filibusters, etc. allowed.  The recommendations have to be passed by December 23 otherwise a $1.2 trillion package of automatic spending cuts would come into effect.

Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction

The Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction.  Top row are members of the House of Representatives: Co-chair Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Dave Camp (R-MI), Fred Upton (R-MI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jim Clyburn (D-SC), Xavier Becerra (D-CA).  Bottom row are members of the Senate: Co-chair Patty Murray (D-WA), John Kerry (D-MA), Max Baucus (D-GA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Rob Portman (R-OH).

First question on my mind: Do these twelve congresspeople sufficiently represent America?  They are overwhelmingly white (83% vs. about 66% in the general population) and male (92% vs. 50% in the general population).  Now, I realize that a committee of twelve national politicians will not necessary mirror the United States population, nor do they need to.  But it seems that when we talk about “sacrifices” in the budget, these sacrifices are disproportionately borne by women, children, and people of color. 

The public schools in the wealthy suburbs seem to face fewer cutbacks than the inner city schools.  The unemployed factory worker seems to run out of resources long before the unemployed hedge fund manager.  And considering that you have to be at least 25 years old to run for the House of Representatives, is anyone looking out for the interests of the infants and children who will end up inheriting the results of any deficit reduction legislation?

Second question on my mind: With the committee evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, what is the likelihood that they will actually reach a compromise?  The six members of the House of Representatives are up for election in just over a year, so they will be careful not to rile their base. 

Of the six Senators, one of the Republicans (Kyl) has announced he will retire at the end of his term.  The other two Republicans were just elected in 2010 so they have time to repair any damage with their base that comes from compromising or, from a Tea Partier’s view, selling out.  Among the Democrats, Murray was just elected in 2010 and the other two Democrats do not face re-election until 2014.

Is there some hope that at least one Senator will cross over the line on the “no new revenues” position so that a balanced approach of spending cuts and revenue increases can be found?  While I’d like to hope that the Senators can rise above partisanship and make some sound decisions, nothing I’ve seen recently gives me any reason for optimism.

Additional Reading: OpenCongress.org article about key budget, spending, and tax votes of the committee members.

 

Blinders On and Heading Off a Cliff

Posted on by
Reply

Economist

This cartoon from this week’s Economist magazine summarizes how I feel about the debt limit debacle going on in Washington right now.  While I think there is blame to be shared by all sides, the obstinacy of the Tea Party Republicans to not accept any revenue increases, even if they are only in the form of closing tax loopholes, shows a fiscal illiteracy that is reckless.  The deficit cannot be tackled through spending cuts alone.

I was discussing this over lunch this afternoon with a mixed crowd of Thais, Australians, and a Canadian.  They all would like to know why American politicians are behaving like this.  I’d like to know, too.

 

Proposed Changes to Politcal Terms

Posted on by
Reply

The thought occurred to me the other day that maybe the problem of the never-ending campaign, in which it seems America has no sooner finished one election season than another begins, would be to change the length of terms to which politicians are elected.

Currently, the President is elected to a four-year term with a maximum of two terms.  Senators are elected for six-year terms, with approximately a third of the Senators up for election every two years.  Representatives are elected for two-year terms with the entire House of Representatives up for election at the same time.

What, then, if we changed the President to a single, six-year term with no chance for re-election?  Senators could remain a six-year term, but modify it so half the body changes every three years.  Representatives could be increased to three-year terms.

It would seem that the upshot would be a bit more time between election seasons, allowing for more opportunity to govern.  Especially for the President, since he or she could not be re-elected, there would be more freedom to govern based on one’s positions rather than the poll results.

What do you think?  Would there be any pros or cons to this plan?

About Fat Cats and Corporations

Posted on by
Reply

In the July 9 issue of The Economist magazine, I read this interesting article about why it is so difficult to stir up public sentiment in the United States against the wealthy.  For example, why do so many people get riled up about the idea of eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthiest people, when we’re talking about 2% of the population who are radically better off than the other 98% of the population?

One paragraph in particular caught my attention:

“The point here is only that Americans do not seem to mind about the widening inequality of income and wealth as much as you might expect them to in current circumstances. By and large, they have preferred opportunity to leveling; equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome.  The trouble with this is that America is a long way from providing equal opportunity.”

I continue to wonder why it is that when you talk to people individually, they are very much in favor of creating truly equal opportunity.  Somehow, though, en masse, they become reverse Robin Hoods who support the taking from the poor and giving to the rich.  Even more confusing when it is against their own best interest to do so.