"You didn't build that"

I recall the presidential election of 2012 and how infuriating it was to me to hear people argue, in what seemed self-evidently bad faith, that Barack Obama's statement, "you didn't build that," somehow robbed all individuals of their own accomplishments. Personally, I always viewed that statement as essentially stating that "while you did something impressive, your accomplishment rests on the prior achievements of others, public and private." It reminded me of my father's saying that each generation stands on the shoulders of the preceding generation.

Anyway, all of this is to hype a great article I read in Vox on Sunday. A few quotes, but I highly encourage anyone to click through and read the entirety:

I went to public schools through eighth grade. My parents were able to save for some of my college costs through a plan that provides tax relief for those savings. I stayed on my parent’s health insurance until I was 26 under the Affordable Care Act. I have received the earned income tax credit, targeted at those with low or moderate income. I took out federal student loans to go to law school. I am enrolled in an income-based repayment plan currently as I pay them back and have also signed up for Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The way we discuss our successes as individual accomplishments and valorize some as “self-made” fails to acknowledge such systems of support.

This sounds very familiar . . . it could almost have been written by yours truly.

To be sure, I worked tremendously hard. . . . . But, I don’t think I’ve ever worked as hard as a mom who works multiple jobs for a minimum wage. Hard work is not enough. There are structures that impact success.

I agree. I earn vastly more now than I did as a public high school teacher. That is not to suggest that I work vastly harder.

When it comes to wealth in this country, we no longer have a scarcity problem. We have a distribution problem. The world produces enough food to feed everyone, we have approximately five vacant homes for each homeless person in the US and the US spends twice as much on health care as other developed countries.

All of this is to argue that when we discuss redistribution in this country, we ignore how opportunity is distributed at our own peril. My own father was the president of a fortune 500 company as I made my way through adolescence. To argue that this did not provide me more opportunities than other, less fortunate, people my age is to bury one's head in the sand. 

Like most people, I make no apology for my success (limited though it may be). I worked very hard for it and continue to work hard for it. However, I would be maximally misguided and misleading to suggest that I don't owe anyone, both public and private, for the opportunities with which I have been blessed. 

Shameful

When I last lived in Ft. Wayne (2013-2014), I heard constantly about how the "good conservative folks of Northeastern Indiana" would do this and that, would always act politely, gathered the facts before acting hysterically, etc. This was always pointed out in juxtaposition to Obama (a nation turns its lonely eyes to you Barack Obama). Among the things that the "good conservative folks of Northeastern Indiana" have been doing lately, apparently, is this:

Fort Wayne's Planned Parenthood Health Center is closing effective today after several years of increased harassment and intimidation.

“I'm pretty angry about this,” said Christie Gillespie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. “This is not how decent and compassionate people behave. These are actions of harassment and intimidation that are done in the name of faith, religion and Jesus.

“It's an awful day for the Fort Wayne community. We will be back stronger.”

The Fort Wayne location at 3914 W. Jefferson Blvd. does not perform abortions and has four employees.

Gillespie said the community is losing a trusted health care provider that conducted tests for early diagnosis of cervical, testicular and breast cancer, provided birth control options and tested for sexually transmitted diseases.

Gillespie said the tactics used by Allen County Right to Life and other area groups go far beyond protesting outside the facility.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky provided copies of a mailer sent to Fort Wayne neighborhoods where a Planned Parenthood nurse practitioner worked.

It included her name and picture and said “There are killers among us.” It said the woman enabled “child killing by coordinating abortions off site.” It also gave her home address.

Absolutely disgusting and shameful. If, as they say, you are judged by the company you keep, then this list of people should be judged for keeping company with Allen County Right to Life and its shameful tactics.

NOTE: I haven't even addressed the fact that Fort Wayne Planned Parenthood (a) does not provide abortions but (b) provides no/low-cost STD screening. Perhaps someone can explain to me how these so-called "right to life" groups are targeting abortion and not conducting the so-called "war on women" with these kinds of tactics directed at clinics that don't provide abortions?

A Single Data Point

Let me preface this by saying that I do not believe that presidents are singularly responsible for economic growth during their administrations.

I'll repeat that: I do not believe that presidents are singularly responsible for economic growth during their administrations.

However, some people/organizations disagree with me. To those who tend to believe that a president is singularly responsible for economic growth/performance, I offer this:

This fact tells me nothing about either Obama or Trump. Perhaps it says something to those who believe that presidents singularly control the economy (see link above). Of course, as we know, facts have a well-known liberal bias so this is all probably just "fake news."

Budget Hawkery

There are a lot of congressional critters who like to claim that they are budget "hawks" and want to reduce the budget. Similarly, I know a lot of people who proclaim their "fiscal conservatism," which I take to mean something similar to budget hawkery.

Let's test the mettle of these convictions.

If you claim to be a budget "Hawk," I want to hear from YOU either (a) how much more you are willing to pay in taxes to erase any fiscal deficits this nation may have; or (b) which programs that you actually use you are willing to see eliminated in order to erase any fiscal deficits this nation may have.

Point of order - The following are considered non-responsive and get no credit:

• General statements of principle and ideology (i.e. "government should be smaller," "government should not be in the education business" (if you don't have kids), etc.)
• Cliched pablum (i.e. "cut waste," "the rich should pay their fair share")
• Statements demonstrating a stunning ignorance of the actual facts (i.e. "cut taxes and that will grow the economy so much that we won't have to cut any programs," "eliminate foreign aid")

For eight years I heard Republicans, both local and nationally, bitch and moan about the budget deficit after uttering nary a peep from 2001-2009. Now that a Republican is in the White House, apparently the budget deficit and the national debt (two different things, by the way) stopped being a problem.

Now is the time to "put your money where your mouth is." As they say at the poker table, "put up or shut up." 

Full Disclosure: I don't actually expect any good-faith answers to this question from any self-styled "fiscal conservatives." If I get one, I will be shocked.

Did Luke Kenley just compliment Barack Obama?

Luke Kenley, longtime state senator from Noblesville and staunch Republican, was quoted as thus in the Indianapolis Star by conservative mouthpiece Tim Swarens:

In 2008, when the Great Recession hit, the state was sitting atop healthy budget reserves. Then the nose dive began. "We burned through about $2 billion in 18 months," Kenley said. "It was the federal stimulus that helped us avoid deeper cuts to education."

You tell me. 

The Real Goal (I think)

I used to lament during George W. Bush's presidency that he ran on a promise that government didn't work, and he governed to ensure that his campaign promise came true.

I still believe, generally speaking, that anyone who runs against the government he/she purports to lead is disqualified from the office. In light of that, I came across some interesting commentary on one of my favorite blogs, Gin & Tacos (linked on the right). Here are some excerpts:

The Federal bureaucracy is like the world's most anal-retentive child meticulously building a sand castle for decades. The Trump administration is the asshole who kicks the whole thing down in thirty seconds.

I would agree. It takes time to build things, and it only takes a fraction thereof to destroy them. Just think of how long it takes to bake cookies vs. how long it takes to eat them.

More:

This underscores a fundamental reason that Republicans have the upper hand in modern politics. Their only goal is to tear down as much of the structure of government as possible or, perhaps even preferably, turn it into a poorly functioning tool for channeling government contracts to their hangers-on. Democrats, even in the lukewarm Centrist style of Democrats like Hillary Clinton, want The State to do things. Implementing any policy, law, or initiative in which the government has to do something requires the bureaucratic capacity to do it. 

I would add to this and say that implementing any governmental action that will make the lives of one's citizenry better requires the will to implement such action. Sadly, I see no such will in the modern Republican Party.

What is lost during periods of right-wing governance rarely is recovered.

Agreed again.

As much as I would like to believe that so-called "conservatives" share my goals and simply believe that there is a better way to accomplish them, I am increasingly skeptical of my previous optimism. After 8 years, President Obama was not able to undo the damage done by George W. Bush, who managed to hollow out a substantial portion of the gains made during the Clinton administration on such things as the environment and increasing wages for the bottom 70-80% of wage earners in this nation.

Sigh. As President Obama so memorably said, "Elections have consequences." They certainly do, and we will be living with the consequences of the 2016 one for a long time. All that I ask is that when the predictable and predicted consequences of President Trump's incompetence come home to roost, at least acknowledge that many of us predicted these consequences. As has been said before, it's bad enough that I have to live with these consequences; at least don't insult me by saying nobody could've predicted them.

 

 

Executive Orders on Immigration

The Donald just issued an executive order re. immigration that has caused up quite a bit of controversy. Some scattered thoughts:

Let's be clear here. I am no expert on immigration law by any means. On Meet the Press today, Vice President Pence asserted that a president has the authority, under statute and the constitution, to determine who enters the country. Therefore, President Trump's recent executive order on immigration is perfectly legal, and the Washington judge who halted it is wrong and must be overturned.

I find Pence's argument to be intriguing.

If the President has the authority to increase restrictions on immigration, as Trump has done, does he not also have the authority to lessen restrictions on immigration?

I think at the end of the day, Trump probably did have the authority to issue his order. However, if the sauce is good for the goose it's good for the gander, and an executive order going the other way would likewise be legitimate. Be careful what you wish for.

It should go without saying that the judge knows better than me and we should all defer to duly issued judicial orders.