Revisiting Ronald Reagan

Revisiting Ronald Reagan
By Jerome Grossman

All of the current Republican candidates for president regularly and repeatedly invoke the name and the spirit of Ronald Reagan as the patron saint of the party, hoping to bless themselves by adoration of his life and work. Even one Democrat, Barack Obama has used the spirit of Reagan as an endorsement of change saying to a Nevada newspaper that Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Reagan did change American politics by assembling a coalition composed of social conservatives, national security hawks, pro-business advocates, anti-tax activists, and religious fundamentalists. To the social conservatives, Reagan attacked the federal welfare system using manufactured stories of welfare mothers driving in pink Cadillacs to pick up their checks. To the national security hawks, he got tough with the Soviet Union, threatening the “evil empire” with nuclear annihilation. To the pro-business advocates, he relaxed antitrust enforcement and listened to corporate lobbyists. To anti-tax activists, he dramatically reduced the tax rate, demeaned the Internal Revenue Service; Eisenhower's top rate was 91%, Kennedy reduced it to 70%, Reagan and GOP successors cut it again by half.

But Reagan's unique contribution was to motivate the religious fundamentalists into serious political activity. At a political function in 1971, for example, he revealed a belief and familiarity in religious millennialism: “Everything is falling into place. It can't be too long now. Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained upon the enemies of God's people. That must mean they’ll be destroyed by nuclear weapons. They exist now and they never did in the past.” Then Reagan pointed out that Gog, the enemy of God and Israel is Russia, which “has set itself against God.” This echoes what the Rev Pat Robertson had been preaching and writing, that the invention of nuclear weapons should be welcomed as a sign of the immediacy of the Second Coming.

Reagan's notoriety and popularity increased as an icon of entertainment, bolstered by his acting career, his hosting of television programs, his work as spokesman for General Electric, and most importantly his electoral success in California. Some regarded him, however, as a washed up actor, an ignoramus and a tool of the rabid right. He suffered much of the same criticism of his intellectual capacity as George W. Bush.

Reagan did change America, as Bill Clinton said in 1991, while running for president,by exalting “private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family.” The great failure of the Clinton administration was that it failed to change the Reagan scenario. Now, the Democrats will have another opportunity but the campaigns so far have not spelled out the changes in foreign and domestic policy that will steer the nation away from Reaganism.

The Recession and the Election

The Recession and the Election
By Jerome Grossman

The dominant issue in the fight for the Democratic nomination for president in 2007 was the war in Iraq: illegal, fraudulent and imperial that wasted thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Edwards, all candidates for president, voted in October 2002 to authorize this unnecessary and brutal travesty. Barack Obama, then an obscure State Senator in Illinois opposed the war, achieving special distinction in the presidential field. At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, the party nominee, John Kerry, who also voted for the war, gave Obama the opportunity to express his opposition to the war, something that Kerry was afraid to do himself. The Iraq war plus Obama’s remarkable rhetorical gifts and personality propelled him to front runner status.

In 2008, Iraq is no longer the dominant issue for Democrats or the nation. The war continues with obscene death and destruction, Americans want it ended, but Iraq is now on the inside pages, part of the daily news, intensity of feeling diminished, the occupation likely to continue for a generation. Bread and butter issues affecting many more Americans are challenging the confidence of the country in a way that Saddam Hussein could not.

Recession, economic decline and even a depression are confronting the United States and the voters of New Hampshire were the first to sense the dangers. Perhaps that is why the voters defied the polls and gave Hillary the victory. The political effects of this new round of voter concern are fairly obvious. Hillary’s wrong vote on the Iraq war has become less important. Her experience in government becomes more important. She can cite the prosperity of the nation under the Bill Clinton presidency and promise to install the same economic team that brought full employment. Hillary can offer an economic package with a degree of credibility. Her age and experience become an advantage over Obama’s attractiveness and inexperience.

In this new situation, Obama’s inspiring call for hope, unity and change may appear less relevant and lacking in specificity. The voters will want to know what the candidates will do to save their jobs, their homes, their financial futures. Worrying voters will have little patience with rhetoric no matter how brilliant. Even charisma and personality will be downgraded as assets. Abraham Lincoln and FDR became icons only after they solved the problems of their eras, not before.

There will be, indeed there are now different and strongly held views about solving the current economic crisis. The Republicans, led by President Bush, will want to extend the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that favor the investors, eliminate estate taxes, cut capital gains tax, lower corporate tax, install investment tax credits, etc. The Democrats will suggest a stimulus package putting money in the hands of lower income people who will spend it quickly: extending unemployment benefits, grants for home heating, suspension of the gas tax, tax rebates to people with low income, etc.

The next president cannot leave the difficult decisions to the experts. They are notoriously divided in their recommendations and affected by their political orientation. Herbert Hoover had plenty of experts. So did George Bush the Father. Both were slow and indecisive in making economic decisions and paid the price in the next election.

The political question in this time of economic malaise is -- which Democratic candidate can best address the problems, which party can end the recession quickly and effectively. The voters of New Hampshire sensed the problem while the pundits were analyzing nuances. Maybe that is why their answers were Hillary and the Democrats, Hillary because of experience and the Democrats because of their historic attention to the masses. These questions will dominate American politics for the rest of 2008. Once again, it’s the economy, stupid.

Everybody Won in New Hampshire

Everybody Won in New Hampshire
By Jerome Grossman

In the eye of the entire nation, the citizens of the state enjoyed a singular performance equivalent to a Broadway show, tapped their feet, sang the songs, felt the uplift, rocked to the cadences, adored the star, cheered and cheered, gave repeated standing ovations, were inspired and mesmerized - then went home to mother.

New Hampshire can never repay Barack Obama for transforming another boring election into a party, open to all, that moved them from a drab New England Winter into the neverland of an idealistic future without details, someday, somewhere.

Voting for Hillary was like leaving the darkened theater with its illusions of the past and the future, then stumbling and blinking into the real world, walking through the slush, finding your car, starting the windshield wipers, thinking about going to work tomorrow, lining up in your mind the problems and the duties of the real world, the here and now.

They saw the future. Their hearts beat to the rhythm of what might be in the best of all possible worlds, and deferred the prospect of political heaven to enjoy another day of precious life in this vale of tears and promise. It was an uplifting experience that kept quotidian life in control of the most experienced, the likely model for the other states – and everybody will win.

Change

Change
By Jerome Grossman

It is hard to say what this political campaign is really about except that ambition has propelled some admirable and some not so admirable people to run for president. And, as though they all drank the same magical elixir simultaneously, to begin to utter the mystical word, “change.”

As a verb, change is transitive, must have an object; for most speakers it is America, but one candidate said, “We can change America, then we can change the world.” Where have I heard that before?

Change has become a cliché, somehow signifying that we are on the right track. It sounds dynamic without committing to anything in particular. Candidates and voters can give it any meaning they wish: to the right, to the left, or simply to install new people to pursue the same old policies.

The presidential candidates of real, serious change are Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul, not taken seriously by their fellow candidates or many voters. In the ABC television Republican debate in New Hampshire on January 5, the GOP candidates were actually laughing at Ron Paul’s exposition of a needed change in U.S. foreign and military policy. No discussion, no rebuttal, simply disrespect. And Kucinich wasn't even invited to the Democratic debate. On issue after issue the candidates of both parties give the problems a little tweak or a few new words and call it change.

But the exercise makes everyone feel good. Mission accomplished. We have talked about change. Do Americans really want their politicians to change public affairs significantly? The average American, like people everywhere, are accustomed to the status quo and will not accept change until forced by events and we are far from that point. Social Security and Medicare, for example, are far from perfect, but politicians had better keep their hands off if they wish to stay in power. Furthermore, only about 50% of eligible voters actually go to polls and they are usually richer and older, heavily representative of the most satisfied, therefore the least likely to vote for change.

Besides, significant change never comes from voting. Almost always It is the result of deep and difficult organizing in the community of people who are being hurt by current policies, who become angry, who threaten, who don’t put their cause in the hands of politicians. The most important changes in U. S. history were forced upon our greatest presidents. Abraham Lincoln was pressured to issue the Emancipation Proclamation by the Abolitionists and the need for African - American soldiers in the civil war. Franklin Delano Roosevelt expanded the humanitarian role of the federal government in response to the threats of organized labor and the unemployed. Real change is forced on the politicians, always has been, always will be.

Uncle Sam Needs Real Policy Changes

Uncle Sam Needs Real Policy Changes
By Jerome Grossman

U. S. Representative William Delahunt of Massachusetts, a leading foreign-policy voice in the Democratic Party, has endorsed Barack Obama for president saying that he believes the Senator will repair the image of the United States overseas. He said, “If Barack Obama is elected president, I daresay America will present a new face to the world, will restore, simply by his election (emphasis added) hope -- not just within the United States, but from all corners of the world, that America's claim to moral authority is back on track and that our leadership in the world affairs will see a renaissance.”

The phrases, “A new face…… simply by his election” seem to imply that the election of an African-American will signal significant changes in U.S. foreign policy to the nations of the world. However, the current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor Colin Powell, both African-Americans in positions of power, have failed to make the changes in policy necessary to repair the image of the U.S.

Personality and good intentions may win nominations and elections, but the rest of the world will be looking for new policies that call for the use of American soft power rather than the military adventurism that dominates world society and enforces American interests.

It will take a lot more than ending the U.S. invasion of Iraq to prove this. Remember that the Democrats endorse a residual force kept there to protect U.S. bases, to train Iraqi soldiers and to kill Iraqi insurgents.

The next Democratic president, Obama or Clinton or Edwards can change the U.S. image worldwide by cutting the enormous military budget, closing some of the 737 U.S. military bases now in 130 countries, cutting back on its 10,000 nuclear weapons, stopping the kidnapping and torture of suspected terrorists, promoting human rights, adhering to international law and the Geneva Conventions, increasing its support for the struggle against AIDS and other diseases, to name but a few serious changes.

Electing the Hillary Clinton as the first woman president or Barack Obama as the first African American president is important to the United States. It would be a sign of improved gender and race relations. Although the prejudices remain latent, over the course of the long campaign the voters have come to regard these two candidates more as individuals than as representatives of a group.


This is a welcome development for the often difficult relations in American society. It will send an interesting and hopeful signal abroad but will do little to repair the tattered image of our country unless there is evidence of changes in the nation's policies that have been in place for decades, perhaps centuries.

So far, the leading candidates have spoken about change in the abstract without significant detail. They may get away with that cynical approach with an electorate that focuses on personality, appearance and electability but public opinion abroad will need to see pertinent policy changes that will improve their lives in a world dominated by Uncle Sam.

Business Benefits from National Health Insurance

Business Benefits from National Health Insurance
By Jerome Grossman

Alone among the nations of the world, the U. S. has relied upon private health insurance to cover the majority of its population, but far from all - 47 million are left out. This system is inefficient: it costs too much and the business community overpays. The private insurance industry spends about 20% of its revenue on administration, marketing, and profits. Further, the industry imposes on physicians, hospitals and businesses an administrative burden in billing and insurance related functions that consume another 12% of insurance premiums. Thus, fully one third of insurance premiums could be drastically reduced if we were to finance health care through expansion of government – run Medicare to every U.S. citizen. Medicare overhead is estimated to be about three percent.

Most of these unnecessary costs are borne by U.S. business, now held captive by the Washington lobbying of the private insurance industry. It is time for the advocates of a single-payer, (the US government) to make common cause with business interests to modernize the health system in the interest of delivering a better health product, eliminating unnecessary costs, and making U.S. business more competitive around the world. The Committee for Economic Development, a high powered business group, says, “The competitiveness of American firms is threatened by the cost of health insurance.” U.S. business has no obligation to insurance companies. It should pass the cost of insurance to the government just as it does when it lays off thousands of unneeded workers.

The recent agreement between General Motors and the United Auto Workers featured an important change in the health-care obligations of GM. No longer will they be in the health-care field, but will devote all their energies to their own products. Their competitive position will be improved as they are freed from the ever-growing costs of health care.

Some business executives believe that this model should be applied to all companies so that the responsibility for the health-care of the nation would be assumed by the Federal Government, paid for by general tax revenues. The objectives would be to lower the cost of health care, to include all Americans and to help business become more competitive by eliminating a major expense.

Here are ten reasons why business should support national health insurance as developed by Physicians for a National Health Program

10. National Health Insurance will reduce liability insurance and workers compensation costs.

9. National Health Insurance will eliminate the constant headaches of running a health benefits bureaucracy, annual negotiations with insurance companies, etc.

8. National Health Insurance will limit complaints by employers over rising premiums and co-pays and conflicts with labor unions over benefit cuts, givebacks, etc..

7. National Health Insurance will reduce the incentive to hire part-time workers and enable them to attract better employees.

6. National Health Insurance will curb health-related bankruptcies, reduce health spending by low income workers, and free up money for consumer spending.

5. National Health Insurance will reduce the cost of providing health benefits

4. National Health Insurance will eliminate retiree benefit costs for those with obligations to provide coverage.

3. National Health Insurance will eliminate unfair competition from employers who don't provide insurance.

2. National Health Insurance will reduce absenteeism and produce a healthy and more productive work force.

And the number one reason for National Health Insurance from a business perspective is….
1. National Health Insurance will allow health-care costs to be controlled and predictable, eliminating it major source of business uncertainty and a barrier to planning.

And, oh yes, it's the right and moral thing to do.

The Most Important Issue

The Most Important Issue
By Jerome Grossman

President Ronald Reagan said that nuclear weapons are “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.” On March 23, 1983, President Reagan's proposed to “eliminate the weapons themselves.” In 1985, at their Geneva Summit Conference, President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev made their joint statement that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

In January 2007, a conference on nuclear weapons was held at the very conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Four of the participants produced an article “A world free of nuclear weapons” that appeared in the Wall Street Journal: Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under President Nixon, George Shultz, Secretary of State under President Reagan, William Perry, Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, and former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. All were conservatives; two were Republicans, two Democrats. All knew a lot about nuclear weapons. They quoted Reagan and spoke from experience, urging implementation of the neglected goal of worldwide nuclear arsenal reductions, negotiated in full embrace of the ideal of abolition.

The four conservative gurus had a political plan-to insert into the presidentential campaign a serious discussion of the most important issue facing the United States and the world. Their conservative backgrounds would allow their ideas about nuclear security to be accepted as a framework for a national colloquy, bypassing the prejudice against liberals and peaceniks in imperial America.

However, it did not happen. The Republican candidates simply ignored the issue. The Democrats acknowledged the dangers, but chose to focus their campaigns on Iraq, healthcare, immigration, personality and electability. For the media and the organizers of the repetitious and boring debates, nuclear weapons abolition was ignored.

But the real failure must be assigned to the voters who have not demanded answers from the candidates. They know that the arsenals of the U.S. and Russia are powerful enough to irradiate the entire planet, to threaten the existence of the human species, to destroy civilization. They must realize that if North Korea, Iran and Pakistan can manufacture nuclear weapons, that capability is within the range of dozens of other countries, that nuclear weapons are the great equalizers reducing the great powers’ ability to use conventional force. And nuclear terrorism may be just around the corner.

It is only a few minutes before midnight on the atomic clock. Time for a wakeup and time to prepare for abolition by adopting:
A declaration of no first use of nuclear weapons
A universal policy of taking all nukes off hair trigger alert
An international plan to secure all nuclear materials
A ban on building new nukes
A ban on all nukes in space
Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
Reductions in the size of nuclear forces in all states that possess them

Voters of America: ask your favorite candidates for President, Senate, and House of Representatives what they are doing to save the world from nuclear annihilation -- the most important issue of our time.

Another Look at Waterboarding

Another Look at Waterboarding
By Jerome Grossman

Forgive me for pursuing waterboarding torture now that the subject has slipped from public attention. I can't let it go because there is an outside chance that one of my ancestors was a victim of waterboard torture 700 years ago during the Spanish Inquisition. That was pure evil then, it is pure evil now.

Beyond that motivating factor, I may have surmised an explanation for the illegal destruction of the videotapes by the CIA of interrogations of prisoners during which extreme methods were used, including prolonged exposure to cold, heat, nudity, physical discomfort, and waterboarding. In waterboarding, water is poured over a prisoner's mouth and nose to produce a feeling of suffocation. Sometimes, in the absence of restraining equipment, the prisoner's head is pushed into a toilet until he says “uncle” or “Osama bin Laden” or whatever confession is sought by the torturers.

According to intelligence officials, interrogation tapes were destroyed out of concern for the physical and legal safety of CIA agents who appear on the tapes. However, the physical danger would be nil as long as the tapes remained in the possession of the CIA; the legal exposure would be protected by the secret legal opinions of the Justice Department that waterboarding and other pressures are not torture and are lawful acts. These opinions rely on the President's wartime powers, enabling him to contravene the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual which protect prisoners of war.

Let me suggest alternative explanations for the unauthorized destruction of the videotapes, destruction in violation of government regulations and a specific court order. Isn't it likely that the repeated use of waterboarding that brings the prisoner to the verge of suffocation could actually have resulted in death by drowning or heart attack or fright? In that case, destroying the tape would be a cover-up.

Another possibility is that the tapes might reveal that the punishing techniques were not effective. President Bush and other government spokesmen have claimed that CIA harsh interrogation has produced crucial information but experienced FBI agents have opposed the use of coercive techniques as counterproductive and unreliable. For the tapes to decide these differences, they would have to prove that accurate information was obtained, information important for operations. If the tapes did not make the case, then the tapes had to be destroyed to protect the careers of those who've made wrong decisions.

The moral and legal questions about torture cannot be put aside. For generations, Americans have been appalled and sickened by the use of torture by other countries. We like to think that America is above such reprehensible conduct. It will take a thorough housecleaning and change in policy to restore our self respect, the first step in achieving the respect of the people of the rest of the world.

The Costs of the Iraq War

The Costs of the Iraq War
By Jerome Grossman

About two thirds of Americans now regard the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq as a serious mistake. The mistake was planned and organized by President George W. Bush and his administration with the help of too many Democrats who went along with his imperial fantasy. Too many Americans, carried away by superpower imperial glory, expected an easy victory at low cost.

They were wrong. Whether or not military victory will have been achieved at some future time, the costs have been high and far more than the anticipated benefits.

Some of the costs are painfully obvious. About 4,000 U.S. military deaths, about 40,000 U.S. military wounded, Iraqi insurgents and civilians killed and wounded estimated at one million; Iraqis who have fled their homes and their country to foreign lands estimated at two million; cost to the U.S. taxpayer estimated at one or two trillion dollars depending on eventual length of the war; the dramatic decline in U.S. reputation among the 1.3 billion Muslims and most nations, a decline that is harming U.S. business and diplomatic interests.

Some of the costs are less obvious. The power and influence of Iran in the Middle East has been greatly increased. The Sunni regime in Iraq that was a buffer to Iranian expansion was overthrown and succeeded by a Shiite regime friendly to Shiite Iran. If and when the U. S. military leaves Iraq, the new Shiite bloc might threaten traditional U.S. allies, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

Perhaps the most important costs to the U.S. have been the increase in the price of oil which has doubled since 2002, driven up by the Iraq war to $90-$100 per barrel. As the American consumer increases his insatiable consumption of oil and gasoline, the flow of these liquids is matched by the flow of U.S. dollars to oil suppliers.

When the oil producers were buying U.S. Treasury bonds, the effects were minimal. However, the oil royalty have modified their financial strategy by using their U.S. dollars to buy U.S. assets, taking large positions in Citigroup, News Corp., Procter & Gamble, Hewlett-Packard, Pepsi, Time Warner, and Walt Disney, to name only a few. Land, real estate, and skyscrapers are also targets. And the sophisticated investors have hired prominent American bankers, media experts and Washington lobbyists to protect their interests in the U.S. This represents an historic transfer of wealth, unprecedented in human history, financial conquest without firing a shot.

Subsidizing Iowa

Subsidizing Iowa
By Jerome Grossman

The political eyes of the nation focus on the farm state of Iowa where voter caucuses will choose delegates to the Democratic and Republican conventions on January 3. The Iowa caucuses are important because they are the first selection of delegates in the country. For many elections Iowa has determined the political trend by giving enormous political publicity to the winner, boosting his/her chances in the New Hampshire primary and beyond.

As in other states, the candidates are evaluated according to personality, electability, endorsements, organization and positions on issues. In this election, the main issues discussed are the Iraq War, immigration policy, and health care.

But the holy issue in Iowa is not discussed because virtually every candidate has pledged to maintain and increase the enormous subsidies for corn and ethanol production given by the federal government. Only one presidential candidate has declared his opposition, Senator John McCain, and the most recent poll gives him 5% in Iowa, far below his national average.

This year, Iowa's farmers and ethanol refiners will receive tax breaks and subsidies amounting to $2 billion. For ethanol this amounts to $.51 per gallon. Iowa gets back from the federal government. $1.10 for every dollar it pays in taxes; the state is not paying its fair share for the military, education, health, etc. and is actually making a profit on the tax system.

Iowa’s representatives in Congress have guarded the state's interests well, particularly their senators, Charles Grassley (Republican) and Tom Harkin (Democrat). They have important seniority as chairs of powerful committees so that it does not make any difference which party is in power. They have it covered.

The corn subsidies were originally installed to protect small farmers from foreign competition and from the big farmers with lower costs. However, as the small farmers disappear, the subsidies enhance the profits of the biggies.

Production of ethanol from corn is controversial. Federal law requires that this biofuel be 10% of all gasoline sold and the industry is trying to get this raised to 20 or 30%. The fundamental purpose of ethanol is to reduce reliance on foreign oil suppliers. However, some experts question the value of ethanol. They point out that the conversion of corn to ethanol requires so much energy that there are no net savings, that the conversion process requires too much water, that ethanol rich blends are corrosive for metals and plastics, could hurt car durability.

These programs have driven up the price of corn and products derived from corn significantly. Corn prices have doubled and diversion to ethanol is raising the overall cost of food as well as diverting grain from poor countries. Today corn syrup is used to sweeten jams, condiments like ketchup, and soft drinks. It is also a favorite ingredient in many so-called health foods. Big increases in the price of foods with corn syrup will affect the diets of millions of American families, and much bigger grocery costs as well.

As ethanol refining plants spring up all over Iowa, conservation of oil and energy is not receiving necessary attention. Subsidization of rational policies for the solution of local or national problems is an appropriate management tool. In this case, the objectives would be national energy independence and efficient use of energy. The technology exists to dramatically cut auto emissions, to reduce automobile consumption of gasoline, to reduce use of electricity, to operate machines with less energy. Let the federal government subsidize these energy-saving installations initially, modernizing our energy system. Simply replacing every old – fashioned electric light bulb in the country with the latest technology is already making a difference. We could do it with a fraction of the trillions of dollars we are spending abroad on oil, on oil related warfare and occupations, on support for client oil-producing states.


The Iowa caucus campaigns would be a prime place to raise these questions. Is there a candidate from either party with the courage to defy conventional Iowa political wisdom, who will demonstrate innovative thinking and the ability to manage the energy problem, by leading the country in a serious discussion of a serious problem? The solution to the energy problem is not in the Middle East but here at home where we can apply our technological skills for the benefit of all 50 states.