![The DSM Register Independence Day Weekend “Progressive Trifecta†(2nd of 3)]()
by John Bloom | Jul 13, 2011
The Des Moines Register’s Opinion Section on Sunday, July 3, 2011 featured a “Progressives Trifecta†of half-truths and sophistry:
Richard Doak – What if the founders were around today?
Donald Kaul – My favorite 4th of July speech
Dean Baker – Keep Social Security safe from politicians who want to save it
This week I will focus my comments on Donald Kaul’s article sub-titled “Real patriotism requires coming to terms with the grimmer side of American historyâ€.
Donald Kaul – He shares viewpoints about the things he likes and dislikes about the 4th of July. He likes back yard gatherings but he dislikes patriotic claptrap. He likes patriotism, defined as acts of citizenship and service, but dislikes speechifying. He likes the flag itself but dislikes flag-waving, defined as substitute emotionalism for rational behavior. My primary issue with his meandering opening is that he never refers to the holiday by its real name, which is Independence Day, not the “Fourth of Julyâ€.
- Flag Waving Emotionalism-His example of substituting flag-waving emotionalism for rational behavior is “War, for example. How many times have nations been led into truly stupid wars behind a flowing flag? Does the word Iraq suggest anything to you?â€
The rest of the story: Which Iraq war was Mr. Kaul referring to? Why did he select war(s) started under Republican Presidents, but not include Vietnam, started under Democrat Presidents?  There was meaningful United Nations support for both military actions in Iraq. There was minimal UN involvement in the military actions in Vietnam. His point about irrational behavior would have seemed less partisan had he said “Does the word Vietnam suggest anything to you?â€.
- Favorite Fourth of July Speech-He proceeds to inform his readers about the great black orator and civil rights leader, Frederick Douglass. He rightfully acknowledges the key role that Douglass played in pointing out the hypocrisy of the “Independence Day†celebration of 1854, a time when slavery was a legal practice in southern states and segregation a common practice almost everywhere in the United States.
The rest of the story:  Mr. Kaul does not fully inform us about the political party that was responsible for the safeguarding of slavery between 1789 and 1854.  That was the Democrat Party.  Frederick Douglass supported abolitionist John C Fremont in the 1864 Republican primary.  Lincoln, who won the nomination and the election, was a moderate, not a radical abolitionist. Douglass eventually reconciled himself with Lincoln’s shortcomings and legacy. Douglass supported Republican Ulysses S. Grant in 1868. Mr. Kaul, why not acknowledge that Frederick Douglass’ speech was about injustices imposed by Democrats, including Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson?
(On a side note, I wish influential liberal writers like Mr. Kaul would acknowledge that Republicans drafted and passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments ending slavery, providing citizenship and voting rights to all minorities. It is a tragedy that the Supreme Court later gutted the clear intention of these amendments with the Cruikshank decision of 1876. After that, southern Democrat Senators prevented enforcement rights for 88 years until a coalition of Republican and Democrat Senators prevailed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.)
- Tulsa Race Riot- He concludes with a review of the history of the Tulsa race riot of May 31, 1921. The Wikipedia article on this event varies substantially with Mr. Kaul’s article, but my interests are not to quibble over details.  It was a deplorable event driven by unreasonable fear and hatred stirred up by sensationalistic newspaper reporting.   The town’s black community was burned to the ground and they suffered a large number of deaths and injuries. I support Mr. Kaul’s desire to educate the public about this event.  Our nation’s history has too many examples of horrible behavior denying life and liberty to minorities and the underprivileged.
The rest of the story:  Now, it is also a fact that the state of Oklahoma originated in 1907 and had Democrat Governors until 1963. The Governor in 1921 was Democrat, James Brooks Ayers Robertson.  An article from the Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, referring to the early years of the state legislature, “The legislature banned interracial schools at all levels. Many public facilities along with common carriers were segregated. Some 540 railroad depots in the state had to be altered to fit the new separate waiting rooms requirement, while new coaches also had to be added to the lines. Over time, legislators segregated everything from hospitals to housing to cemeteries to restaurants. In 1915 Oklahoma made national history by becoming the first state in the Union to segregate public pay telephone booths.â€.[1] Mr. Kaul, why don’t you acknowledge that the Tulsa race riot was a product of the racist history of the Democrat Party?
[1] http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/S/SE006.html
![The DSM Register Independence Day Weekend “Progressive Trifecta†(2nd of 3)]()
by John Bloom | Jul 5, 2011
The Des Moines Register’s Opinion Section on Sunday, July 3, 2011 featured a “Progressives Trifecta†of half-truths and sophistry:
- Richard Doak – What if the founders were around today?
- Donald Kaul – My favorite 4th of July speech
- Dean Baker – Keep Social Security safe from politicians who want to save it
This week I will focus my comments on Richard Doak’s imaginary view of our founding fathers. I will cover the other articles in due time.
Richard Doak – He begins with “This Fourth of July finds the country caught up more than usual in the mythology of America.â€. This opening argument is a fundamental tactic of the Progressives, i.e. to undermine our most cherished institutions by equating them to something less (mythology).
- He asserts that “a faction†of the Supreme Court claims to discern the “original intentâ€. Every Justice is required to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent … under the Constitution. How can a Justice fulfill that oath without trying to understand the original intent of the founders? Every decision requires a majority, not a faction (minority).
- He says that “Today’s congress and courts are more intent on freeing the rich from taxation…â€. According to The Heritage Foundation, the % of Federal Taxes paid by the top 10% of income earners has increased from just fewer than 50% in 1980 to about 70% at the end of 2008. In 2008, 49% of U.S. households paid no Federal Income Tax.[1] The reality is that for decades congress has been intent on freeing everyone but the rich to pay taxes.
- He asserts that “The Constitution, written in 1787, created a strong central government and a unified national economy.â€. He then creates the straw man that “politics are occasionally roiled by calls for a return to a weak central government and state’s ability to veto federal actions†as existed under the Articles of Confederation. I have attended every major Tea Party event in Iowa over the past 3 years. I can’t recall anyone calling for a return to the Articles of Confederation.  Most Tea Party supporters simply want the country to operate under the Constitution as properly amended.
- He offers several rights, including guaranteed health care, implying the founders would have included them had they thought about them. At the time the Constitution was written, there was substantial discontent over the welfare of the common man, both in the United States and Europe. The French Revolution occurred in 1789. The Articles of Confederation were introduced by James Madison that same year and ratified at the end of 1791. It is disingenuous to imply that the founders had no opportunity to think about social justice entitlements. It is more likely that they considered such matters to be the province of individual states.
- Finally, he offers up the U.S. Post Office as a shining example that the founders were pragmatic and had no favoritism of private sector solutions vs. government solutions.  They just wanted to do “what works bestâ€.  I can’t think of a better argument for limited government and the need to repeal Obamacare.
[1] http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartbook/top10-percent-income-earners
by John Bloom | Jun 29, 2011
The Des Moines Register’s Editorial on Monday, June 27, 2011 was titled “Steep budget cuts now could harm economyâ€.
Summary – The Register’s Editorial group pointed us once again to the “nonpartisan fiscal agencyâ€, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  They quoted the CBO’s “dire warning about unsustainable federal deficitsâ€, but cautioned that the report also “warned that steep cuts right now could make the nation’s fiscal condition even worse by kicking the legs out from under the economyâ€.  Also on June 27th, The Wall Street Journal’s front page led off with an article titled “Debt Hamstrings Recoveryâ€[1].  The WSJ’s Tom Lauricella notes “Around the globe, the inability of governments and households to reduce their debt continues to cast a shadow over Western economiesâ€â€¦â€Unlike the aftermath of typical recessions, simply lowering interest rates hasn’t been enough to get growth back on track…Quite the opposite has been the case… The lowered cost of borrowing has enabled individuals and government to delay taking measures to change the way they spend and save.â€
Comment on the DSM Register’s Selective Reporting – I have noticed a pattern of inconsistency in the DSM Register’s and WSJ’s reporting.  Many featured articles in the WSJ, arguably a far more competent source of economic analysis than Gannett’s network, are minimized or never presented in the DSM Register. In addition to the “Debt Hamstring†analysis, another recent example would be the study released by management consultant McKinsey. They surveyed 1,300 companies and found that one third (1/3) of them will “definitely†or “probably†stop offering health insurance after 2014.  Since candidate Obama guaranteed us that we would be able to keep our current insurance, this seems like a worthwhile piece of news. If the DSM Register featured it, I must have overlooked it. I wonder if the nonpartisan CBO is aware of it?
Analysis of the “Spend Now, Save Later Strategyâ€Â - If we were in the position of China, over $3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves[2], I would not have a big issue with spending some of those reserves to shore up a short term slump in the economy.  However Government debt as a % of GDP has increased from 30% in the early 2000’s to 35% by the end of the Bush presidency (increasing under both Republican and Democrat congresses). During the Pelosi-Reid-Obama era, that % is now approaching 60%.  Meanwhile consumer debt and mortgage debt has more than doubled since 2000 (from $10 to about $20 trillion combined). Given the state of our debt, any increase in interest rates (almost a certainty the way the Fed has increased the money supply) will quickly multiply the consequences of our excessive debt.   For my entire adult life I have heard politicians claim that we will “save later, when the economy is strongerâ€. That day never comes. The Clinton-Gingrich era budgets were a nice anomaly but were not based on sustainable structural changes. The Register is wrong. We must cut government spending substantially and quickly.
[1] WSJ 27 June 2011, Debt Hamstrings Recovery
[2] WSJ, 26 June 2011, “China Pledges Continued Support for European Debtâ€
