No Eating from This Buffett...

Back in February, I wrote a piece called Congressional Lifers Are Killing Us, where I laid out what I thought the biggest challenge for this country was: ridding ourselves of the lifelong members of Congress who have corrupted our legislative and economic systems, with no term limits to help us.

I've recently seen a thread running around Facebook, highlighting an idea proposed by the Oracle of Omaha himself, Warren Buffett.  He discussed the then-pending debt ceiling increase in an interview with CNBC's Becky Quick on July 7, 2012, in which he said, "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes.  You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."  

I am not a fan of Warren Buffett.  He's hypocritical and inflated with a self-importance that defies comprehension (and this is coming from a guy who, some might say, is bathed in intellectual arrogance).  Buffett is the guy who said his secretary paid more in taxes than he did.  He revised the statement to correctly reflect that her tax RATE was higher than his.  He does earn a $100,000 annual salary, and $300,000-$400,000 in a securities based compensation package, that he does pay the top rate on as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.  If you take that alone, his claim is false.  But his $46 million total income is mostly investment related, aka Capital Gains, of which the current rate is 15% - which dropped his overall adjusted rate to 17.7%.  His secretary's $60,000-$70,000 salary netted her a 30% WAGE rate.  Because of this disparity that dismayed him so, Buffett came out in support of raising the income tax rate of the wealthiest Americans, saying he should be paying so much more than the government demands.  And Obama, giddy as a schoolgirl, proposed "The Buffett Rule" as  the lynchpin to eliminating the Bush tax cuts, bringing the top rate back up to 39.6%, and an additional 3% on the über-wealthy.  And the crowd goes wild!.....

Well, not so much.  To begin with, Buffett skips over the part that he - and all Americans - can pay as much as they want to the Treasury Department - there is no limit.  And I'm a big believer in putting your money where your mouth is.  Set the example you wish of other people.  But nay, Buffett has no interest in that.  He'll only pay more if the government makes him.  Like most people, big on words, not so much on actions.  And the other thing that's generally glossed over is the fact that, even if Obama managed to raise the wage rate to 80%, he STILL wouldn't get much more out of Buffett.  Remember, Buffett's income is mostly investment based.  So aside from the tiny sliver of income that is his Berkshire Hathaway compensation package, Buffett would pay not much more now at the higher rate than he does at the current one.. And that goes for all the billionaires in this country.  As long as they pay mostly CapGains, they'll pay just as much wage tax after the increase as they do now - which is next to nothing.

And this is how you know Obama is full of it when he talks about making the wealthy pay their fair share.  If he really meant that, he would jack up the CapGains rate, not the wage rate, since that's where all the money of the wealthy resides.  He's mentioned doing that, but only mentioned bumping the rate up to 20%.  Not exactly a barn-burner.  This may or may not have something to do with the fact that Obama's millions from his two books are invested in a blind trust (as all presidents' investments are when they take office - essentially, a fund manager takes over the Obamas' investments until they leave the White House, the term "blind" meaning that they don't know where the money is invested, and so can't try to influence markets in a way that they knowingly benefit from).  This is also how you know that, for all his rhetoric about sticking it to the rich, Obama knows where his bread is buttered.  It makes great lip service, but if he raised the CapGains rate too much, the wealthy will simply move more of their money overseas and invest more heavily in foreign markets, rather than our own.  Obama's not dumb enough to play that gamble.  So what we end up with is the grandest of empty gestures, with little real impact on anyone except the small business owners, who are, naturally, the loudest voices of opposition.  That's why Buffett can shout his support to the heavens - he gets to sound prophetic and benevolent, the masses ignorantly cheering his name, because he knows it will have little actual impact on him.

And this is why his quote in that CNBC interview rings hollow.  He makes a good sound bite, but Warren Buffett contributed over $100,000 to campaigns and PACs for this election cycle, just one of many big money donors to the people whose jobs he's threatening.  For what it's worth, his idea has merit.  I wrote an op-ed a couple of years ago, pushing an idea to tie legislators' incumbencies to performance incentives, the deficit, debt, unemployment rate, and GDP growth being key barometers.  If parameters were not met, they wouldn't be allowed to run for re-election for a minimum of two terms.  I proposed it as an end-around to the term-limits we all know Congress would never, ever vote for.  They would never vote for my idea either, but if enough states were in favor of some form of it (15 states currently have term limits), they could push for an amendment by constitutional convention, bypassing Congress altogether. 

I admire Buffett's business acumen - he's an investment genius, and all due credit to his many decades at the top of the food chain.  But when it comes to politics, I take him in the same vein I take Donald Trump: amusing caricatures, but not people I take seriously, once you put a little thought into what they say.

Why Would I Be a Republican?

I posted a Facebook status about Tea Party Republican darling Allen West yesterday.  A good friend of mine mused that I didn't strike him as a Republican much anymore, based on many of my recent position pieces.  I wrote him a reply, after which I re-read my response to him, and it seemed like a good blog post, as several of my friends had observed something similar in me.  And Lord knows the GOP hasn't given many people reason to support them in the last couple of decades.  So why would I still be a Republican?

For starters, the Republican party isn't what it used to be. I believe in generally small government. Big government has dipped its wick in too many unnecessary wells (usually as a means of appeasing those selling their vote), and charged us for their misadventures - or stole outright from other wells (Social Security, for example), putting our financial security at risk.  The party differences have historically been mostly fiscal. In recent decades, social issues have taken the forefront, when they really don't belong there, and that has largely been at the behest of the religious right. I have never agreed with this, because too much of the country isn't of the same religion, and our constitution forbids catering to one religion or establishing one on a national scale. Yet here we are.

Despite my belief in smaller government, I do believe in helping those in need, even though the scope and breadth of our system has gotten completely out of hand. We could very easily support those in need and not fiscally squeeze the life out of our economy. It may hurt people's access for a year, but we could fix it. I am in favor if fixing the system so people aren't abandoned, but our fiscal health is protected.

As social issues go, I hate the hypocrisy of my party. Republicans preach about freedom - everything they fight so ruthlessly against is in defense of liberty and freedom... unless you are a woman, in which case your freedom is how we dictate to you how it will be. You WILL submit yourself to your rapist and birth his child. You WILL NOT use contraception, lest you are a whore who enjoys sex.  Sex is for your husband's pleasure and reproduction purposes only.  You are a receptacle and an incubator.  Live with it.  GOP pols will swear to their dying breath that's not what they mean, but let's face it - unlike Democrat politicians, who wave one hand in your face while stabbing you in the back with the other, Republicans just punch you in the mouth with their attitudes.  No hiding, no misdirection, just straight up misogyny, and they really don't care whether you like or agree with it.  Gays should be sequestered to an island where we don't have to look at them, because they are gross. Unless it's two gorgeous women in our favorite lesbian porn - and so long as they don't want to get married. Cause how will they have children? Unless God blesses their happy home with a rapist - as God sometimes wills...  

The gay argument is particularly hilarious, considering the most ardent supporters of the anti-gay movement seem to have a habit of turning out to be gay.  Love the Catholics, but just once I'd like to hear a GIRL say a priest molested her...

I guess my point is that the Republican party is barely Republican anymore. They are greedy hypocritical bastards who want big government when it's THEIRS.  I believe government's role is supposed to be for the fiscal and military security of the nation, while the states and localities can manage the rest.  Welfare, Social Security and Medicare are not anti-Republican programs.  Their operations and management are, and they need to be fixed. But they should be part of the fiscal purview of the federal government, because their financial needs are too big for state to state management. The party has become a bastion of absolutes, with compromise and pragmatism being blasphemous. These days I would probably be chastised as a RINO (Republican In Name Only), but I'm waiting for my party to re-acquire the asylum from the inmates... otherwise I'll end up an independent. I voted Green party this year because Jill Stein is my kind of pragmatist, even if she's a little more liberal than I would like.  I've never believed that absolutes were a good way to run a country, so my party affiliation is peripheral at best, maintained solely for the ability to vote in the primaries.  I am probably more center-right than true right, and I vote based on who I think exhibits the best combination of ideas, methodology, and judgment.  I wasn't sure if Barack Obama was that person in 2008, but in 2012 I was more sure that he was not.  But I sure as heck know Mitt Romney wasn't, and he was never going to get my vote.

Things are going to change for the GOP in the next four years, because they have no choice.  They are so close to permanent insignificance that they can't afford the same old outdated thinking.  Whether I remain a member of the party will be dictated largely by what I see in the next two years.  In the meantime, I will be dedicating some time to trying to eliminate the electoral college that has completely corrupted out political system and pushing for the emergence of a third and, possibly, fourth party, and eliminating soft money that has rendered smaller parties in this corrupt system insignificant.  It is pure corruption, sanctioned by the Supreme Court, and it will ruin this country if we are not careful.

Where did the GOP Go Wrong?

So it's been three days, a much needed decompression from the two year onslaught of presidential campaigning for all Americans.  Candidates get a nice cocooning by their staff, even as busy as they are.  The citizenry just gets pounded from every direction - it wouldn't be hard to argue that the people are more emotionally exhausted than the candidates.

But in the end, Barack Obama won another term as president.  For Obama supporters, unrestrained jubilation.  For Romney supporters, shock and confusion as to how this happened.  For third party supporters (full disclosure:  I voted for Jill Stein, but would have been satisfied with Gary Johnson as well), disappointment at the continued marginalization by the major party structure that leaves smart, strong candidates with their fingers and noses pressed against the window, licking their lips in hunger for real contention.

So what happened?  Romney was going so strong that it seemed almost inevitable to end with a close call and a victory.  And while the popular vote count was close-ish (a few points is a reasonably tight race), the electoral count was less than anticipated.  A few things played into Romney's surprising slide on election day:

1.  Turnout.  Obama had it, Romney didn't - at least not what he thought he was going to get.  Polling suggested otherwise, but I think something wasn't taken into account.  The strong independent support reflected in the polls may have been suspect, because a lot of Republicans have shifted to independent, and that knowledge would skew the numbers from true independents who don't really lean toward any party, and are often where the undecideds are found.  The GOP thought that in 2008, Obama got a huge showing by voters because they didn't know him yet, and could make him anything they wanted to - it's why Hope and Change was effective, despite having almost no platform except taxing the über-wealthy.  In 2012, with four years of a record to judge, especially since the Democrat citizenry was disappointed with Obama failing to deliver on almost all his campaign promises, the GOP was sure the door was wide open to take back the White House because, surely, the voters wouldn't turn out in such vast numbers again.  And they were right.  But usual GOP voters didn't turn out either, and in greater numbers.

2.  Hurricane Sandy.  Like it or not, the incumbent has an advantage for a reason.  Obama had been lagging, while Romney was building momentum.  Something had to break for Obama, because they were not slowing Romney down, no matter how hard they tried.  Then Sandy hit.  Obama called everyone affected, looking for someone to allow him to be presidential.  He had been turned down a couple of times, most notably by Michael Bloomberg in NYC, who did not want his relief efforts derailed by having to accommodate the resource and security needs of the president.  So he told the president to stay away from New York.  Then came the shock that shook the GOP.  New Jersey governor, Republican Chris Christie, took him up on his offer to come survey the damage in his state.  They spent most of the day together, after which they held a press conference, where Christie poured the love on Obama so thick, NRA members were loading rifles across the country, just wanting to shoot something.  Did Obama do anything of substance on that little excursion?  No.  He needed a free campaign ad of him doing the one thing Romney couldn't - be presidential during the aftermath of a disaster - and he got it.  Anyone thinking it was not political should find a mirror, look into it, point at themselves and laugh themselves to tears.  It was a deft campaign move on Obama's part, and a sorely needed one.  And to add insult to injury, this all came on the heels of Romney having already said that he thought we should get rid of FEMA.  The timing could not have been worse.  And with the juxtaposition of Sandy vs. Bush's handling of Katrina, Obama couldn't have looked better going into the election.  Sucks to be Romney, but the incumbent has an advantage for a reason.

3.  Women.  I put this out there last week, and I don't know that it really influenced anyone's thinking - or that people around the country would put such thought into it - but the fact that the next president could feasibly have to replace a Supreme or two is an extremely important consideration that was not emphasized by either party.  Simply put, the GOP has hammered women over the past four years, forcing women's reproductive and contraceptive rights to the forefront of hot-button debate topics - and THAT made the selection of the next president much more critical as far as I'm concerned.  One Supreme vote swing to the right throws Roe v. Wade into dangerous territory.  It also puts gay rights heavily in the mix.  Romney swung way to the right to win the nomination and campaigned there for much of the run.  Add to that Todd Akin and Richard Murdock opening their holes in as stupid a manner as I've ever seen, and there's just no way Romney was going to win the women's vote.  Obama took it 55% to Romney's 44%.  Among single women, the ones most affected by reproductive and contraceptive rights, it was even more so - Obama 67%, Romney 31%.  You can not insult women and expect to win an election.

4.  Minorities.  As much as the GOP may not like it, blacks are here to stay, and the Hispanic population swells by the year.  Whites were 87% of the population in 1992, they're 72% now in 2012.  The party of old white men have to pop the bubble their heads float around in and realize you can't insult blacks by telling them they're worthless welfare leeches and Hispanics that you'll make life for them so difficult that they'll self-deport.  Our demographic mix muddies the water more and more by the year.  Obama got 93% of the black vote, and 71% of the Hispanic vote - a minority that is usually more conservative, making it all the more a slap in the face.  The muddier it gets, the closer the GOP will inch toward extinction if they don't learn to include everyone in their endeavors.

5.  "Flip-Flopping."  Mitt Romney is a moderate, and always has been.  If he had been himself during the Republican primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He went way to the right to cater to the Tea Party, who had proven to have some real power building up in the 2010 mid-term elections.  The problem with campaigning today is that the media are everywhere.  So Romney would give a speech to Tea Party faithful one day, hitting all the hard right points they love to hear.  Then he would give a speech the next day to regular Republican supporters, where he would say something a little closer to what he really thinks.  Then the media plays both and calls him a flip-flopper.  It's a hard lesson for all prospective candidates.  Just be yourself, and let people decide what's important to them about you.  Romney came off as completely disingenuous and out of touch, people not knowing what to believe with him.  Obama slammed him several times in the first two debates for being completely opposite from everything he campaigned on to that point.  Normally that would be an amateur move, and Obama may have blown the first debate for the most part, but that one point may have stuck with voters, who started paying more attention from that point on.

These are just some of the main points that stick out.  I think a big question a lot of people ask themselves is:  do I believe the challenger is enough of an improvement over the incumbent, to make it worth replacing one with the other?  I don't care for Obama, but I never believed for a second that Romney would be an improvement.  I called him the Republican John Kerry several times - an empty suit lacking substance.  So even if I hadn't supported a third-party candidate, I still wouldn't have voted for Romney, even being a registered Republican.  And I imagine there has to be some Republicans that felt the same way.  Learn some lessons, GOP, or your beeline to insignificance will be a quick one.