The Next Four Years

The Simpson-Bowles commission sketched out a vision of what a Grand Bargain might look like. Obama and John Boehner tried to craft some semi-Grand Bargains. There was a lot of talk at think tanks of what the best combination of tax reform and entitlement reform might be.

The “fiscal-cliff” fiasco has persuaded many smart people that a Grand Bargain is not going to happen any time soon. A political class that botched the fiscal cliff so badly are not going to be capable of a gigantic deal on complex issues. It’s like going into a day care center and asking a bunch of infants to perform “Swan Lake.”

Polarization is too deep. Special interests are too strong. The negotiators are too rusty. Republicans are not going to give up their vision of a low-tax America. Democrats are not willing to change the current entitlement programs.

So as the president enters his second term, there has to be a new controlling narrative, a new strategy for how to spend the next four years.

As you know, I am an earnest, good-government type, so the strategy I’d prefer might be called Learning to Crawl. It would be based on the notion that you have to learn to crawl before you can run. So over the next four years, legislators should work on a series of realistic, incremental laws that would rebuild the habits of compromise, competence and trust.

We could do some education reform, expand visa laws to admit more high-skill workers, encourage responsible drilling for natural gas, maybe establish an infrastructure bank. Political leaders would erode partisan orthodoxies and get back into the habit of passing laws together. Then, down the road, their successors could do the big things.

I may be earnest, but I’m not an idiot. I know there is little chance that today’s partisan players are going to adopt this kind of incremental goo-goo approach. It’s more likely that today’s majority party is going to adopt a different strategy, which you might call Kill the Wounded. It’s more likely that today’s Democrats are going to tell themselves something like this:

“We live at a unique moment. Our opponents, the Republicans, are divided, confused and bleeding. This is not the time to allow them to rebuild their reputation with a series of modest accomplishments. This is the time to kick them when they are down, to win back the House and end the current version of the Republican Party.

“First, we change the narrative. The president ran in 2008 against Washington dysfunction, casting blame on both parties. Over the years, he has migrated to a different narrative: The Republicans are crazy. Washington could be working fine, but the Republicans are crazy.

“At every public appearance, the president should double-down on that theme. The Democratic base already believes it. The media is sympathetic. Independents could be persuaded.

“Then, wedge issues. The president should propose no new measures that might unite Republicans, the way health care did in the first term. Instead, he should raise a series of wedge issues meant to divide Southerners from Midwesterners, the Tea Party/Talk Radio base from the less ideological corporate and managerial class.

“He’s already started with a perfectly designed gun control package, inviting a long battle with the N.R.A. over background checks and magazine clips. That will divide the gun lobby from suburbanites. Then he can re-introduce Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform. That will divide the anti-immigration groups from the business groups (conventional wisdom underestimates how hard it is going to be for Republicans to back comprehensive reforms).

“Then he could invite a series of confrontations with Republicans over things like the debt ceiling — make them look like wackos willing to endanger the entire global economy. Along the way, he could highlight women’s issues, social mobility issues (student loans, community college funding) and pick fights on compassion issues, (hurricane relief) — promoting any small, popular spending programs that Republicans will oppose.

“Twice a month, Democrats should force Republicans to cast an awful vote: either offend mainstream supporters or risk a primary challenge from the right.”

Just as Senator Mitch McConnell made defeating President Obama his main political objective, Democrats seem likely to make winning back the House their primary political objective. Experts are divided on how plausible this is, but the G.O.P. is unpopular and the opportunity is there.

This isn’t the Washington I want to cover, but it’s the most likely one. How will Republicans respond to this onslaught? I have no idea.

View the original article here

We should cut Pakistan aid for 33 years

(PNI) A Senate panel voted to reduce aid to Pakistan by $33million to express our outrage at the 33-year prison sentence given to the doctor who helped us find Osama bin Laden.

This may not survive a full congressional vote or presidential veto.

Even if it does, it is a total joke as this is a little over 3 percent of the total dollars we send to Pakistan yearly. I doubt it will suffer much from this action.

I would prefer that we abolish all aid to Pakistan for 33 years. That might send a stronger message.

--David H. Holmes, Sun City West

Did Obama learn Economics 101?

According to John Taft, head of RBC Wealth Management in the United States, the purpose of financial managers is "to connect people who have capital with people who can deploy capital in such a way that everyone is better off."

When I read and hear the president saying that Wall Street is concerned only about profit and not employment, frankly, I wonder whether he audited Economics 101 instead of taking the class for grade. Isn't it obvious that if the deployment of capital is not beneficial, there will be little or no profit or employment, and if it is beneficial, there will be both?

Given the common-sense fact above, the president must feel that government bureaucrats are the better financial stewards of the nation's wealth. Do people really believe this?

--Jerome Glazer, Scottsdale

Cat hoarder, 81, should be pitied

When an 81-year-old woman takes in 64 cats and makes soup out of those that die, she is to be pitied not prosecuted ("Wittmann cat hoarder arrested in new cruelty case," Valley & State, Thursday).

Ironically, her acts were probably motivated by love of animals, not a desire to be cruel to them.

We can't say for certain that those cats had worse lives than they otherwise would have.

Feral cats have high death rates and live in bad conditions. Many of them are run over by cars. Many of them are killed by coyotes. Many of them starve or die of disease, not better fates than those that were under her care.

Lucienne Touboul's behavior was clearly dysfunctional, but it was not depraved or evil. She is a sick, old woman who belongs in a nursing home, not a criminal who belongs in jail.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's decision to treat her like a criminal is the real cruelty.

The proper way to address this issue is to have Touboul declared incapacitated and placed in guardianship, not to have her prosecuted and placed in jail.

--Kevin Walsh, Phoenix

Legislative supermajority perilous

When we gave one party a supermajority in the Arizona Legisalture, it sent a signal that its members could do anything they wanted and still get re-elected. We removed the checks and balances of "other thinking."

Remember, "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The Republican-controlled House, Senate and administration have done very well proving it over the past few years.

Hopefully, in the elections this year, we will correct our error and spread the power so that some debate, negotiation and compromise will take place, and rather than extremism, we will have some moderation and negotiated legislation coming out of our elected officials next year.

On second thought, the ideal situation would be to send enough independents, Libertarians and Democrats to the state Capitol so that the Republicans would have to build coalitions to get bills passed.

In today's political "my way or the highway" atmosphere, nothing would get done and the people of Arizona would be safe from stupidity for two years.

--Mike Saari, Peoria

Many ex-offenders deserve a job

Regarding a recent letter about ex- offenders being good hires:

I was waiting for a relative to finish up a mentoring session conducted through Arizona Women's Education and Employment (AWEE), an agency that helps ex-offenders (both men and women) gain education and employment.

I sat outside the meeting door listening to them discuss the emotions of trying to get a job, the excitement of getting a lead or call back and the feeling of failure when they were told "no" again.

Their eyes are mixed with hope and fear. They want to support their children, earn the community's respect, mentor others one day. They just need a chance.

Even when the economy bounces back, these folks still carry the mark of an ex- offender.

Our community is generous through all the donations and volunteer time provided to non-profit agencies dedicated to feeding hungry children, providing housing assistance to the poor, and many other valuable services.

But can't we also be generous and give them a chance through employment?

Not every ex-offender is serious about changing his or her life, but the faces I saw at AWEE were.

Maybe folks could take their generosity further and give an ex-offender a chance.

--Susan Robustelli,Glendale

How I could become a Democrat

I support the Democratic Party on many issues, including reduced military spending, progressive taxation (the rich pay more), minimum wages for laborers, more gun control, programs for the poor, etc.

However, there are two planks to the Democratic Party platform that cause me to no longer be a member: abortion and gay rights.

Democrats say they believe abortion should be a personal choice, but they want me to approve and pay for others abortions. They say they believe in separation of church and state, but they want me to violate my church's doctrine on homosexuality and not only condone but approve the gay lifestyle.

Neither of these two issues should be addressed by Congress or the president. These issues should be left to our conscience and the courts to decide.

Then, I could be a Democrat!

--Dan McMahon, Chandler

Hey, 'sell crazy somewhere else'

In response to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett checking on the issue of President Barack Obama's birth certificate:

I thought of a line from the movie "As Good as It Gets."

Jack Nicholson said, "Sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here."

--Casey Franzen, Chandler

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here