POLITICS AS USUAL

     I promised myself I would steer clear of Politics on my Blog, but like a good politician I’m a flip-flopper. I’ve never known a time when there is such acrimony in an election campaign not only in TV ads but also between friends and neighbors. What made me change my mind about avoiding Politics was an Op Ed piece by David Brooks in the New York Times a week before the election.

    The article made a case for voting for Governor Romney based on Brook’s hypothesis that if Obama were reelected the Republicans in Congress would not work with him in any manner or form on any important legislation; but if Romney were elected he would move towards the center and enough Democrats would vote with him to “get the big stuff done.”

     Brooks goes on to blame Obama for, “running such a negative presidential campaign”, and the impact this would have on getting Republicans to work with him. Nowhere in the article does Brooks blame the Republicans for running a negative campaign. Maybe David's TV is broke or maybe he just believes the Democrats are thicker skinned. He certainly wouldn’t want anyone to believe the Democrats are more concerned with the future of the country and therefore more willing to compromise than the conservatives in the other party.

      Brooks calls Romney, “more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama” - - - so vote for him.

    Maybe he’s right, but it sure seems strange to vote for someone for president because he’s a better “flipper” and because his party members (mostly in the House) are less willing than Democrats to compromise for the good of the country.

     But maybe he’s wrong. Here’s another possible scenario that Brooks didn’t consider. Just maybe Obama learned from all the criticism of his first term unwillingness to “fight” for Simpson/Bowles and other legislation just as he learned to “fight” after his lackluster showing in the first debate. If he’s elected maybe he’ll got off his ass White Horse and take to the bully pulpit to produce a groundswell from the countryside that would teach the recalcitrants in both parties that “compromise” is not a dirty word.

     And now a few more words of criticism of President Obama with regards to his campaign to increase taxes on the very rich. He’s turned the issue into one of class warfare while what he really should have been saying is that the story of Horatio Alger - - - rags to riches - - - is his and the country’s American Dream. He made the word “millionaire’ into a dirty word instead of the respected goal of any hard-working individual who wants to earn a lot of money.

   Yes I’m a Democrat, (a disillusioned Obamacrat) 

and I’d vote for a Republican running against Obama if that party had put up a candidate who was the “more center-right candidate” that Brooks thinks will evolve from Romney the flip-flopper (Brooks’ words.)

     The absurdity, to me, of it all is that Romney has convinced the poor guy who works 8-10 hours a day that the tax loopholes that make what Romney (and others who run hedge funds and alike) and who work the same 8-10 hours a day as Joe, pay federal income taxes of only 15% while Joe the Plumber pays more than twice as much, and seemingly couldn't care less.
     
     Obama, by his attack on the rich, instead of on the tax system, has helped push Joe the Plumber further into the Republican camp. 

    And to get this last thing off my chest, all those who complain that our corporate tax rate is too high look at the tax returns of most of American’s largest companies - - - they pay little or no US tax by transferring their profits to the books of their foreign subsidiaries. Even GE pays less taxes, percentage wise, than Joe the Plumber and even Earl the Blogger.