Reflections on Lincoln’s Legacy vs. Today’s GOP; For Democrats, The Wonk vs. the Prophet

Abraham Lincoln was born 207 years ago today. Our 16th president was the first to win under the banner of the Republican Party. We know highlights of Lincoln’s presidential career: ending slavery, the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, preserving the Union, along with instilling a vision of America through inspiring speeches including The Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address. 

My goodness, how far today’s GOP stalwarts have drifted from Lincoln’s vision of a nation of equals blessed with equal opportunities. 

Even in the midst of the most partisan conflict in our nation’s history, Lincoln invested in infrastructure, both physical and strategic. Consider these accomplishments by Honest Abe (courtesy of learnodo-newtonic.com) and ponder if his would-be successors would sustain his achievements, much less propose and enact similar measures:

*Lincoln signed a bill that chartered the first transcontinental railroad. Republicans today hardly want to invest in rail transportation improvements or any form of mass transit;

*Lincoln signed the Morrill Land Grant Act. The act gave each state 30,000 acres of federal land for each member in its congressional delegation. The states sold the land to fund public colleges that focused on agriculture and the mechanical arts. Sixty-nine colleges were funded by these land grants, including Cornell University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Republicans today are cutting funding of Pell grants and other expenditures for education; 

*Lincoln signed The National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864, laws that helped shape today’s national banking system and its support of a uniform U.S. banking policy. Republicans today want to limit the powers of, or eliminate, the Federal Reserve; 

*Lincoln signed the first of the Homestead Acts, allowing poor people to obtain land. Republicans today are against virtually all federal assistance programs; 

*Lincoln established the United States Department of Agriculture. Republicans today decry as excessive government regulations pertaining to farming, agriculture, forestry, and food; 

*Lincoln favored a progressive income tax. He signed the Revenue Act of 1862 that established the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue along with taxes based on tiers of income. Republicans today want to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, a successor to Lincoln’s tax office.

The Wonk vs. the Prophet: If you watched the Democratic Party debate Thursday night all the way to the end you were rewarded with the appearance of a third character on the podium. Joining policy wonk Hillary Clinton and prophet of revolution Bernie Sanders was a passionate candidate of change and context hidden from view for nearly two hours.

In the final moments of a substantive debate on policy, experience and differences, the smoldering fire inside Hillary erupted. Not just in words but also in demeanor she seized the imperative as to why she deserved to be her party’s nominee and the nation’s next president.

Too bad only those wonky enough to stay with the show till its conclusion were rewarded with this transformative moment (do not fret, loyal readers—here’s a link to her closing statement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbjKZ4I_jSU&sns=em). 

For those who abandoned the debate midstream the passion vote skewed toward Bernie, an adept debater who masked few policy details with populist rhetoric no less appealing than past leaders who advocated revolution. For after all, who would follow a boring revolutionary?

By the way, throughout the debate Sanders displayed a timely, if insensitive, cough, timely in that he never coughed while he was talking but did so repeatedly during Clinton’s answers. To her credit, she never flinched or looked over in annoyance. As a good policy wonk she plowed straight ahead spouting facts and figures without too much emotion, until that closing argument.

Stepping Back from the Precipice, A Recipe for the Tea Party

Anyone who was surprised by the shakiness of the deal to end the government shutdown/slimdown as well as an extension of the debt ceiling is the sort of person who would be a good mark to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. As we stood on the edge of a precipice of unknown depth and impact on the national and global economies, more rational heads seem poised to prevail over the petulant, petty, mean-spirited Tea Party members and a House leadership that is a leadership in name only by refusing to stand up to the obstructionist, ill-conceived ideology of the Tea Party.

As I write this, the Senate and House are yet to vote on a proposal worked out earlier today by the Senate majority and minority leaders. There’s still an opportunity for mischief and mayhem to re-enter the arena.  Let’s assume the best, however.

Let’s also assume, and this assumption might be too hard for some to swallow, that Tea Partyers truly believe they were acting in the best interest of the country. It’s hard to argue with the concept that government has grown too large, that cuts should be made. The real argument is over which appropriations are cut-worthy.

Here’s an idea I’d like to float—Tea Party members, in Congress and those who elected them to office, should be required to live without many of the discretionary services the federal government provides. For example, since they claim Obamacare will destroy our country, they should not be eligible for health coverage under the Affordable Care Act. And while I don’t question their patriotism, I’d cut off their access to Veterans Affairs hospitals and other VA programs.

They’re also interested in cutting back on Medicare and Medicaid. I say they shouldn’t be permitted to enroll in either program. Don’t provide them Social Security, either. Nor unemployment or disability insurance payments. Those entitlement programs are just part of the “taker” society Mitt Romney and the Tea Party bemoan. 

I wouldn’t let them drive on federal interstate highways, unless they paid a use tax. We could issue them special license plates so we could monitor their time on the road.

Based on the intelligence they’ve shown so far, I guess there’s no interest by them in Pell Grants for their children’s education. They shouldn’t be able to enroll their pre-schoolers in Head Start programs, nor should their children be eligible for any federally funded school meals (it pains me to hurt children, but it might be the only way their parents have any empathy for the less fortunate in our society). They also should have to pay special use fees to enter national parks and the Smithsonian. 

They don’t think their stunt to shutter the government and stymie extension of the debt ceiling had any negative effect on the economy, so I’d take away FDIC insurance coverage on their bank accounts. And since they seem to be a self-reliant bunch, I’d deny them any FEMA relief from natural disasters. 

I’m sure there are other discretionary parts of the federal budget I could suggest withholding from them. But you get the idea. Let’s impose these restrictions immediately and see how they work through the time of the compromise worked out by the Senate, that is, either the January 15 funding of the government or the February 7 deadline for the  next vote on raising the debt ceiling limit. Maybe by then the Tea Party will realize there are lots of good programs worth funding.

What I'd Like to Hear

Not wanting to dim the afterglow of Ellie and Donny’s wedding, I have avoided watching almost all of the Republican National Convention. I expect, however, I will tune in to listen to Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech tonight.

For the Mittster to win the election, pundits have said, he must cut into the advantage Barack Obama has with two key constituencies—women and blacks. Accordingly, they have been pressing the point that an improved economy, which only the Mittster can deliver, would be the best tonic for what ails these two demographics.

So I wonder, under a Romney presidency ...

... would women who could not afford traditional medical care still be able to receive screenings and treatments at Planned Parenthood, or will Republicans cause the clinics to shut down by defunding them?

... would anyone with a pre-condition still be eligible for health care insurance or would Republicans turn the clock back on one of the key provisions of Obamacare?

... would unemployed children still living at home through age 26 be covered by their parents’ health care insurance or will Republicans deny them coverage that was extended under Obamacare?

... would our streets and homes be safer if Republicans ended grants to states to hire policemen and firemen?

... would children and their families in poverty be better off under Republican plans to reduce spending on social welfare programs? Would they be better off if block grants are given to the states which have their own budgetary problems and are looking for ways to cut expenses?

... would a Romney administration fight for women to receive equal pay for equal work as men?

... would they be better off if there were fewer Pell grants for their children’s higher education? 

... would they be better off if there were fewer regulations to protect our food supply, our drug industry, our natural resources and parklands from exploitation and pollution?

... would they be better off if programs supporting the arts and culture were curtailed or sharply reduced?

I suspect the answer to all these questions, and more, would be a resounding “NO.” But let’s give Mitt the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps tonight I will hear him enumerate beyond platitudes and generalities his specific vision for America. Perhaps he will provide specifics about what his administration would cut to achieve a reduction in our national debt. Perhaps he will offer specific solutions to regenerate our industries, to reinvigorate investments in our infrastructure, to expand opportunities for the underemployed, to assist those whose homes have depleted in value.

I suspect we will get more of the same “America’s best days are ahead” from him. More “trust me.” I’d like to trust him, but so far his campaign has lied about things Obama didn’t say or do. Even after the lies have been pointed out to them, Romney and Paul Ryan have continued to lie. 

If he wins and both houses of Congress swing Republican, would he have the backbone to stand up to the extreme wing of his party? I doubt it. He could score a lot of points with me if he would say tonight a woman has the right to an abortion if she is raped, or becomes pregnant through incest, or the pregnancy puts her life in danger. That would take courage. He’s said that in interviews. Now let’s hear him say that before the convention delegates. I doubt he has the courage to do so. Prove me wrong, Mitt.  

Politics, GOP Style

Chris Christie is no Sarah Palin.

Unlike the former Alaskan governor who left office midway through her first term to seek more fame and definitely more fortune, and possibly the presidency of the United States, Christie asserted Tuesday, “I’m just not prepared to walk away” from the job the voters of New Jersey elected him to do 22 months ago. He said he would remain governor and not seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination as “now is not my time.”

Chris Christie is no Mitch Daniels.

Unlike the governor of Indiana, Christie did not invoke family restraints in making his definitive decision to put his ambition on hold. The decision was his alone, he said, asserting his family was behind him whatever his choice.

Christie’s announcement of his oft-stated stance, laudable to some, lamentable to others, raises some interesting contemplations. I find it hard to believe the pugnacious governor does not view himself superior to any of the announced and unannounced candidates seeking the GOP nomination. So why the hesitancy? Surely other politicians have shortened their stays in office to seek higher seats of power. If they win, they’re serving the greater public good. If they lose, well, they go back to their elected spot. It’s not as if Christie would have to vacate the governorship to run for president.

Let’s also consider what might happen if a different GOP candidate wins the White House. It’s conceivable that as a former federal attorney Christie might be tapped to run either the Justice Department or the Department of Homeland Security. Since hardly anyone turns down a president when asked to serve the country (e.g., John Huntsman), Christie might wind up in Washington before his term as governor expires anyway, just not in the office he really wants.

Moreover, if a Republican becomes president, Christie would have to wait eight more years before seeking the highest office in the land. Though he’d be just 58 in 2020, that wait is an eternity in politics.

Perhaps what Christie is really saying by choosing not to run this time is that despite the lousy economy, despite what he calls President Obama’s lack of leadership, he believes the incumbent will be re-elected. Perhaps an article in today’s NY Times detailing how Republicans want to cut spending on the new health care law, Planned Parenthood, Pell grants and education programs provides background as to why an enlightened but fiscally conservative Republican would have difficulty running on a platform that deprives the needy and the middle class of benefits while protecting the riches of the elite (http://nyti.ms/oK6aws). Perhaps that’s the true meaning of “now is not my time.”