Views from Abroad November 15, 2000February 17, 2017 Rick Steves: ‘After each European trip, my favorite souvenir is a roughed-up perspective. Time and time again, Europeans make this liberal feel like a crusty old conservative. Even though I’m a committed American capitalist and would live nowhere else, I’m fascinated by European attitudes and solutions. Consider these recent jolts to my American outlook: ‘Hiking along an Alpine ridge with a Swiss friend, I asked, ‘How can the Swiss accept such high taxes?’ Without missing a step he asked, ‘What’s it worth to live in a country with no hunger and no homelessness?’ Then, as if to hit me when I’m down, he added, ‘In Switzerland our minimum wage is double that of America’s.’ ‘Chatting with friends in an Amsterdam coffee shop, I boasted that crime is down in the USA. ‘Yes,’ my Dutch friend told me, ‘but American jails hold one-quarter of all prisoners on earth.’ He added, ‘A society must make a choice: tolerate different lifestyles or build more prisons.’ ‘In Rome, I enjoyed the colorful dance of searchlights on the 2000-year-old face of the Coliseum. Once a theater of death, today the Coliseum is a symbol of life. An Italian explained, ‘Every time a death sentence is commuted in the USA, Romans celebrate with a light show on our Coliseum.’ ‘Biking through a forest of sleek modern windmills on the Danish island of Aero, I clucked about how the USA led the world in Olympic gold medals. ‘In number perhaps,’ my Danish friend said, ‘but per capita, the Danes have triple the American total.’ ‘Aero’s residents are in a race of their own: to be the first completely wind-powered community in all of Europe. They’re on track for a gold medal in environmentalism. Like many Europeans, the Danes don’t measure standard-of-living in material consumption. Compared to Americans, they consume less and believe they live better.’ Antoine: ‘When you don’t live in the US and you haven’t been there for a while (I’m from Switzerland, I live in Canada), you may start thinking that all of the richest, most powerful nation on earth looks like Park Avenue or Rodeo Drive and is populated by high-tech wizards earning six-figure salaries. When you think about it, you realize that much of the country is dilapidated, millions live in shacks and can barely read and write, life in the inner city is getting worse, inequalities are growing, millions are still without health insurance while an increasing number of people choose to equip themselves with guns and lock themselves up in private gated communities. I could go on and on. I think there is a case for taxes. As long as the US trails behind most industrialized countries in quality of life/human indicators, I don’t think anyone can possibly argue for lower taxes and lower government involvement in the US. The rest of the world is watching. Please don’t disappoint us.’ Pam Murray: ‘Being a foreigner, I’m not even allowed to vote in this election. That doesn’t preclude me from pointing out that you should be ashamed of yourself for calling Ralph Nader a big fat idiot. Stick to policies, not personalities. It is possible that the challenge which Ralph Nader made, and the support he has garnered has swung the ballots cast in favor of your opponent, but bear in mind that intelligent people made a conscious decision to support someone other than your candidate. Al Gore stands for many good things, but ponder on why exactly approximately one half of those who stood up to be counted, chose to count against him. Perhaps what you are really implying is that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is the idiot — and that is indeed the true sign of an idiot. An apology and a retraction seem to be in order.’ ☞ Thanks, Pam. What makes Ralph a big fat idiot (which of course is not meant literally, as almost everyone realizes) is that the issues he cares about could now be set back drastically. I suspect more than a few of the 100,000 Nader voters in Florida are now wondering ‘what have I done?!’
The Adams Family November 14, 2000February 17, 2017 Alan Flippen: ‘Having had WAY too much time on my hands, I decided to do some historical research. Here’s what I found about the only previous father-son team to serve as President: John Adams served two terms as the vice president of an immensely popular president before being elected in his own right. As president, Adams pursued a successful foreign policy but botched his domestic policy, and alienated large segments of his own party. After one term, he lost his re-election bid to a Southern Democrat with a history of marital infidelities. Adams lived to see his son, John Quincy Adams, become president in a disputed four-way race in which he ultimately prevailed despite losing the popular vote to a Democrat from Tennessee. ‘What the future holds for the Bushes if history continues to repeat itself: Adams Sr. died midway through his son’s term of office. John Quincy Adams was unable to get any of his policies through a hostile and divided Congress. After one term, he faced a rematch with the Democrat from Tennessee, and lost in a landslide.’ ☞ I’m not saying this means anything; just that, as is so often the case, you guys come up with more interesting things than I do. Peter Madaus: ‘The Pirates won the 60 World Series . . . but if you reverse it (Pirates won games, lost runs), Yoder’s analogy yesterday works.’ Mike Watts: ‘The Pirates beat the Yankees 4 games to 3. New York out-hit Pittsburgh 91 to 60, out-scored them 55 to 27, out-homered them 10-4 — and still lost.’
We Live in Interesting Times November 13, 2000February 17, 2017 Enough with the politics, already! Want to break the tension with a good movie? Go see Billy Elliot. Go see Best in Show. (And if you like Best in Show as much as I think you will, rent Waiting for Guffman, by the same people – it’s a cult classic.) Want to visit a smart website for smart value investors? Click here. It will be closed to guests at some point, but in the meantime you may find some great ideas. And if your own ideas are sharp enough, you may become a member of the club. Now, back to politics. You know why this is a great country? Because you can click on a site like this and distort the faces of either of our next possible Presidents. It’s a marvel of technology and political freedom. And completely useless. Tom Cuddy: ‘Watching George W. Bush quickly naming his transition team reminds me of a football team rushing up to the line of scrimmage to get the next play off before instant replay can be used to reverse an obvious mistake!’ Joel Williams: ‘The whole Florida thing is very frustrating, since there is a clear technical solution. You could easily build a special terminal and program it to take a person’s vote. You could make sure that he did not vote for two people for the same office, for example.’ Karen Tiede: ‘Re your suggestion that they toss a coin — it’d only land on edge.’ Jim Kozma: ‘Now you’re just being flip.’ Dan’l Leviton: ‘How about they govern on alternate days?’ Ray Heer: ‘Let Gore be President of the blue states, Bush be President of the red states, and Florida become the next banana republic.’ Jim McHenry: ‘Isn’t it wonderful we live in interesting times? I really mean that. All this talk about how court challenges will weaken us. Baloney! It shows our strength. It shows how good our system is. How it works best even under stress. God bless America no matter how it turns out.’ Eric Batson: ‘How about for a little while you run a parallel column on the electoral college? Maybe we can fix this thing for the future. (A parallel column so your nonpolitical readers are mollified about its not being on finance.)’ ☞ To me the Electoral College is an easy one. Yes, there are good arguments on both sides, with the abolitionist argument probably the stronger of the two. But strong enough to amend the Constitution? One of the things that gives the Constitution strength is our rarely messing with it. I’d rather put our energies into campaign finance reform, which would be far more important and not require tampering with the Constitution. J Yoder: ‘The electoral college is not such an out-of-date idea. The World Series is determined by who wins 4 games (electoral votes) and not by who scores the most runs (popular vote). In the 1960 World Series the Yankees beat the Pirates 4 games to 3, but lost the total runs scored by a very large margin. The framers of the constitution were very worried about excess power by the majority. That’s why we have a Bill of Rights. Electoral votes restrict the effect a large state like California or New York can have on an election. If politicians win the urban areas by a large enough margin (and we are increasingly becoming an urban country), then it wouldn’t matter what happens in the rural states.’
I’ve Got a Better Idea November 10, 2000February 17, 2017 Yesterday I suggested that maybe they should flip a coin. Nobody thought this was a good idea. Today I have a better idea. If it came to a judge and I were he, here’s what I’d say: Those 3,405 people who voted for Buchanan? Tough luck. It’s a mess and it’s terrible, since most of them clearly meant to vote for Gore, as even Buchanan agrees, but we’re going to let it stand to show we will go to some lengths to avoid encouraging re-votes. Those African-Americans who were intimidated into not voting or switching their votes to Bush? It’s a mess and it’s terrible, but we’re not going to get into that, either. Those 19,000 double-voters whose ballots were thrown out? Count both their choices. Why not? These people clearly meant to vote. No candidate they did vote for will be disadvantaged by this, and no candidate they did not vote for can argue the ballot was intended for him. If someone voted for Gore & Bush, what harm in giving each an extra vote? If someone voted for Bush & Buchanan, what harm in giving each an extra vote? If someone voted for Gore & Buchanan – same thing. It’s quick. It re-enfranchises 19,000 people who should not be disenfranchised. It requires no re-votes or anything else. It would take just a few hours to count these ballots. And if, as is likely, those 19,000 mostly wanted Gore to be their President – why should their preference be disregarded? Everyone else had their preferences counted, why not these voters? It’s not a perfect solution, but neither is it a perfect situation. INTIMIDATION I got a lot of calls and e-mails from Floridians with stories to tell. One was the story of a black woman who went to the polls and was asked INSIDE the polling place by a white man who she was voting for. Gore, she said. He asked her why she wasn’t voting for Bush. She said she didn’t want to. He then asked her to give him her ballot and said that he would punch it for her. She said no. But, she reports, many others said yes. Of course, there may have been situations where the 80-year-old black woman running a polling place intimidated young white Bush voters into not voting. Or where black State Troopers scared away white voters by asking for their IDs. But somehow it doesn’t ring as true. MECHANICS You may also have seen this report, which I cannot verify – it’s one of those things going around the Internet – but which also rings true: Thought you’d like an update from the inside. I spent much of Wed. as the Palm Beach County Dem. Party observer in the recount room at the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections. Also present were lawyers and a staffer representing GWB, several lawyers representing Gore, representatives of the Reform Party, the Fla. Democratic and Republican Parties, the DNCC, US Rep. Clay Shaw and his Dem. challenger Elaine Bloom, a Dem. State Senator and a Dem. State Representative from the County. The recount was supposed to begin at 1:30, was delayed until 4:00 and ended at 11:30. Our role basically consisted of sitting in a cramped room watching five staffers run stacks of punch card ballots through counting machines. Pretty dull all in all until it was discovered that one precinct had not been counted in full. This resulted in a net gain for Al of about 360 votes. The Bush boys lost their smug attitudes and began huddling and whispering every few minutes. The absentees came through for Al too. When one votes at the polls in Florida, they provide a punch instrument that, if used correctly, completely perforates the ballot. However, absentee voters often use a pen or other implement that does not fully perforate the card. This was apparent to us from the fact that over 10,000 voters in the County, about 2.2% of the overall turnout, did not make any choice in the Presidential race, but did vote in the US Senate or Congressional races. We theorized that many voters had partially perforated the card, but the machines weren’t reading them. The more times the ballots are run through the counting machine, the more likely the loosened chits fall off. When the absentees were counted, 221 ballots that had previously registered no vote now did show a vote in the Presidential race. These went overwhelmingly for Gore, leading to some whooping and high-fiving from our side. The Bushies really lost it at this point and got a little hostile with the staffers, which in turn elicited some harsh responses from the assembled masses. Gore’s net gain in the County was 643. Word from other counties is that Gore closed the 1,700 deficit by over 1,200. Only half of the counties conducted their recounts on Wednesday. The rest [will be] on Thursday. The bigger problem is that the ballot in Palm Beach County, which differs in its layout from the ballots elsewhere in the State, is illegal for several reasons. Florida statutes specifically mandate the precise layout of the ballot and the order of candidates. The law was not followed. Bush’s name was first, with Buchanan below him and Gore third. This is completely improper, as well as the fact that the law requires the names to be placed to the left with the punch holes to the right of the candidates’ names. On this ballot, some names were on the right and some on the left, with all of the punch holes in the middle. It was difficult to line up the name with the correct hole. Moreover, 19,000 ballots were disqualified because they voted for two or more candidates. This is a direct result of the confusing layout of the names on the ballot. This represents over 4% of the total ballots. It was as high as 15% in some predominantly African-American precincts and about 10% in some precincts with large numbers of Jewish retirees. The Gore vote in many of these precincts was over 90%. This explains the networks’ exit polling which reflected voters’ belief that they had voted for Gore, but in fact their ballots had been disqualified. This led to the initial awarding of Florida to Gore. Folks, the bottom line is that if the names on the ballot had been properly situated, Gore would have had an additional 11-13,000 vote margin in this County, and the election would be over. We have done a precinct-by-precinct analysis of where the disqualified votes came from. By attributing the same percentage of the vote Gore obtained in those precincts to the disqualified ballots, Gore would be winning Florida by at least 10,000 votes. In other words, Gore has actually won the election both in the popular vote and in the electoral vote, but he may well still lose it. You should also be aware that other large counties in the State disqualified about one half of one percent of their ballots for casting two or more votes in the Presidential race. In Palm Beach County it was 4.4%. Lastly, don’t expect the recount to be over on Thursday, as the media is stating. Legal actions are underway. The next question, will a judge order a re-vote just in Palm Beach County with a new ballot? ☞ Fine with me – but much simpler just to tally the 19,000 ballots that were not counted.
If I’ve Said It Once . . . November 8, 2000March 25, 2012 At 5am, it appears Al Gore has outpointed George Bush in the popular vote by a quarter million votes. In Florida, pending the recount, there’s a 987 vote lead for Bush. Whatever happens, one thing is clear. I think we can say with some assurance . . . Ralph Nader is a big fat idiot.
Please Vote Your Self-Interest November 7, 2000March 25, 2012 I had thought to beg you to vote for Gore as a favor to me. Well, of course, you have that plea. But really, all I want people to do is vote their considered self-interest. Forget the rest. Under the stewardship of which man will your personal economy be best off? I think the Clinton/Gore approach worked better than the Reagan/Bush approach. And I like that the air and water really are cleaner most places (not Houston) and that under Clinton/Gore, everyone has been included. Sure ‘it’s our money, not the government’s.’ But it’s also our debt, and we ought to have a moderate taxcut aimed at the middle, not a huge one tilted to the top 1%, so we can keep paying it off. My sincere thanks to those of you who generally disagree with me for having put up with all these columns. If we keep listening to each other, we’ll bumble through . . . no matter who wins.
Are There No Orphanages? November 6, 2000February 17, 2017 Abe: ‘At your direction I went to [Jane Bryant Quinn’s] article and found it so compelling that I wrote back to you in praise and in the very real hope that you would comment extensively on its central message, which is obviously pay off the national debt, and allow NO NEW SPENDING OR TAX CUTS until this is done. Since you have turned your website into a ceaseless political sloganeering vehicle for the last week or two, as is your right, I felt certain you would respond to my modest inquiries PRIOR to the election, since your direction to the Quinn column implies some level of agreement. It now appears that such was not the case and I can only assume that you don’t really fully agree with Ms. Quinn’s quite obvious message, which as I pointed out was shared completely by Mr. Greenspan, AND does NOT seem to be shared by either of our presidential candidates, least of all the candidate that you are a tireless advocate for. Exactly where DO you stand on this and will you comment soon’ ☞ The Gore budget would pay off the debt in 12 years. Not that I expect this to happen, but I do think we would come closer than with Bush. Look: Reagan/Bush did a massive tax cut for the wealthy and racked up $4 trillion extra debt. Clinton/Gore ratcheted taxes for the wealthy partway back up, got the economy in balance, and now we’ve begun paying down the debt. Gore is committed to continuing that; Bush wants to go back to the big tax cut for the wealthy. You decide. Joe Barron: ‘My wife does some business with Replacements, Inc., which is a very large china and silver reseller based in Greensboro, NC. The founder, Robert Page, who has built this business over the last 15 or 20 years into the largest of its kind in the country, is gay. He has sent this message to his customers, and I thought it would be as interesting to you as it is to us. Regards, and may God help us all.’ Robert L. Page Post Office Box 26029 Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 October 11, 2000 Dear Friends: I am writing because Dale and I have a very urgent and personal request For your help. One of the happiest moments of our lives occurred when we became parents to Ryan and Owen, our twin boys. The adoption process was long and demanding but the reward of having these two wonderful children as part of our lives was worth the many difficulties. We cannot now imagine life without these wonderful 14-month-olds. Ryan and Owen are energetic and happy children. They have a smile that melts your heart and makes you immediately love them. As you can guess, feeding and caring for twins is a lot of work, but as parents, we would do anything to make sure these boys have the best life possible. In North Carolina, Dale and I are not legally recognized as a couple or as a family. Therefore, I had to adopt Ryan and Owen as a single parent. We’ve made legal arrangements that, should anything happen to me, Dale will have legal responsibility for the children. Believe me when I tell you, that too is easier said than done. I’m asking for your help today because we feel our family is being threatened. If George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, is elected President of the United States, we fear for our family and our children. Bush has said: “I’m against gay adoptions. I believe children ought to be adopted in families with a woman and a man who are married,” (Dallas Morning News, March 23, 1999). When asked if, in fact, children currently being raised by gay or lesbian parents should be taken away, he said: “I have no idea whether the children ought to be removed or not removed.” (Houston Chronicle, April 5, 1999). The idea that George W. Bush would even consider taking children away from parents on the sole basis of their sexual orientation is horrifying to me. Please do not let George W. Bush win this election. He is a threat to my family and to all people who believe that “love makes a family.” Dale and I are asking you to vote for Al Gore for President of the United States. He supports our right to be a family. Please do not be fooled: George W. Bush is no moderate and your vote does have consequences. Thank you.
Forget the DWI — Where’s the Trillion? November 3, 2000February 17, 2017 Notice: Due to the large volume of voters expected for this election, the election process has been expanded to two days. Democrats will vote on Tuesday, November 7th, and Republicans will vote on Wednesday, November 8th. Please pass this along to your friends and let them know so no one is left out. Thank you. — The Management. You’ve probably already seen that . . . as well as the mirror-image Republican version that’s going around. It’s a joke. (Well, you knew that, of course, but I was warned that some election officials are taking this very seriously, so I repeat: it’s a joke. Republicans are voting on Thursday.) Not quite as frivolous, but still way overblown, is the sudden hoo-ha over Governor Bush’s drunken driving arrest. He’s already told us that up until the time he was 40, he sometimes acted badly. This DWI was a long time ago, and, when confronted with it, he calmly affirmed its accuracy. What more is there to be said? Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile was right on, in my view, when she reportedly called the incident ‘nothing.’ Indeed, my first impression of Bush’s forthright admission was one of some admiration. We should all own up to our mistakes with such poise. On reflection, though, I’m not sure what other course he could have taken. He was, after all, confronted with court records of a conviction. He might have been more evasive if it had been an allegation that could not readily be proven – ‘I will not talk about things I did before I turned 40.’ And he might have been less poised if this had been more embarrassing. But on the scale of embarrassments, a 24-year-old DWI conviction barely moves the needle. The questions I’d like to see asked and answered forthrightly – and believe should have been asked long ago – include these: 1. Governor, there are people in Texas prisons right now serving long prison sentences for modest involvement with drugs when they were under 40. Do you think they should be in your prisons? If not, why are they still there? If so, why can’t you just categorically deny having used illegal drugs yourself? And if you can’t deny that, as you have thus far declined to do, doesn’t this raise legitimate questions about why those people should remain in prison at the same time as you should be in the White House? 2. Governor, are you aware that Vice President Gore never said he invented the Internet? And that it is generally agreed he played the lead Congressional role in championing the Internet? If you’re not aware of this – why not? The statement of Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf praising the Vice President for his work in this area has been widely circulated. If like most knowledgeable people you are aware of this, why have you continued to call the Vice President’s trustworthiness into question on this issue, and ridicule him? Is it not particularly important, in calling someone’s credibility into question, to be completely truthful and fair yourself? 3. Governor, you mock as fuzzy math the Vice President’s assertion that your plan to cut the top estate tax rate from 55% to 0%, and to cut the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 33%, would direct nearly half your tax cut to the wealthiest 1%. If he’s wrong, what is the correct percentage, and how do you arrive at it? If he’s right, is it fair for you, knowing that his math is correct, to insinuate, instead, that he cannot be trusted? 4. Governor, you speak often of compassionate conservatism. Your running mate and key advisor earned $20 million over the past decade, of which he donated 1% to charity. Does this shake your faith in the belief that voluntary contributions can be relied upon to provide the resources needed to aid the weakest among us when government steps aside? 5. Governor, in one of the debates, the Texas record of providing health insurance to children was attacked and you repeatedly responded that Texas spent ‘$4.7 billion on children’s health.’ You said it three times, I believe. It was subsequently reported that of this $4.7 billion, $3.2 billion actually came from private charities, not from your budget – so you were really only spending about a third as much as you said. Were you aware of this at the time you said it? If not, why not? Does a few billion dollars in health care for Texas kids not capture your interest? Or, if you were aware of this, wasn’t your repeated use of the $4.7 billion figure at least as misleading as any of the ‘gotchas’ you and your campaign have used to try to persuade the American people that Al Gore is untrustworthy? 6. Governor, your campaign is horrified by an NAACP ad that criticizes you for killing the Texas Hate Crimes statute that was proposed in the wake of James Byrd, Jr.’s dragging death. Separately, the leadership of your party has bottled up a national Hate Crimes statute that has been passed 57-42 in the Senate and 232-191 in the House. As leader of your party, who holds out the appealing prospect of being able to work with both parties to get things done, can we not assume that, if you had wanted to, you could have gotten this bill out of Congress? After all, it already had a majority in both Houses. Not having done so, can we fairly assume that you side with Trent Lott and Jesse Helms in opposing the majority on this legislation? Finally, as a compassionate uniter, not a divider, can you tell us why — unlike so many other Texas leaders on both sides of the aisle — you didn’t make the symbolic gesture of attending the Byrd funeral? 7. Governor, under the Texas sodomy statue that you support, your running mate’s daughter could be imprisoned for loving her chosen partner in the privacy of their own bedroom. As a conservative who wants less government interference in our lives – who trusts people, not government — why do you think it is the state’s obligation to tell people whom they may and may not love in the privacy of their own homes? 8. Governor, what about the Harken Oil insider-trading investigation, where you, as a member of the board of directors and the three-man audit committee sold all your shares a week before bad news was announced? In the months following your sale, Harken stock dropped 60%. Did you have no idea what was going in your own company? Or, if you did, do you understand why the timing of your $828,000 sale leaves the impression with some that you violated a very basic securities regulation? The S.E.C. did not charge you (then the son of a sitting President) with an offense, but also did not exonerate you as you later alleged it had. Does this speak in any way to the character issue? I have a lot more questions I’d like to ask, and I would hope we would give the Governor a very full and respectful hearing as he answered each one of them. My guess is that the answers would be somewhat fuzzy or unresponsive. Or else, if he answered candidly, that his support among moderate Republicans and independents would shrink. All that said . . . The fact is, both candidates are good men who love their country and would try to do a good job. The fact is, one drunk driving charge 24 years ago really is nothing, and tonight’s intense scrutiny of it deserves to die very fast. (It may not, but it should.) What dismays me is how more-substantive issues, many of which actually do affect our future, have gotten less scrutiny. The fact is, there are huge differences in the proposals of these two candidates. In my view, our friends in the Republican party are doing a masterful job of shifting attention from the big stuff to the question of how the Vice President could possibly have claimed he flew to a Texas flood site with FEMA director James Lee Witt when in fact he flew with Witt on 17 other disaster inspections, but on this particular one flew with a FEMA regional director instead. Or the question of how, in trying to make a valid point in a folksy way about the cost of medicine, he said “my” dog when he should have said “someone’s” dog. Listen: Central to Governor Bush’s economic plan is a huge tax cut at a time of rock bottom unemployment. It makes no sense to add massive stimulus to an already booming economy. Enact that tax cut and, to keep inflation in check, the Fed would almost surely have to raise interest rates – which means higher mortgage rates and car loan rates and all the rest, wiping out the tax savings for many families (though not for wealthy families that do not borrow). And having enacted it, what do you do when the next recession arrives? Cut taxes still further and return to the trickle-down years of super-low tax rates for the rich and super-high budget deficits? We’ve tried that, and it didn’t work very well. We’ve tried this – the Clinton-Gore recipe – and it’s worked great. What this election should largely be about is whether we want to go back to the old way or continue as best we can on the current progressive path, with modest tax cuts aimed at the middle, leaving a reserve for further stimulus the next time, inevitably, we have a recession. That’s the question the talk shows should be focusing on, not Governor Bush’s distant-past DWI. One last thing, while I’m all jazzed up (and, I know, infuriating some of you, for which I apologize – that’s not my intention). Of course you would expect me to say this, as the highly paid treasurer of the Democratic National Committee (although I promise you I speak here entirely unsanctioned and on my own) . . . but on Social Security and the rest, the Governor’s math isn’t just fuzzy, it’s wrong. You know the famous trillion dollars that our side alleges he is promising to two different groups of people at the same time? He says, no, he’ll get that trillion from the surplus. Fair enough – that’s one trillion. But he would also enact a tax cut (yes, with huge advantages for the wealthy) that would shrink the surplus another $1.6 trillion or so. Now you’re up to $2.6 trillion. And then he would spend money to shore up our military and build a $450 billion missile shield and add a little for our schools, and such. That gets him up around $3.1 trillion. The only problem is, the surplus – which is anything but assured for the next 10 years, to say the least – is projected at around $2 trillion. In the words of some much smarter people than me, 3.1 is a bigger number than 2. Where is that extra trillion going to come from? It is not a trivial question. So . . . was it annoying when Al Gore kept calling this “a risky tax scheme.” Candidly, it was. I found myself wishing from the first time I heard it, let alone the fiftieth, that he could have found a more appealing way to say it. But that doesn’t change the fact that Governor Bush’s plan would put our prosperity at risk, and that, incidentally, it would widen still further the yawning gap between the wealthiest few and everybody else. So in these last five days, can we please stop talking about DWI’s and mocking the VP for saying he invented the Internet, which he did not say, and focus on whether $3.1 trillion can be found in a hoped-for $2 trillion surplus? If it can’t, we could have economic trouble ahead.
Question November 2, 2000February 17, 2017 If Ralph Nader is for the oppressed, why aren’t the oppressed for Ralph Nader? Here’s a piece that’s just begun its whiz around the Internet. It’s by Keith Boykin, who, as an African-American gay man, may know as much about oppression as multi-millionaire Ralph Nader. (I happen to think it’s fine to be a multi-millionaire. But as one whom Ralph’s people have attacked over and over again for having financial security, I do think it’s fair to point out that Ralph has never had to worry about his own rent or heat or health insurance. Nor his physical safety.) Keith is brilliant and handsome and a powerful advocate. Consider his analysis, which I have taken the liberty – I hope not too much liberty – to excerpt here. Why I’m Voting for Gore By Keith Boykin I’ve decided to support Al Gore for President. Because I believe that Al Gore has a distinguished record of public service, the experience and qualifications to be president, and the right positions on most of the issues, I will cast my ballot for Gore. First, let’s look at public service. Ralph Nader has dedicated his life to public service as a consumer advocate. George W. Bush has led a more itinerant life, drifting from oil to baseball and finally (only in the past 6 years) to government. Al Gore, on the other hand, has served the public for thirty years, first as an enlisted man in the Vietnam War (which Bush avoided), then as a newspaper reporter in Tennessee, then a congressman, a Senator, and now as Vice President. With a Harvard degree and an influential U.S. senator for a father, Gore would have been assured a life of leisure had he pursued a career to accumulate wealth. Instead, he devoted his life to his country and his family. Bush talks a lot about character and integrity, but public service is a character issue too. On the issue of public service, Gore and Nader win easily over Bush. Second, let’s look at qualifications. George W. Bush has no experience in federal government, but this alone is not disqualifying. Bill Clinton, after all, had no federal government experience prior to his election. What distinguishes Bush from Clinton is the Texas Governor’s apparent lack of intellectual curiosity. Instead, Gov. Bush’s approach to policy seems hopelessly parochial and based on his limited experiences in his home state. He claims to be a “uniter, not a divider” who has bridged the gaps between Democrats and Republicans in Austin. This may be true, but a Texas Democrat is nothing like a Massachusetts Democrat or a New York Democrat, and Bush will have to work with all of these factions in the sharply divided Congress. Charm may get Bush an extended honeymoon, but as soon as checkout time arrives, both parties will be filing for divorce. Ralph Nader, for all his knowledge of government, has never served a day in public office. He has never had to cast a public vote, answer to an angry constituent, or be accountable to compromise with his colleagues. For all he has accomplished, Nader has nevertheless enjoyed the luxury of being an outsider and the privilege of uncompromising certainty it affords. If elected, Nader would face a legislature with no members of his own Green Party to call on to introduce legislation, support his appointments, or sustain his vetoes. Presidential gridlock would reach new heights. Al Gore has not only served in federal government, but he has served in both of its political branches. He would bring to the White House a vast knowledge of federal government policy and procedures in the executive and legislative branches. In addition, his role as an active participant in the Clinton Administration has given him unprecedented access to the inner workings of the presidency. On the issue of qualifications, Gore wins handily over Nader and Bush. Finally, let’s look at the issues. George W. Bush is on the wrong side of nearly every progressive issue, including campaign finance reform, gun control, capital punishment, rising incarceration rates, affirmative action, civil rights for gays and lesbians, labor issues, health care reform, arms control, and the environment. The choice for many progressive voters comes down to Gore or Nader. But let’s be honest. Nobody, not even Ralph Nader, thinks he will win the election. The question is whether he will cause Bush to win the election. Last week on ABC’s “This Week,” Nader said, “Even if Roe v. Wade is reversed, that doesn’t end it; it just reverts back to the states.” Nader seems to acknowledge that a vote for him may help elect Bush. Rather than deny this reasoning, he simply suggests it doesn’t matter who wins the election or who controls the Supreme Court. Maybe it doesn’t matter for Ralph Nader, but it does matter for many others. Nader, as a straight white male with the privilege to be principled without consequence, will be fine no matter who wins. But if you’re a black teenager in Florida trying to get into college, it matters. If you’re a gay man in New Jersey who wants to serve in the Eagle Scouts, it matters. If you’re a Latino youth in New York who doesn’t want to be harassed by the police, it matters. If you’re a lesbian in Georgia who has been fired from your job because you’re gay, it matters. If you’re the mother of a black gay man in West Virginia who can’t get justice for your son’s murder, it matters. If you’re a resident of the District of Columbia who pays federal taxes but has no representative in Congress to decide how those taxes are spent, it matters. If you’re a poor woman in rural Kansas who simply wants to control your own body, it matters. And if you not only care about, but are affected by, real life policy, it matters. The argument that Gore is “the lesser of two evils” has it backwards. Actually, I see Bush as the evil of two lessers. Nader and Bush both lack Gore’s experience, but Nader at least has good intentions. Bush, on the other hand, is dangerous. If you trust a man who supports zero tolerance laws for minor drug offenders but refuses to discuss the significance of his own past drug use, then you deserve the hypocrisy that you will get the next four years in a Bush Administration. If you think a politician can unite the country by using vicious codes words like “quotas” and “special rights” that offend blacks and gays and making visits to Bob Jones University, then buckle up for a rocky four years. If you believe Bush will appoint fair-minded Supreme Court Justices without concern for their opinion on abortion, then be prepared for the religious right to take control of the judiciary. And if you think the nation’s leading executioner will somehow “restore honor and dignity” to the White House, then we have a different view of morality. Bush condemns affirmative action for the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” and yet he has benefited from affirmative action all his life and may likely win the presidency because of his ability to meet our country’s low expectations of him. His closeted, code-worded “compassionate conservatism,” masked behind his Reaganesque charm, is far more dangerous than the open bigotry of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson. Gore is not the lesser of two evils. He is a highly qualified lifelong public servant committed to many of the ideals of the progressive agenda. Both of the other candidates have their virtues. Like Gore, Ralph Nader offers a long track record of public service, and unlike Gore, George W. Bush offers a friendly warmth. But as Al Gore himself has said, “the presidency is not a popularity contest.” On the question of experience and ability to lead on progressive issues, Al Gore would make a better president than either of the other two candidates. Gore is not perfect. No candidate is, nor ever, will be. He is, however, the best of the three plausible candidates. I have no reservations in supporting him. That’s why I’m voting for Gore.