GUNS: Obama, The NRA, GPO = Stalemate?

Jay H. Ell has blogged endlessly that the Republican agenda is not controlled by their elected officials but rather by unelected megalomaniacs and their organizations. Guns and the second amendment is one of these areas that shackle the Republican legislators. In January in 2011, Jay H. Ell blogged, “The Tucson Massacre and American Culture _ Can There be A Solution?” There he looked at the statistics of gun violence and the havoc it wreaked.

Jay H. Ell, as so many before and after, far more influential, have asked,  “Sooner or later something will be done but how many more mass killings is it going to take? How many more attacks on the integrity of the democratic process are needed?” He also blogged: “ Each catastrophe, as was this, (Tucson), is handled as if it some type of anomaly and rarity that has been perpetrated by a "lone nut". The calamity is then met with crisis management rather than an analysis of the underlying causes and figuring out a comprehensive plan as at how to prevent the next one.

If you read Jay H. Ell’s blog, or anyone else, trotting out the bare statistics of the carnage that the laissez affaire attitude towards guns had caused you might have wondered the same.  Several other mass shootings, the ongoing homicide rate of 15,000 deaths a year still does not move the needle. There have been nearly twice as many mass killings in the USA then the rest of the world since Columbine.

Finally, the inexplicable senseless massacre of 20 innocent preschoolers and heroic teachers in Newtown Connecticut has woken the nation up – at least to debate the matter.

The big question however is whether it will awaken the Republican legislators from their slumber and their ongoing denial of reality. This even in the light that some of them have come out in support of the idea.

THE NRA AND NATIONAL GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA

The above organizations have exerted an extraordinary influence on the electoral process in the USA. While the Gun Lobbies’ control over Republican legislators is not as formal as it is with Grover Norquist’s signed pledge not to raise taxes, it is even more persuasive. Guns play a unique role in American rural culture. (This is not even unique to America, as there are hunters everywhere, but they are far more visible in the US public debate), However, the issue of guns in America extends far beyond hunting. With the Second Amendment to the American Constitution as a background, granting the right of American Citizenry to “bear arms” the sale of all manner of guns to anyone has become a hallowed right.

 In the wake of the recent Newtown Connecticut disaster, Larry Pratt, the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America fiercely defended the right to unrestricted gun ownership; even advocating it’s use against a tyrannical government. He cited a successful armed insurrection in 1946 in Tennessee as a recent precedent!

The slightest deviation from the line that anyone has not the democratic right to bear as many types of guns as they like would result in the NRA pouring resources to eliminate that candidate. Any attempt to restrict where these guns may be bought – such as a gun show, where no background checks can occur, would be categorized as heresy with the financial consequences brought to bear on the candidate. In fact he NRA rates every Congressman as to their position on Gun Control.

 It is with this as a background that President Obama, in both his two successful election bids and during his first term, never really tackled the issue head on. He merely stated that he supported the Second Amendment and that some of his best friends were hunters and he supported their right to own guns.

All this has now changed – well at least as far as Obama is concerned.

OBAMA AND GUN CONTROL.

Politics is all about the art of the possible. Timing plays a very big role on what is possible and what is not. There is no doubt that this heinous, senseless deed has sadly provided an opportunity to rationally look at the problem of gun control.

Obama in tune with the mood of the majority of this country, has taken a decisive step in trying someway to end this carnage. Speaking at the memorial service at Newtown he said:

“Can we honestly say that we are doing enough to keep our children safe from harm? …We are not doing enough. And we will have to change…..We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end…. No set of laws can eliminate evil from this world. But that cannot be an excuse for inaction.

….. In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators, in an effort at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We cannot accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we are powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?”

This is heady stuff and true to his word a task force has been formed under Vice President Joe Biden. Biden, is rated an “F” by the NRA but the latter mercifully have not to much influence in his State of Delaware, The task force has met and included law makers and law enforcers, Biden said they need a “holistic” approach. The task force is due to report in late January to Obama.

Meanwhile Obama, through his Press Secretary is floating all sorts of lines such as a buy back of assault weapons. There is support of Senator Feinberg’s reintroduction of assault weapons and magazine clips holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

THE NRA WEIGHS IN ON NEWTOWN

One of the GOP’s unelected paymasters, the NRA promised a major contribution to the debate. For those still naive enough to hold their breath their CEO Wayne LaPierre scheduled a Press Conference to announce his “earth shattering” solution. Just in case everyone got it wrong La Pierre went on “Meet the Press” to confirm his contribution.

The NRA solution was more guns - the only way to stop a bad guy with guns is with a good guy with guns! Either police or armed guards should be in every school. As La Pierre would not agree to any legislation banning of any assault weapons or magazines with multiple bullets it was presumed that every school in the country would have a full time person armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. Implicit in this solution was to indelibly imprint in every child from preschool onwards the normalcy of guns. Why LaPierre’s solution did not include a security guard or policeman with assault weapons in every theatre, university classroom, cinema, political meeting, sports arena, shopping center, even military mess and so on is not clear. However, Jay H. Ell is sure if he had thought of it he would have suggested it.

This solution really is in tune with NRA’s simplistic philosophy. There are good guys and there are bad guys, (the criminals).  Now all the bad guys have guns. The answer is for the good guys to have guns to defend themselves against the bad guys and presumably shoot first. The message has been very successful as there are 89 guns in the community for every 100 people and those with guns buy more guns.

The problem with the NRA logic as it is very rare that a gun is used for bona fide defense. Harvard University did a study that showed in the overwhelming majority of instances guns are used inappropriately. They were involved in conflicts where they had no place. Also guns in homes provided far more "other" deaths such as suicides and accidents than saved lives in defense of life

Accidental deaths are commonplace. The wrong people especially children, get hold of guns that are not their own and accidents even murder follows – in fact that is exactly what happened in Newtown – a son killed his mother and stole her guns. Even in Florida where an attempt was made as to decide when it was legal “to stand your ground”, the perception still is that unnecessary deaths occur. (Blog: Travyon Martin and the American Judicial Process April 2012 ).

So there is not one iota of scientific evidence to support the NRA philosophy

WHERE THE NRA IS COMING FROM

Before the NRA calls Jay H. Ell ridiculous let’s keep the conversation to the issue at hand  - carnage in schools. This because murdering children offends our sensibilities far more than randomly killing people who are have seen a far deal of life such as College students. Well to affect this simplistic solution just to provide armed personnel for schools it would cost 6 billion dollars. There is also no guarantee of its success. There  is also the negative influence it will have in feeding into susceptible minds the concept of violence, the “accidents’ that will inevitably happen when “suspicious” people are accidentally shot, not to mention those killed in the crossfire to take into account.

As Senator Liebermann commented the NRA will blame everything besides guns. Liebermann predicts that NRA’s stance will make it harder to pass gun laws.

The rationale of the NRA is to defend ownership of any type of weapon or ammunition in the belief that any compromise, even though it may stop wholesale carnage, may be the slippery slope to making even more compromise. One wonders what the NRA policy would be on the sale of hand held missiles that could bring down airplanes?

Off course the NRA would not change the spin that has worked so well for decades. They have the money to back it up as the conventional wisdom is they represent gun dealers not gun owners. How many owners of machine guns and those who own magazines with 100s of bullets are even members of the NRA and if they are, do they deserve this vigorous defense? Jay H. Ell cannot imagine there are too many sub machine gun owners in the NRA.

NRA INFLUENCE AND POWER

There is debate as to whether the NRA is as powerful as they were in the past. New York Mayor Bloomberg, has long held that NRA is no longer so influential. Bloomberg has long been advocating for gun restriction and is head of a group of 750 like thinking  Mayors of Cities and Towns throughout the country. The Mayors maintain that 74% of gun owners support sensible gun control. Bloomberg outgunned and outspent the NRA in the San Bernardino California  Congressional election by deposing pro gun Congressman Baca with a gun restriction opponent.

Also in the last election with the vast sums of money being spent thus made the NRA’s contribution disproportionately smaller.

The Brady Center for Gun Control, the foremost proponents of gun control, has found new life with this mobilization of public opinion and of course Obama has given his full power as President behind the move and the majority of the country is behind him.

THE CHAOTIC REPUBLICAN CAUCUS, NRA AND GUN REFORM

Well with all this outrage, gun reform or at least the ban of assault weapons, or magazines containing endless clips, or the proper institution of background checks should be a formality. But it is not so easy in the present political climate and with the NRA taking such an uncompromising stance.

While this is not a purely party political issue the NRA is a Republican  paymaster and it is the Republican caucus who fears them the most. As it is known the Republican Party and it’s Republican caucus are in a total shambles at the moment. They have a total disconnect with reality and the country’s sentiment on fiscal matters.  Why should it be any different on guns?

To pass any gun law Republican votes are needed. At the moment it is their unelected megalomaniacs and organizations that control them. They are too disorganized and leaderless to do anything

 other than follow their unelected leaders. So no one else may be afraid of the NRA but those that matter, namely the Republican caucus, are.

Now everyone, even the NRA, believe that attention should be paid to Mental Health Care. The latter obviously plays a big role in this mayhem. Yet will the NRA instruct the Republican caucus to reinstate State and Federal health care budgets that have been slashed and then expand them to meet the pressing mental health needs? Not likely. The fiscal conservatives have never regarded mental health or any health care for that matter as a “necessity”.

So Obama may come up with a plan and Feinstein might get her bill through the Senate but what will happen in the House? Obama better start thinking out side of his box. It is obviously not enough to have the majority of the electorate on his side. Even though it is a more mobilized electorate than ever before it just doesn’t cut it. Maybe Obama should speak to Republican swing votes one at a time and get legislation passed. Otherwise America nothing will happen till some maniac will shoot newborn babies in a hospital nursery with assault weapons.

The legislators with fiscal chaos looming closed the shop and went home for a holiday and only came back three days before the deadline.  Obama included.  So what chance do sensible and rational gun laws really have?

EXIT MANDELA: CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY PART 2

Every time Nelson Mandela enters hospital, and this is becoming more and more frequent, as he becomes more and more frail, reassessments of where post apartheid South Africa is at, resurface. "What is going to happen after Mandela goes?" is the refrain. So great is the icon's influence and aura that well over a decade after he exited the political scene the perception is that the world will still change after he passes. In reality the critiques of the post apartheid era have been out there for some time.

 There are two major perspectives - those from within the country and those from without. There is only one area of agreement between theses two constituencies, namely that Mandela is a saint and probably the most admired statesman of the twenty first century.  For the rest you would believe that those in the country are talking about a different country from the nation those outside are talking about.

In fact the two viewpoints are not at loggerheads. Rather they are looking at two sides of the same coin.

INTERNATIONAL PERCEPTIONS - POST APARTHEID.

 The non violent change of power structure with the majority of the white electorate, led by then apartheid President De Klerk, ceding political power to the black majority; Mandela’s emphasis on no recriminations; Mandela’s maintenance of the infrastructure - particularly the Judiciary; the first “free and fair“ election with it’s iconic news photos of lines of rural voters standing in mile long lines in the field waiting to vote for the first time; the new Constitution; Mandela’s legislative initiatives; the Truth and Conciliation Commission; the resolution of the Black on Black violence; the abolition of the death penalty; the voluntary abandonment of Atomic weapons and Mandela’s international visits created a positive even romanticized view of post apartheid South Africa that still exists today.

In addition the world patted itself on their backs as they, naively, believed that their sanctions had been the catalyst that precipitated the abandonment of apartheid. (For whatever reason the international community have not been so successful in effecting change in a pathetically weak Zimbabwe, for example!).

*Finance and Economy

There is great admiration for the advances made in the Financial and Economic arena. Much of the credit goes to Finance Minister Trevor Emmanuel who was Minister of Finance for a large portion of the post apartheid era. In 1994 Emmanuel was nominated by the World Economic Forum as a” Global Leader For Tomorrow”. Since then he has received numerous international awards.

South Africa reported its first budget surplus in 2007. A combination of increased prosperity, high commodity prices and a wider tax base were credited with the surge of revenue. Manuel increased spending for education, housing and sanitation. Interest rates today are around about 5% as compared to close on 20% at the time of the new regime.

With the lifting of sanctions trade and trade agreements blossomed. Trade increased particularly in agricultural products. South Africa led once again in precious metals and became the third largest exporter of coal. Investment in the country is increasing annually and last year it was a record 83 billion rand.

* G20 Recognition

The biggest recognition of South Africa’s new status was election to the G20. This is a body made of 20 countries. The G20 studies, reviews, and promotes high-level discussion of policy issues pertaining to the promotion of international financial stability, and seeks to address issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any one organization. With the G-20 growing in stature its leaders announced on September 25, 2009, that the group would replace the G8 as the main economic council of wealthy nations

In 2007 Trevor Manuel chaired this group. South Africa is the only African country on the body and is in very impressive company. Several European Countries were somewhat miffed that they did not make the cut.

South Africa has membership of several international bodies and has of course returned to the British Commonwealth.

* World Cup

The Soccer World Cup, which is the most widely covered television event in the world also did the Country’s image no harm. Complete coverage of this event was seen in the USA for the first time. The efficiency, the well controlled crowds, the modern big cities and the general air of normality and peace lent even more credence to the fact that South Africa was a haven of tranquility and progress.

*Mandela

Mandela is reported as daily news. With his recent hospital admission bulletins are issued on every newscast. The CNN website, for example have a mast at the top. Included on it are all the hot topics and people in the news such as Obama, The Fiscal Cliff, Syria and of course Mandela. As Mandela is South Africa this reinforces the perception of South Africa as a modern day miracle

*Tourism

South Africa is increasingly become a major tourist attraction bringing in foreign capital and adding to the positive image. The vastly improved airports, hotels, tourist attractions and game parks have resulted in the number of international flights to South Africa increasing by several hundred percent over the years.

* Negative Press

Very little negative is reported in the International media. Mbeki joined the whackos with his stance on AIDS but that was drowned with the successful Mandela initiative to combat and treat AIDS in South Africa and the rest of the world. Zuma is regarded as “odd” with very little coverage of his foibles. The recent mine unrest received some coverage but that died down.

Only El Jazeera recently ran a story entitled, “Sorry Madiba corruption killed your ANC”.

On the international scene South Africa is still basking in its post apartheid image and it appears that it will take a bloody revolution to alter that perception.

SOUTH AFRICAN PERCEPTIONS  - POST APARTHEID:

There are not too many constituencies, within the country, that are very happy with the status quo. Other than the ruling Party and their "hangers on" there is disillusionment, frustration and anger. Sadly, much criticism is coming from the old guard of ANC leaders who sacrificed so much for the new nonracial state. On the other end of the spectrum there are the whites that fear that South Africa will become another African basket case.

* Corruption

Corruption seems to head the list of growing criticisms against the ruling ANC. The anger is largely directed at Zuma who has received large sums of money from various sources. Zuma has always been under a cloud ever since criminal charges of racketeering were dropped in 1999. He received payments from Schabir Shaik totaling over 4 million rand over 4 years. Shaik and his family received several governmental lucrative deals. The Judge in Shaik’s trial made it quite clear that he felt Zuma had a strong case to answer. In 1998 Mandela disciplined Zuma over his behavior and personally gave Zuma funds to settle his debts.

The allegations against Zuma are legion and have continued over the years. The most recent one relates to vast sums of money that are being used to build his Presidential campus.

However, it goes deeper than that there is a perception that the political elite is putting their hands in the cookie jar. For example in the Travelgate scandal 40 parliamentarians were found to have  used public funds for their private travel. Even minor officials are being accused of taking bribes and the perception that bribery is rife. In 2011 Zuma had to fire 2 ministers for bribery.

Zuma, finally, had to sanction a commission into the corruption, the results of which all are awaiting.  Former ANC Deputy President Molanthe, who unsuccessfully ran against Zuma, at the recent ANC Congress and hence for the Presidency has appealed for a stop of the culture of corruption in Government,

* Black Economic Empowerment Program.

This program was introduced in order to get more Africans in the Civil Service and in Private Business. The program has had critics from all sides of the racial divide. It was supposed to be a type of affirmative action program but there does not seem much built into it that is designed to provided extra training or skills to those who have been previously disadvantaged. The criticism is that these appointments are often political favors and those obtaining them have not the skills to carry out the job at hand. Or worse, in the case of businesses, nobody wants them to do anything as they are seen as” tokens”.

Some argue that is why ESKOM for example is in such a mess.

The other result of this policy is that skilled whites are replaced, demoted or “need not apply”. Then these often leave for oversea  or just foment resentment.

Inevitably this program has been extended to Universities and other arenas of activity

* Open Borders Policy

While this dates back to the moment the post apartheid government came into power the effect and burdens on the State are very much being felt. With the high unemployment rate this continues to cause resentment and is a festering sore particularly in the black labor market.

* Entitlement Society

Some believe that too much of an entitlement society is being produced in order to meet the expectations of the black electorate while others believe that the ANC other than create a significant black middle class have not made a meaningful attempt to educate and create the jobs for a population of 50,000,000.

* Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Movement.

A law to prevent the “publication of Government secrets” has just been passed amidst massive protest reminiscent of the anti apartheid demonstrations. The legislation, which still must undergo further steps to become law, would make it a crime, punishable by lengthy prison terms, to disseminate anything that any state agency regards as classified. Critics have called the legislation a throwback to the apartheid regime’s harsh repression and say it is meant to protect corrupt officials from press scrutiny.

The Protection of Information Bill, as the legislation is called, must still clear a national council of provinces before it takes effect. Activists have said they will challenge it in South Africa’s constitutional court. Ironically, the latter was wisely set up by the Mandela regime to prevent the repressive legislation of the apartheid regime from ever occurring again.

The Zuma regime has not been too hot on human rights either. Their refusal to allow the Dalai Lama, a visa, for example, had Nobel Laureate Archbishop Tutu exclaim that he could not believe that he would ever have to pray for the downfall of the ANC.

* Crime.

There is one subject that evokes much emotion. The argument by the Government is that the crime rate has in effect come down since 1995. They argue that the whites were not much concerned by the murders in the townships that are now have decreased. The opposition focus on the murders in the white areas. They also point out that under the apartheid regime homes in the white areas were fortresses and this is nothing new. This issue seems to have lost some of its bite since the trouble free World Cup.

WHERE DOES SOUTH AFRICA STAND IN THE WORLD?

South Africa has not yet nearly reached “basket case” status but it is on its way. At the moment it is only as bad as Brazil by international standards. Brazil, in case anyone has forgotten, is only just emerging out of banana republic status.

The Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI) released recently shows that South Africa has not turned the tide on corruption in the public sector. South Africa now ranks 69th out of 187 countries included in the index. The index measures "perceived levels of public sector corruption" and considers factors such as bribery, abuse of public resources, secretive decision-making, anti-corruption laws and conflicts of interest. Over the last 12 years there has been a consistent downward trend in South Africa's position on the index. South Africa has dropped 31 places in the index between 2001 and 2012.

THE FUTURE

In many ways South Africa stands at the crossroads of what it will represent in the family of nations. The new Republic had a remarkable genesis and was rightly hailed as an example for the whole world. The question is whether South Africa is going to allow a gang of venal thugs to ruin what generations literally fought and died for. Too much sacrifice was made, too much suffering occurred, and too much deprivation was endured to allow  a few fat cats to besmirch their inheritance by naked greed.

The culprits should know that they would not find it easy to triumph as most of them were part of an opposition and resistance that stopped a far more powerful entrenched regime than theirs. The Press that helped them is still intact and will live to fight another day. The social media will, as it has elsewhere, be an added weapon against totalitarianism and corruption. There are also constitutional provisions that never existed previously, to aid those who wish to uphold the rule of law.

FORCES FOR CHANGE. 

Notwithstanding the apparent show of unity at the ANC Conference there is discontent among the electorate.

There is an active opposition that will begin to attract ANC members if this behavior continues. The Democratic Alliance, (DA), is far more influential than the one lonely Progressive Member of Parliament was in the apartheid era. (And remember how much Helen Suzman achieved). Also the DA already is the Government of a whole Province. At present the DA is mainly a Party of whites, those of mixed race and other minorities such as Asians and Indians but there is no reason why it could not attract disillusioned ANC voters.

Or maybe Cyril Ramaphosa, the newly elected Deputy Leader, can turn the ANC around.  He was after all Mandela’s choice as his successor. He was one of the original architects of the new constitution that enshrined human rights. He resigned from politics in the 90’s, having lost out to Mbeki as Mandela’s successor. In the interim he became a highly successful businessman amassing nearly 700 million dollars. He has a high profile as one of the original fighters against apartheid and is relatively young at the age of 60. The fact that he has not been involved in active politics for 16 years and received approximately three quarters of delegate votes at the ANC Congress speaks volumes to his popularity and status and a desire to change the image of the ANC.

There is a thousand pound gorilla at the ANC conference in the form of Julius Malema. The latter is a radical populist who was recently expelled from the ANC for blatant racism and attacking ANC policy. Malema has among his policies the nationalization of the mines. How much support he really has is unknown.  For the moment he is very much been marginalized. Even more so now that the ANC has at the December 2012 Conference officially taken nationalization of the table.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

One thing is for certain and that is Mandela cannot live forever. Nor can his afterglow. It is up to a new generation to carry the torch of freedom and not turn his and everyone’s struggle into an obscene mockery. There is cause for optimism but the further down the regime goes down the slippery slope to totalitarianism the harder it becomes to reverse it.

JON STEWART, CHRIS CHRISTIE AND REPUBLICAN PHILOSOPHY.

Jon Stewart, of the Daily Show, who occupies a unique niche in American entertainment and politics, interviewed, Republican Governor Chris Christie, who, at this time, occupies a unique position in Republican American politics. Every so now and then Stewart devotes a prolonged period of his show to a single personality. Usually it is because of the gravitas of the office, such as it was with President Obama. With the Christie interview it was a mixture of Christie’s position and to have a debate that cuts through all the posturing and hypocrisy that is currently part of the political debate.

DRAMATIS PERSONAE.

Jon Stewart.

This remarkable individual has an ever growing following in the key 28 to 40 year old demographic and in that group is said to be their main source of news. This is no mean feat for someone who does not pretend to be a serious news or political commentator. From an entertainment point of view, he and his show have won the Emmy award for the best comedy, variety or music show on American Television for 10 years in a row. While his politics are unashamedly liberal or independent, no-one escapes his satirical scythe regardless of their political affiliation. Stewart organized a rally in Washington, entitled Back to Sanity, which drew a crowd conservatively estimated at 150,000. Clips of his satire are part of several television programs daily. Stewart is one of the most influential TV personalities, if not the most influential with Oprah having abdicated, on the circuit. 

Chris Christie.

This New Jersey Republican Governor was the choice of every wing of the Republican Party to be the 2012 contender against Obama. He had more sense than to be flattered into it. Ann Coulter one of the standard bearers of the Conservative Republican Cause openly championed him. Also the Establishment, recognizing his popularity and skills at governing with a Democratic legislature pushed very hard to get him to commit. Romney, recognizing his abilities and following made him the keynote speaker at the Republican Convention. There he was hammered for his lukewarm support of Romney and his speech. His speech was characterized, by some cynics, as his first salvo in the 2016 Presidential race. He gained national recognition for his management of hurricane Sandy in New Jersey. He also unconditionally and lavishly praised Obama for his role in the hurricane disaster. For this he received abuse from the Republican commentators, even maintaining that he “gave” Obama the election. Currently he has the highest approval rating of any Republican politician

WHAT PUBLIC EXPENDITURE DO THE REPUBLICANS ACCEPT THAT ARE NOT “ENTITLEMENTS”?

Stewart was out to show the hypocrisy of the Republicans in relation to what they deemed necessary as government spending as opposed to what they considered waste or entitlement. He maintained that whatever the Republicans wanted they claimed was essential and all other societal needs were deemed entitlements. (The explanatory narrative that follows does not necessarily follow the exact time sequence in which the issues were discussed and some of the positions have been summarised for brevity's sake).

* Funding of the post Katrina hurricane recovery.

Christie accepted that he was asking Obama for 30 billion or more for the post Katrina recovery. He also stated that Obama had been extremely supportive of trying him to get him a few billion more as that was “necessary”. Christie was asked, in the light of the Republican policy on Government spending whether he should let the free market look after the people in New Jersey after hurricane Sandy. He immediately countered that this was a totally different situation.  He maintained  that all the citizens of New Jersey were involved and that this disaster could only be managed by Governmental intervention.

Stewart remained unimpressed stating again that in similar situations the Republicans have asked that the expenditure be offset by cutbacks in other “entitlements”. Christie came back at him saying this was a necessity, an emergency or a disaster. At this stage Stewart let it rest and went onto his next subject.

* Obamacare and Christie.

Christie had vetoed setting up a New Jersey state “exchange” to provide insurance for the uninsured and left it to the Federal Government. This action has become the passive aggressive way for Republican Governors to register their displeasure at Obamacare in the hope to make it unworkable. Stewart challenged Christie stating that the very same day that he vetoed the legislation to create insurance “exchanges” he was in Obama’s office asking for more money for what he thought was a “necessity” - The electorate and legislature had considered Obamacare a “necessity” why wasn’t he doing his bit and didn’t Obama point this out to him? Didn’t Obama ask for a quid pro quo?

Christie, now on the defensive, said he had vetoed the “exchanges” because he did not know what it was going to cost. Christie replied that Obama did not make his support of his, Christie’s, plight contingent on anything. “Obama understood”, he argued. 

The cost argument could not fly as Christie conceded that both he and the government had given their best information as to the costs of both Katrina aftercare and the state establishment of insurance “exchanges” for Obamacare. So why shouldn’t he do what Obama was doing - trust these estimates? Obama could have turned around and said the Federal Government had done more than it's fare share let New Jersey and the freemarket do the rest. ( The Repubicans' key cry is to leave it to the individual states and even better the freemarket. Romney campaigned on that).

Again Christie maintained that you couldn’t really compare Katrina with any of these issues as Katrina was a disaster.

Stewart countered that he considered someone, without medical insurance, diagnosed with cancer was a Katrina. Would the Republicans and Christie let the free market look after cancer? (This was the situation that pertained to a sizable portion of the population prior to Obamacare).

Christie floundered in his response saying that was not what he was doing as that person would be managed by the Government if not by the State of New Jersey.

Christie was oblivious to the fact that he had fought the introduction of Obamacare and had not officially changed his stance. He also failed to take ownership that he and the 25 other Republican Governors had all declined to accept their responsibilities under Obamacare making it as difficult as possible to enact it. 

DIFFERING PHILOSPHIES ON WHAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAY FOR

Christie in response as to what his philosophy was as to what Government should pay for, maintained that only those activities that were necessary and only those the Government alone could effect.

Stewart pointed out that this was a value judgment. The Republicans declared whatever they thought was a “necessity” and had absolutely no empathy for others’ plights. (They had written off 47% of the population as the “takers”). However, if they could identify with a disadvantaged group then they were all for making provision for them. Dick Cheney’s daughter was gay and suddenly he was all for gay rights.

There is very little doubt that this double standard is going to a central focus of the political dialogue in the coming years. Dianne Reeme on her popular public radio program had a debate on the validity of food stamps. A sizable percentage of Americans have been receiving these off and on for the past few years. 

On the one side was the Republican opinion that these people were the “takers” and the system was abused. The other side argued that the criteria for food stamps were rigid needing documentation and charitable organizations could not begin to meet the current needs. Studies had been done showing that there was less than a 4% prevalence of fraud or abuse. Food stamps were between hunger and getting the appropriate number of calories per day. They were a necessity to a large number of struggling American families.

CHRISTIE’S PERSONA

There is very little doubt that Christie has charisma and he handled himself well in front of the Stewart faithful. He is likeable and appears “flexible”. He appears genuine and is a straight shooter. He is also a very successful Republican Governor in a very Democratic State. 

Christie would a make a very impressive presidential candidate and Jon Stewart ended by saying he was looking to 2016 when he has to run against Hillary Clinton. However he is going to have to sort out, a political agenda that hangs together rationally.

What Jon Stewart failed to mention is what Republican philosophy would dominate the Presidential Primary selection process in 2016 and what a prospective candidate would have to say to become the Republican candidate. If the Republican Tea Party Godfather, former Senator Joe DeMint, has his way Christie will have to take up a whole lot of positions, social and financial, that may make him acceptable to the right and then who knows how the electorate will view him then……

THE REPUBLICANS ONGOING DENIAL OF REALITY

You would swear that there has not been an election. The same key issue that was fought day in and day out for two years is back again in the forefront of public debate. Obama ran on the wealthy paying a bit more to resolve the debt crises and Romney believed that the basis of solving the financial shortfall was by cutting spending.  One might have thought that the election had sorted the matter out but the Republicans are still in total denial as to the outcome.

 Because resolution of the debt crises was legislatively deferred to the end of this year the USA faces the “fiscal cliff”. This means if a deal is not realized by the end of the year as to how the crises should be resolved, the Bush tax cuts, for all Americans, will fall away and in addition automatic spending cuts would be put into place. Taxes would be increased on everyone as opposed to just the upper income 2%. These spending cuts are drastic and both parties do not want it for differing reasons. If there is no compromise it could conceivably result in a recession

OVERWHELMING, ONGOING, ELECTORAL SUPPORT FOR OBAMA PLAN.

Now this was a key issue in the winning Obama campaign. Not only did Obama win but also 60% of the electorate, including over 20% of those that voted for Romney, agreed with him on this issue. However, the Republican Speaker Boehner refuses point blank to consider this reduction. This in the teeth of a recent Pew Poll that found that if there was no resolution to the fiscal cliff then 53% would blame the Republicans and 27% Obama. Another National Poll showed that the electorate by 2 to 1 trusts Obama and the Democrats more than they do Boehner and the Republicans, to solve the crisis.

This is not a surprising outcome as the Republicans have been unashamedly non -cooperative on these issues for years now. Even worse for the Republicans is the perception that they are doing this  to protect their billionaire and millionaire constituencies. Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana Republican Governor commented that the public perception of the Republican Party is that they are the Party of the rich and wish to get rid of Medicare and this needed to change.

So at the moment the two sides appear to in a stalemate as the fiscal cliff date gets closer and closer. Boehner defiantly stated on December 8 that they were no closer to the solution - “This is the President’s problem – stupid”

Why on earth would the Republicans stick to a losing formula? Why would they march like lemmings going into no where?

REPUBLICAN DYSFUNCTION

As Jay H Ell has blogged ad infinitum, during the campaign, the Republican Party is in total disarray.  Their key unifying policy was to deny Obama a second term. This has failed so they are left with vying factions within the Party. The most influential of these is the Tea Party who if they had their way would reduce income tax to nothing and cut back all government spending that wasn’t related to defense.  There is no hope of the electorate, as a whole, ever accepting that. So unless the Republican establishment gets its act together the Republican Party is headed to being in the minority forever. The majority of the Republicans have neither the will, the savvy nor the desire to take the Tea Party full on. In addition the key Republican spokespeople and policy makers of the Republican party are unelected megalomaniacs,who have or control large sums of money, who snipe from the sidelines.

Key to the dysfunction of this “do nothing” Repubulican Congressmen is the process whereby they make the decisions that bring legislation to the floor.  A majority of the Republican caucus has to agree that a piece of legislation can be debated. Put another way even if there are a majority of Congressmen, made up of both Republicans and Democrats, in the House of Representatives in favor of an issue, the issue will never ever reach the floor unless a majority of Republicans agree that it can.

Also this group is guided in it’s decision making process by the pledge they made to Grover Norquist that they would never raise taxes.

Nothing but nothing takes precedent over these rules.

THE “COMPROMISE”

It is with this as a background that the Republican House Speaker Boehner has to come to a compromise solution with President Obama on averting the fiscal cliff and the introduction of higher tax rates for all. Obama has proposed that only the taxes of the richest 2% in America are raised.

Boehner feigned shock telling the President that he could not be serious. So did the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, maintain that Obama did not understand that a large number of voters decided against this solution! Boehner true to the Norquist line does not wish to raise taxes on that top 2%. He has suggested other means of getting revenues by cutting down on tax deductions. The latter is the very losing policy that Romney touted in the campaign and that Obama has rejected outright. (SEE BLOG: OBAMA MUST NOT CAVE AGAIN).

There is a very simple compromise out there to help the Republican Party not to have to face up to Grover. Vote for the Bush tax cuts on the 98% and the tax cuts on the top 2% will automatically fall away. Nobody could say that they raised taxes then. The perception is that this compromise has enough Republican support in the house to pass this with the Democrats. But this simple solution is also out because Boehner needs the majority of the Republicans to bring it to the floor for a vote. That would be against the one of the aforementioned, Republican holy canons. (The Democrats are going to introduce a procedural vote to try and bypass this impasse but that will not fly.

ROMNESIA HAS BEEN CURED– OBAMA’S RESPONSE.

The Republican establishment has delayed a showdown between them and the Tea Party. The longer they do the higher the stakes. Boehner is trying to sell his compromise to the American electorate as “taxing the rich”. He has no hope. Obama’s solution has been accepted. It is obvious that even about half of his own electorate do not believe him. Romnesia has been cured. (SEE BLOG: HALF OF AMERICA HAS ROMNESIA).

Other Republican Congressmen are even further removed from reality. Some are still telling Obama they will come to a deal with him to allow increase revenue if it is matched by spending cuts of $4 for every one dollar of revenue.  Senator DeMint, the Tea Party Godfather has resigned from his elected Senate seat in order to become another unelected megalomaniac operator of the Republican Tea Party agenda. This symbolizes the de facto split between the Tea Party ideologues and the main body of the Republican Party but the Republican establishment remains in denial on this front as well

In truth the fiscal cliff is really a fiscal stepladder. One can stop the chaos even after the 31^st December. So Obama will call Boehner’s bluff if necessary. All hell will break loose in January when the first paycheck takes off the higher taxes. Sooner or later Boehner is going to have to show some leadership. The longer it takes the worse the hole is that he will have to dig himself out of.

Obama is continuing with his campaigning on this issue addressing meetings and conducting his social media campaign with the same intensity as in the election. He is doing what he does best – activist electioneering. Signs are that support is just growing and growing. This issue is slowly becoming the biggest grass roots issue since the Vietnam War and Civil rights.

In response to all this all Boehner is posturing as the Republicans squabble amongst each other.

TEA PARTY

Heritage Action, the Republican think tank and another of the Republican Party’s unelected leadership entities, has attacked the Boehner compromise as well. This is the organization that Tea Party Godfather DeMint left the Senate to lead. Heritage have said that Boehner is asking Republicans to go back on their pledge to raise revenue thereby breaking their promise to the American people. The American people do not seem to be clamoring for either the Heritage or a Boehner solution.  If anything they are blocking the switchboards in Congress and signing petitions for the Obama solution.

Maybe Grover has “stuff” on everybody in the Republican caucus, much like Edgar Hoover, because how on earth could this paranoid megalomaniac be holding the Republic Party and therefore the country to ransom?

UNREALITY

The whole debate has an air of unreality about it. The divided Republicans are functioning in their own space oblivious of the world around them. Some of their commentators talk about “overreach” by Obama. Others just go back to just attacking Obama. Most defend income tax rates as if it was the Holy Grail that only Democrats would desecrate. They forget that the percentage of one’s income that is taxed is just a number that changes all the time in relation to society’s needs. The highest marginal rates were under President Eisenhower - 90%. Both Regan and Bush 41 raised taxes. Nixon was most distressed with tax evasion by the rich and introduced the AMT provision that controlled the maximum deductions the rich could take. All these post war Presidents were Republicans.

 Bush 43, was the first and only post war Republican President that lowered the tax rates. That together with 2 unpaid for wars and a massive handout to the pharmaceutical industry landed us n this fiscal mess. Now Grover Norquist has enshrined the Bush 43 rates in the Torah, New Testament and Koran like G-d handed these down at Sinai. The Republican Caucus is following and are prepared, if necessary, with religious fervor, to bring the country down with them.

Boehner pretends to have washed his hands of the whole affair. He states it is the President’s responsibility to come up with a plan that will pass both Houses!

Is Boehner serious?

All this and the fact that the Republicans failed to endorse the UNO Convention of the Rights of the Disabled on the grounds that it threatened US Sovereignty and the rights of homeschoolers led Harry Reid, Democratic Leader of the Senate to question the rationality of the Republicans. He queried whether a solution could be obtained to the fiscal cliff crisis in the light of the Republicans’ state of mind.

IN THE END

In the end the Republicans have to cave. The sooner the better for all concerned. Then the issues of what spending cuts are acceptable can be debated. Obama has indicated that once this issue is resolved he is ready to discuss these spending issues. Medicare is central to these discussions and this will be the next area that the Republicans will be found to have a disconnect with the American electorate and reality.

The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party is now officially on even if war hasn’t been officially declared. The fights in Republican Primaries are going to be Herculean. Senator DeMint has said he would rather have 30 Republican Senators that stood for Conservative values than 60 Republican Senators that stood for nothing.

In the interim the Democrats can settle into future majorities everywhere while the Republican Party comes to terms with reality.

NETANYAHU HAS LOST IT

As predicted in the last blog, (ISRAEL: WINNERS AND LOSERS), Netanyahu was in danger of getting on the wrong side of history. Abbas has been ignored by Israel in spite of his overtures and policing the West Bank.  The inevitable happened and the UNO voted Abbas’s Palestinian movement Nation status and Observer status at that body. Palestine is no longer hanging around waiting for Godot. They don’t need Israel if they have world support for their Statehood. Israel has lost what could have been a bargaining point in negotiations. The vote was overwhelming with a few against and a number of abstentions. The reality is that world opinion, including that of Israel’s natural allies, is that Israel is not fulfilling its expectations in negotiating with Abbas’s Fatah who have, in their opinion, got weaker as a result of Israel not rewarding his stance. The same Western allies that were fore square behind Israel in Hamas’s attack somehow did not understand this time round.

Netanyahu’s response to the UNO decision was to "punish" Abbas for going to the UNO by announcing permits for new Settlements that if put into place would never allow Palestine to be an integral state. Just in case anyone had second thoughts, that they should have waited one more year to give Netanyahu an opportunity to make overtures, Netanyahu dispelled any lingering doubts by his intemperate reaction,

On the other hand Abbas, to quote the New York Times, “Made a rare but symbolic gesture to Israel saying that he had no claim on the town that he was driven from in the 1948 war of the Jewish nation’s founding”. Thus reassuring all those that had voted for Palestinian Statehood that he was serious about peace.

WHAT THIS DOESN’T MEAN.

• That nobody understands what Israel has to do to maintain its security.
• That this was part of the new wave of anti-Semitism. (Although Jay H. Ell is sure that there were some anti Semitic states among those voting.)
• That the international body does not appreciate that Israel accepted the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the UNO declaration of a two State solution to Palestine in 1947 only to be met by war after war.
• That everyone has forgotten about the Holocaust.
• That the world is unaware that Iran is the real problem that threatens Israel’s very existence and the world’s peace generally.
• That nobody knows that Hamas and a large number of Arab and Muslim states do not even recognize Israel’s existence
• That all are unaware that the Palestinians have not been cynically used over decades as a weapon to illegitmize Israel
• That those voting for the Palestinian status necessarily disagree with Israel’s perception that the Palestinians have rebuffed every offer at a two State Solution including the Barak and Olmert efforts in the last decade
• That this is part of the ongoing 3 millennium persecution of Jews
• That the international community are unaware that the Palestinian children are used as human shields and taught at school to hate Israel and the Jews
• That Hamas has randomly been shelling Israel for years on end
• That all are unaware that Abbas, like so many politicians, talks out of two sides of his mouth
• That the State of Israel is not a democracy in a sea of totalitarianism
• That the Goldstone report was balanced.
• That there are not double standards. Nobody said anything when all the Arab countries expelled all their Jews and where were the unanimous resolutions condemning the Soviets for the treatment of Soviet Jewry and the condemnation now at the outbreaks of the "new" anti-Semitism?
• That there is any meaningful International law on Israel’s situation.
• And on and on…..

WHAT IT DOES MEAN.

• That the world has come around to the opinion that the Palestinians are endlessly suffering and that they empathize with their lot.
• That they believe that Israel is doing nothing to assist Abbas, who lost a tremendous amount of influence by policing the West Bank and asking for peace. 
• That they feel Israel are exacerbating the situation by ignoring Abbas who has said that he believes that Palestine should have accepted the two state solution as far back as 1947.
• That Israel is stifling any hope of economic independence of that country by their de facto occupation and keeping the Palestinians in servitude.
• That if Israel maintains that they are more democratic, and by implication more civilized than the surrounding countries, they should be judged by the standards they claim to maintain.
• That Abbas is in now in a position to charge Israel with war crimes.
• That the world believes that Israel are at least part of the problem
• That those believe that Netanyahu is nothing but a militarist, who has no intention other than to solve this problem by violence, may have a point
• And on and on……..

ISRAELI OPINION.

This has thrown the whole Palestinian issue back into the Israeli election arena. There are of course no immediate ways to know how this turn of events may influence the outcome. However, the right wing coalition of Netanyahu and Lieberman seem to face no real opposition. In the light of the Settlement announcement one now understands why Defense Minister Barak, a moderate, resigned for “family reasons”.

There is a perception that the Israeli electorate is getting disillusioned by the same old same old. The majority felt pessimistic, prior to the UNO decision and Netanyahu’s response, at the outcome of the Hamas interlude, believing a peaceful solution was evading Israel. Implicit in their pessimism was that Israel was not able to solve this problem militarily. The majority of Israelis indicated their opposition to a ground war in the Hamas war. This course of events could not have changed their minds.

Also Obama’s approval rating has gone up to over 60% in Israel.  It is no secret that he will stand by Israel when it’s security is attacked but that he firmly believes in a two state solution. Also the animosity between him and Netanyahu is not a secret in Israel. Hillary Clinton reiterated the Obama Administration’s position on new settlements maintaining that they set back peace efforts

One can hope somehow the feelings of the majority are somehow reflected in the election results.

WHAT NOW?

One would have hoped that Netanyahu, like so many from the right before him, would be empowered, finally to make a move to sort out this thorny mess. Morsy the Egyptian President, who has far more credibility than Mubarak, has no choice really but to help him. There are so many ways he could lead – by unilaterally easing economic restrictions. He could have given them more access to water. He could make moves that would not involve political concessions. What about inviting Abbas just as a guest to his hometown of Safed? What about a three state solution?

Thinking out of the box Netanyahu could have recognized Abbas efforts long ago and rewarded it in one way or another. Instead he is already behind history with the UNO decision.

If the current wisdom is that Abbas is just posturing then prove it.

Or doesn’t Jay H. Ell understand? We should all prepare for Armageddon. Israel is the eternal victim with no control over it’s own destiny and will go down in a blaze of glory at worst or forever be fighting wars that may just be preventable. Remember by its own secular and biblical value system they should be behaving differently from the totalitarians and that they should not harm strangers, as they were strangers in Egypt.

Serendipitously this Saturday’s portion of Jewish law, (Torah portion), read in the synagogue, was about Jacob’s meeting with Esau. The lesson being, first you pray for peace then you do anything you can to obtain it, even bribe, and only if all fails resort to war. Also the portion is said to underline the fact that there is some good in everyone.

To quote Jonathon Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, in his book, The Dignity of Difference, “Will we endlessly replay the hatreds of the past? Or choose differently this time for the sake of the world’s children and their future”.