June 2011 - My Time to Waste

The Bonus Army

I have been reading The Glory and the Dream; A Narrative History of America 1932 — 1972 by William Manchester. It pretty much begins with the story of the Bonus Army. The Bonus Army was comprised of about 20,000 World War I veterans along with their families and other supporters. They had come to Washington to claim the bonus that Congress had promised them at the end of WWI. Congress had said the bonus would be paid in 1945, but it was now 1932 and in the depths of the Great Depression. The veterans had no jobs, no homes, no food and felt that getting the bonus was their only hope for relief of any kind. So they came to Washington and settled in to wait for their bonuses.

Brigadier General George Moseley proposed

to arrest the bonus marchers and others “of inferior blood,” and then put them in concentration camps on “one of the sparsely inhabited islands of the Hawaiian group not suitable for growing sugar. There, he suggested, “they could stew in their own filth.” He added darkly, “We would not worry about the delays in the process of law in the settlement of their individual cases.” *

Fortunately, that proposal was not taken up.

Although the bonus army behaved well, eventually the police tried to clear them from a building and some bricks were thrown and some police weapons fired and a couple of marchers killed. News of this arrived at President Hoover’s desk and the President ordered in the army.

The Bonus Army was routed with Calvary and tear gas, backed by infantry and tanks. The camp

was a jumble of packing crates, fruit crates, chicken coops, burlap-and-tarpaper shacks, tents, lean-tos, wrecked touring cars, and dun-colored, tepee-like shelters **

and was burned.

These were World War I veterans!! The House of Representatives had voted to give them their bonus, but the Senate voted against it. The President of the United States ordered the military to clear out the peaceful camp of veterans. And the military did it. It is difficult for me to get my mind around the idea that there could be Americans so heartless, but there it is.

This was 1932. Just 79 years ago.

A second, smaller Bonus March in 1933 at the start of the Roosevelt Administration was defused with promises instead of military action.

In 1936, a Democratic-led Congress overrode President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s veto to pay the veterans their bonus years early.

Even FDR was not willing to pay the bonuses early!!

As various conservative politicians offer up policy proposals such as eliminating minimum wage or unemployment insurance, they always cloak them in language that sounds as if they believe everyone will be better off. Some of these politicians might actually believe that is so, but I doubt all of them do so. The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of people in the country today who simply are not concerned with what does or does not happen to the lower class.

The political debate in America today pretends otherwise. It is, supposedly, a debate about what is best for the country. The dirty secret is one side simply does not factor the well being of the lower class into it’s calculus of what is best for the “country”.

Hey, it’s not like they are advocating a cavalry charge into an unarmed army of veterans who only want what they have been promised.

* The Glory and the Dream, page 11

** ibid, page 16

What Pence and Daniels Have in Common?

Back when Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was still a potential candidate for the presidency, there was a story somewhere about how his relationship with his wife might be construed by some to reveal him as weak. As I remember it, he had gotten married and after a time his wife left him and moved to California. Later, she came back and they reconciled and remarried.

Why that history reveals Daniels to be weak, I cannot explain. But apparently it did, at least for a few people.

If that was actually a problem for Daniels politically, then Mike Pence, Republican candidate for governor of Indiana, may have a similar problem.

At the end of an article in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, there is a short discussion of how Pence will be traveling the state during his campaign. First it mentions that Pence’s wife is a pilot but that Pence says he will “be spending more time in a pickup truck than an airplane.”

The article ends with :

His preferred vehicle would be a motorcycle, but Karen Pence has blocked that dream.

“I grew up on ’em, and I haven’t been able to close that sale since I got married,” Pence said.

Now, I would argue that this is Pence respecting his wife’s fears out of love for his wife. But I know there are plenty of people who would see this differently.

Who’s to Be Blamed?

The most important factor influencing who wins the presidency in 2012 is the economy. If the economy is showing improvement, then Obama wins. If the economy has double dipped into another recession, things look bad for Obama. And if the economy is similar to today’s, limping along in a slow recovery, then it will be a close race.

There is another factor that in certain scenarios is more important than the economy. That factor is where the voters lay the blame if the economy is poor.

I have read a lot about Obama’s (and the Democrats) poor messaging and positioning. But we have arrived at a point where Obama has managed to be on the correct side of the messaging and positioning.

The Republicans are holding the economy hostage. They refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless it is accompanied with huge amounts of spending cuts and no increases in revenue. The problem for the Republicans is that they are using the language of a hostage taker. Obama initially asked for a clean bill, but quickly “caved” and entered negotiations. Since then, it is the Republicans who have repeatedly insisted that it is their way or the economy gets it.

If Obama had stuck to his guns for a clean bill, he would have been just as much a hostage taker as the Republicans. He did not and the Republicans are now looking at the possibility of taking the blame for a bad economy.

Those Damn Socialists!

I am currently having to spend a few minutes each day driving my van which lacks an FM radio. The pickings on AM radio are rather slim, so I sometimes end up listening to conservative talk radio (or “conversation radio” as the host called it today). I have no idea whose program I was listening to today (but not Rush or Beck…does Beck still have a show?).

Anyways, the guy was going on at great length about how the Obama socialists were setting things up in the Affordable Care Act. He was keying in on the business mandate. Any business that has more than 50 employees is going to have to include health insurance in the employee benefit package. If the business fails to do this, the fine will be $2,000 per employee.

The host makes the point that any business (including ones that already offer health insurance) would look at the choice and choose to pay the fine. After all, it is much cheaper! This will force all the employees into the Socialist Health Care that Obama set up…and then “they” (the Socialists) will have “them” and come election time the Democrats will say of the Republicans “They want to take away your health care!”

Where to begin. Well, in the first place, if a business is today offering health care to its employees, why would it suddenly stop when there is a fine added to the costs of stopping? Why not just stop now? There is no fine today! Hmmmm, could it be that there are reasons beyond government mandates why businesses supply health insurance?

But some businesses will not offer insurance. Most of these are probably not offering insurance today. So none of the employees will be forced into the Socialist Health Care that is ObamaCare. No, they will be buying insurance from a private company just as they are doing today! Only they will get a subsidy if they do not make enough money.

And if the individuals do not buy a policy? They will be fined:

Impose an annual penalty of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance; this will rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085.^[44]^[45] Exemptions to the fine in cases of financial hardship or religious beliefs are permitted

and they will not have insurance. They will have to rely on charity and emergency rooms just like today! (at least, I think that’s what happens.)

But wait! What about the Socialist Health Care that is ObamaCare? People have to buy private insurance with a subsidy if they qualify. Jeepers, how much more socialistic can you get?

Finally, there is the host’s point about how the Democrats will use the Health Care to retain/gain power. How DARE they try and use the policies they favor to curry favor with the voters! This would be like a Republican saying he or she will cut your taxes to retain/gain power!

Remember, “the Republicans want to take away your Health Care!”

This is an admission that people will like the Affordable Care Act once it is fully implemented in the same way Tea Partiers protested with signs that read “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” Damn those Socialists creating Medicare! Oh wait! The Tea Partiers are voting for Republicans!

Well, it was on the radio. It must be true.

Cause and Effect?

Of course the recent job numbers now reveal that Obama has destroyed the economy (at least according to some conservative voices). Here is a revealing chart:

This chart shows private sector job growth. Red is during the last year of the Bush administration and blue is the Obama administration. The blue line to the far right is May of 2011. April 15 was when the 2011 budget was finally passed. The budget that cut spending. What is the fallacy? Post hoc ergo propter hoc. And, let us admit, the budget did not cut all that much spending. But there is this:

About $8 billion in immediate cuts to domestic programs and foreign aid were offset by nearly equal increases in defense spending

But cuts in government spending are not the only thing the Republicans have managed to do that might influence economic and job growth.

There is the dreaded “uncertainty”. This concept is a favorite of Republicans when, for example, there is a possibility that the top tax rate might or might not go from 35% to 38% and job creators sit on their money instead of create jobs with it since they do not know what the tax rate will be. I think that “uncertainty” is bunk, but…

What of the uncertainty of whether the US is going to pay its debt or not? Ever since the 2011 budget passed, the Republicans have made all kinds of noise that they will let the government go into default if they do not get their way. Does this not create uncertainty? I suggest this creates a hell of a lot more uncertainty than the possibility that the top tax rate might go up!

Cause and effect? Ithink things were going along pretty good there until the Republican house finally started influencing what was happening.