Ladies and Gentlemen...Bill Clinton

I thought Bill Clinton's speech last night at the Democratic Party's national nominating convention delivered the goods in terms of why a) the Romney Ryan ticket is clearly the wrong choice (the primary mission of his speech) and b) why Obama is the superior choice...which Obama himself will expound upon tonight.

In fact, I think it was the best articulation of the situation I've seen yet - done in human terms, in a folksy and engaging way - but cutting and effective on the issues that really matter. Also, I liked how Clinton (and therefore the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party) embraced the economy as the central issue in the campaign instead of running away from it or offering up other issues (foreign policy for example) as the key thing to focus on. No, Bill clearly wanted to engage and discuss the economy and squarely lay out what's worked, what hasn't and the differences between the two candidates and parties.

To my ear, the most effective lines of argument issued by Clinton were those painting the stark contrast between what the other party represents and would bring to the White House, regardless of what one things of Obama. Specifically, I heard Clinton say:

• Romney/Ryan are offering the exact same economic ideas that got us into the mess in the first place...massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations; major deregulation of finance, energy and other industries; deletion of healthcare reform laws and a big increases in defense spending all at the same time. This policy is a proven failure. It produced massive budget deficits and a major recession by the end of the 1980s and we all know what happened when the Rs enacted this policy when they ran the government in the 2000s. Why? The arithmetic simply does not - and never has - added up.
• Romney/Ryan literally represent the Republican "zero tolerance" political philosophy of obstruct, say no and do not compromise...and that's not only bad politics, but more importantly it's bad economic policy. Related, the cynical strategy the Rs adopted five minutes after Obama was inaugurated in 2009 was to pin their mess on him, refuse to cooperate with him and, ultimately, hope the American public would literally forget that they ran the county into the ground from 2001 to 2008.
• Romney/Ryan embody the immoral "I got mine, you're on your own...good luck" philosophy that isolates, divides and subjugates virtually everyone in society save the already rich and powerful.
• Romney/Ryan are less than honest on the campaign trail. More than most politicians (of both parties) who "fudge" the truth and spin for effect, R/R go out of their way to just make stuff up. For example, Clinton pointed out how R/R have taken Obama's response to the requests by a number of governors (mostly Republican) to waive certain Federal welfare policy requirements so that those governors could enact even more effective "back to work" programs and suddenly turned it into "Obama wants to give welfare money to people without requiring them to work." Just not true.  

While Bill brought up other ironies, bad ideas and dishonesty foisted by Romeny/Ryan, I think these were the key "anti-R/R" points he effectively made to anyone out there who may be undecided - dishonest, obstructionist lackeys for the super rich and big corporations who offer nothing more than the failed ideas of the past.

By comparison to that, I thought the other part of Clinton's speech was equally good in terms of setting up Obama as the guy to keep on the job:

• Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and has done a good job - despite Republican obstructions - to stem the bleeding and get the economy on at least a balanced footing.
• Obama - despite how the Rs have treated him - still is dedicated to true bipartisan solutions that work for most if not all Americans. Now, I personally think this is what cost Obama the 2010 mid-term elections as he did not understand that the Rs were not under any circumstances work with him...and therefore they could run (and win Congressional seats) on the assertion that Obama and the Ds were not leading us out of the poor economy. But in any case, in his appeal the center of American voters, Clinton did a good job in painting Obama as a fair guy wanting to work with anyone for solutions.
• Obama (and Democrats) belief in investing in education, infrastructure, corporate innovation and new forms of energy is a superior set of priorities that will pay dividends in the form of jobs and an expanding middle class.
• Obama's priorities and record are about opening up opportunity, not limiting them. This is in stark contrast with the Rs.

The summary points here, to me, seemed to be that yes, yes we are better off four years later under Obama than we where following the eight years of W. Sure, there's still work to do, but things are turning around and we should stay on this trajectory with Obama.

In all, the speech was a master work by a great orator. Clinton effectively attacked the Republicans and set the table for Obama himself to lay out his plans tonight. To me, it's a clear and obvious choice which way to vote this fall...and I did not need Bill Clinton's talk last night to convince me. But, to the degree there are some "likely voters" out there who are still undecided and who saw the speech...I say that Bill did a great job in trying to convince them what to do.

Why Rs Want to Privatize Social Security

For some time now, Republicans have wanted to privatize Social Security and have used the growing wave of Baby Boomers aging into retirement as a fear factor to try and make changes they want. Republican VP pick Paul Ryan is one of these people and has recommended privitization.

My assumptions when hearing of these plans are that Republicans want to do this because:

1) They fundamentally believe that the government has no role in providing any saftey net to retirees and want to turn the clock back to pre-Great Depresion policy.

2) While doing so, they would make it so that their backers on Wall Street...the big banks and investment firms...benefit by forcing individuals to buy privately managed funds for retirement that lack any of the guarantees and risk reduction that the current Social Security System does.

I am still sure that both of these to thigns are true. However, I saw something online that adds depth to my point #2 that I thought worth sharing...

In 2016, the first of the Baby Boomers MUST begin withdrawing from the retirement accounts. This will begin years of withdrawals by Social Security recipients out of the stock market as, say what you will about the market, Social Security still parks its money on Wall Street in the Social Security Trust Fund. But a Baby Boom run there will leave the banks deficient of captial to make their nut on.

Wall Street bankers know this and that the only way to truly replace those withdrawals is with new money. So the push is on to replace those Baby Boomer withdrawals from the Trust Fund with Generation X, Y, and Millennial deposits of their retirement money in a new, privatized system that would not only infuse them with cash but free them much more than the Trust Fund to "be creative" with the money. Naturally, this would be far, far riskier than the current system.

This makes (evil) sense to me. It explains the real motivation for the push for privatization...the "why" behind my point #2. It's a policy recommendation of convenience. Republicans want to destroy Social Security in the name of their "small government" fantasies, but they're dependant on Wall Street backers to run and win elections. Wall Street knows the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleated, but also knows it has bought some serious access and pull in DC. So, together...the Rs and the Wall Streeters have found something that will help both.

What's scarier is that Democrats - while traditionally the defenders of Social Security - are almost as beholdent to Wall Street as the Republicans are. Will the stick to their guns or cave?

D-Day Anniversary - How To Learn Some More

Today is the 67th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy France on June 6, 1944.

The landings were conducted by the Allies - the U.S., the U.K., France, Poland, Netherlands and others fighting the Germans in World War II.

Here are three ways to learn more about this major, major turning point in the history of the world...

MOVIES

• The Longest Day - a massive film from the 1960s featuring a whole constellation of stars, this movie definitely is a "Hollywood" production. However, it's well acted and communicates the broad sweep of the events of D-Day through the various vignettes that skip between overall strategy, individual personal stories, from the German perspective, from the British and American perspective and more.
• Saving Private Ryan - starring Tom Hanks, this modern film tells the story of one mission that took place during the events of D-Day. Through the telling of the story of one little group of soldier's mission to find one man among the armies fighting in Normandy, you get a sense of what happened at the D-Day landings and after.

BOOK

• D-Day by Steven Ambrose. While the focus here is virtually only on the U.S. participation in D-Day, it is a first class telling of the history from both the high level and personal level. Very readable.

PHOTOS

• There are loads of photos online about the D-Day landings, both vintage from the time of the invasion as well as newer ones taken many years later. So, check them out to see what things looked like (or look like now) where the battles were fought. One suggestion is a set of pictures I took on a visit to the D-Day beaches and other battle sites in 1994. You can see those by clicking HERE.