A Few Last Words About Ayn Rand

Paul Ryan, who many people would like to place a heartbeat away from the White House, has disavowed Ayn Rand, who he once said was his inspiration, so much so that he ordered his staff to read her books and claimed he modeled his actions in Congress on her philosophy. Now he says he still likes her emphasis  on self-reliance but rejects her atheism. 

Charity is counter-productive, indeed immoral, Ayn Rand said, because it denies the recipient of it that sense of self-worth that is the most important possession anyone can have. It fosters dependence and passivity, rather than the independent spirit that makes progress and prosperity possible. 

There are exceptional people, people of talent and intelligence, and they must not submit to the mediocre who somehow often find themselves in positions of influence. That stunts development, makes people unhappy, and ultimately ruins a country or a civilization.

Well, I think that's the devil's argument. It's just plausible enough to convince those who want a rationale for their own hard-heartedness and greed. If I turn you away from my door when you're cold and  sick and hungry, it's not because I don't care, it's for your own good, as you'll surely appreciate someday, if you live long enough, which doesn't seem likely. If I reject taxation to pay for schools it's because I believe the best education comes from private schools. (Besides, what we save on schools is needed to build more prisons.)

It is the absolute antithesis of the Judeo-Christian cultural tradition most of us consider our moral bedrock.

In its extreme form, part of Ayn Rand's philosophy is remarkably similar to the fuhrer prinzip formulated by nineteenth century  German thinkers. Great men arise from time to time, they said, and sweep all others before them. These great men are not constrained by normal standards of conduct, they have a historical mission to accomplish, and nothing must interfere with them. No mediocrity can hold  them back, it's immoral for anyone to try to thwart them, and any that do deserve whatever fate the man of destiny decides for them.

We all know who was the self-appointed epitome of this "world historical figure" idea.

Now, can we consign Ayn Rand back to her grave and let her rest in peace? And can we send Paul Ryan back to Jaynesville Wisconsin to enjoy more of the independent private life he wants so much?

This is an exact quote from the 1956 Republican party platform. I  have highlighted a couple of passages. I wonder if the 1012 platform committee would agree to it. 

Taxation and Fiscal Policy

The Republican Party takes pride in calling attention to the outstanding fiscal achievements of the Eisenhower Administration, several of which are mentioned in the foreword to these resolutions.

In order to progress further in correcting the unfortunate results of unwise financial management during 20 years of Democrat Administrations, we pledge to pursue the following objectives:

Further reductions in Government spending as recommended in the Hoover Commission Report, without weakening the support of a superior defense program or depreciating the quality of essential services of government to our people.

Continued balancing of the budget, to assure the financial strength of the country which is so vital to the struggle of the free world in its battle against Communism; and to maintain the purchasing power of a sound dollar, and the value of savings, pensions and insurance.

Gradual reduction of the national debt.

Then, insofar as consistent with a balanced budget, we pledge to work toward these additional objectives:

Further reductions in taxes with particular consideration for low and middle income families.

Initiation of a sound policy of tax reductions which will encourage small independent businesses to modernize and progress.

Continual study of additional ways to correct inequities in the effect of various taxes.

Consistent with the Republican Administration's accomplishment in stemming the inflation —which under five Democrat Administrations had cut the value of the dollar in half, and so had robbed the wage earner and millions of thrifty citizens who had savings, pensions and insurance—we endorse the present policy of freedom for the Federal Reserve System to combat both inflation and deflation by wise fiscal policy.

The Republican Party believes that sound money, which retains its buying power, is an essential foundation for new jobs

The More Things Change

"There ain't no clean way to make a hundred million bucks," (the police lieutenant) said. "Maybe the head man thinks his hands are clean but somewhere along the line guys got pushed to the wall, nice little businesses got the ground cut out from under them and had to sell out for nickels, decent people lost their jobs, stocks got rigged on the market, proxies got bought up  like a pennyweight of old gold, and the five per centers and the big law firms got paid hundred grand fees for beating some law the people wanted but the rich guys didn't, on account of it cut into their profits. Big money is big power and big power gets used wrong, it's the system. Maybe it's the best we can get, but it still ain't my Ivory Soap deal."

This is a quote from The Long Good-bye, written by Raymond Chandler and published in 1953. Things haven't changed much  in the last sixty years. 

Congressman Akin

(After seeing the Akin interview on television a second time, I've changed my opinion, and am not willing to make any excuses for what he said. What follows is what I wrote yesterday.)


Strange as it may seem, I would like to say a word in defense of Congressman Akin. The congressman was interviewed on television yesterday, and made some very strange and offensive remarks about the crime of rape. Now everyone, except perhaps the right wing zealots on the radio, is calling for him to quit his race for the Senate, disappear from public life, crawl back into the woodwork, or what have you.

Most of this is in response to his use of the phrase, "legitimate rape." And what I suspect he meant was not that rape could ever be justified, but that police agencies investigating rape complaints do sometimes conclude that no crime has been committed. When I was doing law enforcement work, I remember hearing that in about two percent of rape allegations it turns out the sex was consensual or did not take place at all. This is about the same proportion of other reported crimes in which police conclude there was no offense.

This is another example of the "gotcha" kind of politics both parties play now. A recent prior occasion for the same thing was the feigned outrage over President Obama's "You didn't build that," remark, where the word "that" referred to infrastructure, not to a business. It's election  year, and everyone's trying for whatever advantage they can get, but this kind of campaign just yields a government divided into warring camps and unable to accomplish  anything.

Nevertheless, Congressman Akin's comment reveals an abysmal ignorance about human reproduction that the citizens of Missouri should consider when casting their ballots. And he's on the House science committee!

The Election - August Edition

Here's a last blog post before I pretend I feel all better and get on with my day. I'll make it a quick one.

(a) 8.3% unemployment

(b) No president has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above eight percent.

(c) So why isn't Mitt Romney way ahead in the public opinion polls?

(d) Because he's such an unattractive candidate. Even his own party is accepting him only  grudgingly.

(e) If he's so unattractive, why isn't President Obama able to knock him out?

(f) See (a) above.

Addendum: (I just couldn't help myself.) why would anyone trust the political party that opposed Medicare in the first place, and has done everything it can think of to weaken it in the years since then, to "save" it now?

Voter Photos

Let's see if we can agree on a few things here.

First of all, we don't want anyone voting who isn't legally entitled to vote. No voting for people who are not citizens, no voting by tombstones, no voting by people who are currently incarcerated for felony convictions.

Second, we do want anyone who is legally entitled to vote to do so, without undue difficulty. We also agree that voting is a right, not a privilege, and the purpose of the states in this matter is to make the process as convenient as possible, not throw barriers in its way. Candidates should submit themselves to us all in the marketplace of ideas, and may the better, more persuasive person win.

Having said those two things, we recognize that occasionally a mistake will be made. From time to time someone who is not a citizen will show up at a polling place, either innocently unaware that she cannot legally vote, or maliciously trying to influence the result of the election. There are very few documented cases of this happening, however.

Now, if a mistake is  made, can we agree that it's better to allow an ineligible person to vote than it is to turn away a person who is legally entitled to vote? Voting, to repeat, is a RIGHT, and other than paying taxes is the only affirmative action many people take. We also can agree, I trust, that if the rights of any one person are denied, the rights of every person are threatened.

Regrettably, we have a history in America of voter suppression. We all know of the tricks played in the past to keep black Americans (as well as others) from voting. Literacy tests, restricted party primaries, poll taxes, and long residence requirements all have been used to prevent voting, and all these techniques have been relegated to the junkpile of history.

My own knowledge of voter suppression concerns the state of Virginia. In 1902, the Virginia legislature wrote a new state constitution which initiated a literacy test and poll tax for voting. The proposed constitution provided an exemption from the test or tax for the sons or grandsons of people who were able to vote in 1860, that is before the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Advocates for the new constitution  were by no means coy in saying what it would mean. They simply told everyone, "No white man will be disenfranchised by this constitution." The new constitution was ratified and went into effect with predicable result. Within two years the number of black men voting in Richmond fell from about 5,000 to about 500 - that is by ninety percent. Across the rest of the state the result was the same.

A decade later, debating the proposed women's suffrage amendment to the national Constitution, Virginia's legislators turned it down, reasoning that if women could vote that meant that black women would vote, that they would overcome whatever obstacles could be placed in their way, and this would be unacceptable in the Old Dominion.

That's history. I call it to our attention to remind us of what could happen, not necessarily what has happened or is presently happening. However, there seems to be nearly unanimous agreement that the voter photo id laws on the books now in some states and under consideration in some others will affect the racial and ethnic minorities, the young and the old voters more than any others.

Let us not unduly impugn the motives of people who favor these new laws, despite the fact that the leader of the Republicans in the Pennsylvania legislature is on tape saying the new law will deliver the state to Mitt Romney. Let us just say the photo id laws are a mistake and be confident they will be ruled unconstitutional.

Let us also hope I will be feeling better soon and can do things besides write blog entries. That deck out back isn't going to build itself.

(Oh, here's a good trick. For many years, Florida Democrats had a "whites only" primary on the dubious theory that a political party is like a private club, and can admit or turn away anyone they please. To make doubly sure only the proper kind of politician would be elected the voters cast ballots for two candidates in the primary, and then there would be a run-off between the two top vote getters for the nomination. That ensured that if two candidates split the segregationist vote, there would be a second chance to be sure no racial progressive could sneak through.)

Cousins

This is the latest blog entry by my cousin Bob, who lives in Massachusetts. Bob is the son of my father's younger brother.

"THE SPIRIT OF AMERICA"?

"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6:14-15 New King James Version)

There's an old expression we often use, especially but not exclusively in Christian religious circles, which says, "You can't rob Peter to pay Paul". Peter and Paul were two of the biggest and most significant leaders of the early Church. They were also VERY different men. Paul was originally from outside of Palestine, was a Roman citizen, and was extremely well educated. Peter was FROM Galilee in Palestine, was very "blue collar", and was very outspoken and impulsive. We know from the Book of Galatians in the New Testament that at times they greatly CLASHED.

WHY am I writing about Peter and Paul here and WHAT do they have to do with a piece about "The Spirit of America"? Well, I'm really not writing about the BIBLICAL characters, Peter and Paul here. Rather, I'm mentioning my COUSINS Peter and Paul. Both are Facebook friends of mine. Peter writes a blog. Peter (from Colorado) is retired, having previously worked as a forest ranger and a history teacher. Paul (from Pennsylvania) although past retirement age is a Certified Financial Planner. I would describe Peter as a "bleeding heart liberal" and Paul as a conservative Republican business type. They recently conducted sort of a "friendly political argument" on Facebook. I had to chuckle that two Grandchildren of Pierre E. and Marie H. Baril could be SUCH opposites politically! Peter is VERY much for President Obama. He has endorsed him on his blog, and honestly, I can't think of ANYONE who is a bigger fan of President Obama than is Peter Baril. Paul is voting for Mitt Romney and believes the reelection of President Obama would really be a terrible thing.

My own views are closer to Paul's than to Peter's. That said, I am NOT a big fan of Mitt Romney. I will not vote for Obama in the Fall. I am struggling with whether or not I will "hold my nose and vote for Mitt Romney or not". I have not made up my mind on this. Listen, I have heard all the arguments in favor of voting for Mitt Romney. I don't need to hear any more of them, thank you; so please save your writing.

On Facebook, in the midst of Peter and Paul's postings, I posted that I believe America is becoming a hedonistic and atheistic country; more every day. Peter posted, asking if I REALLY believe this and if I could write more about it. THIS is the result of his request that I write more about it. I do think Mitt Romney would make a better President than Barack Obama, and I'm a Republican. BUT, Romney would be a mediocre President, at best. America's problem IS primarily spiritual. In 2008, Michelle Obama was CORRECT when she lamented, "our souls are broken".

Our souls ARE broken. Sadly, President and Mrs. Obama have offered really NO guidance or real help in this area, and Mitt Romney offers next to nothing, in my opinion.

This is SUCH a deep and complicated matter, I suppose I could write a whole BOOK on the subject. At the very least, I could probably do four or five lengthy postings on the blog about it. Instead I am going to just "spit out" what I believe about this here.

I can be a very "gut level" person at times, and at times I can "really turn people off". This is IRONIC because at the core of my being, I'm a guy who very much wants to be LIKED and AFFIRMED! So, it's with some definite "fear and trembling" (see I Corinthians 2:1-4) that I post this, but I DO believe every word of it:

Yes, American is becoming like modern Europe: hedonistic and atheistic. We were moving in this direction with or without President Obama, but his Presidency has only accelerated this trend. Evangelical Christian scholars who carefully study demographics and popular trends have noted that Massachusetts, especially the Boston area (as well as the Montreal area in Canada, for that matter) is CULTURALLY speaking "Europe" and not "America". Some missionaries from the Bible belt who are bound for Europe actually come and live in the Boston area for awhile to prepare for the culture shock they'll face.

The most popular series of license plates in Massachusetts is the "Sprit of America" series which began being issued in the early 1990s and is still in use today. My own cars display plates with the moniker "The Spirit of America". I remember about eight years ago, a woman from San Deigo, California who came to visit her brother and his family in Natick. She was a devout evangelical Christian who attends a southern California mega church. The woman was HORRIFIED by the slogan on the Massachusetts plates,

"If THIS is the Spirit of America, then HEAVEN HELP US!!" she exclaimed. Originally from the Boston area, but having lived away for thirty years, she was agast at the smug, brash, me-first, godless attitude and atmosphere of the Boston area.

Yeah, we are embodying the current Spirit of America which is really much more like the Spirit of Belial I mentioned above...a hellish spirit of wickedness and ungodlliness.

Bluntly, it seems nobody can keep their pants on anymore. People become sexually active at ridiculously young ages. They couldn't tell you who Eleanor Roosevelt was or define what a cartographer is, but they can tell you everything you want to know about sex and everything you DON'T want to know about it, too!

People can't get thorough a conversation without a few F-Bombs being thrown in. People will tell you no one has the right to tell them what to do with THEIR bodies. In Europe, the churches are EMPTY. Christianity is seen as a dusty, undesirable relic of the past. New England is rapidly moving in that direction. Granted, there's still the Bible belt, but give it another generation and Dallas will be just like Boston. Most of what is on television and movies is really not fit to watch anymore.

There's also a very European attitude that it's up to the Government to GIVE you what you need, and then some! "Personal responsibility"? What's that?!

I could go on and on about the trend toward hedonism and atheism, but as bad as that trend is, I also see some other disturbing trends in our country.

The pastor of Bread of Life Assembly of God in Westminster, MA where I attend recently preached an excellent sermon about how the church is supposed to be "salt and light" in our world. Sadly, instead, evangelical Christians have often been judgmental, and legalistic. We often (stupidly) present a very negative gospel. WE have experienced a LOVING and FORGIVING and UNDERSTANDING and all powerful Savior, who has given us life more abundantly. We've had PRECIOUS times with our Lord. Yet, we present God as petty and mean and a being who wants to ruin everyone's fun and make their lives miserable. We also present God as this angry, right-wing Republican who is CRAZY ABOUT MITT ROMNEY and who wants everybody to be just like Mitt Romney. Listen, I used to be one of the most negative and legalistic guys you would ever want to meet, AND I used to be so far to the Right that I almost made Jesse Helms look like a liberal. I'm still a Republican and fairly conservative, but I've changed quite a bit over the past twenty-five years, and I've re-thought a lot of this stuff of wrapping up our Christianity in right wing politics and the Republican party.

I can already hear critics challenging, "You've made a case that NEW ENGLAND is like Europe, but that has nothing to do with the rest of the country!"

No, it DOES. We're just ten or twenty years ahead of many of you.

Listen,

It's not false religion; the "I'm OK, You're OK" stuff that we need. That just "tickles the ears" for awhile, but has little real substance.

It's not aggressive fundamentalism with no love that we need.

It's not self-righteousness that we need.

It's not cults that we need... just LOOK at Scientology, for example.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"- THAT'S what we need.

John 3:16. That's what we need.

Jesus. Jesus is who and what we need. NOT the false Jesus that is so often presented. NOT that one. The REAL one.

Listen, when you're dying; when everything is "all washed up" so to speak- THAT'S when you realize how TRUE this is.

My father was a very accomplished person and a very pround man. He got dementia so bad that he was completely incontinent. He could not speak beyond occasionally getting out a word or two. He could not take care of himself at all. One day, I sat next to him at Charwell House Nursing Home in November of 1999, and I talked to him about Jesus. Oh, he'd been a Catholic and all that stuff; but I talked to him about having Jesus in his heart, being ready to die, being ready to go to Heaven...all that kind of stuff. My father, literally like a little child, responded and received Jesus.

A few months ago, I visited "Jack" at another nursing home...this one in Framingham. This 82-year-old was a graduate of M.I.T. He was brilliant. But he never wanted to talk about Jesus or the Gospel. Never. He was not interested. I did not push Jack at all. THAT day, he WAS interested. We talked about Jack's terminal cancer. Jack wan interested. Jack wanted Jesus. I did his funeral service just three weeks later.

Listen, the answer is not Mitt Romney. And the answer is CERTAINLY not Barack Obama. The answer is not more smugness, more pride, more intellect; DEFINITELY not more humanistic independence! The answer is also NOT more religion, per se.

The ONLY hope for America is that we humble ourselves and turn to Jesus Christ as Lord, 100%. Seriously. "What would Jesus do?" needs to not be an empty slogan but a living reality.

"The Spirit of America" needs to NOT be the spirit of smugness, pride, intellect, and independence.

"The Spirit of America" needs to be THE HOLY SPIRIT.

There, I said it.

And, as my old friend David C. Milley would say, "If you still love me, say AMEN!"

Just Desserts

No, this is not a blog about cooking. What I thought I might do today is discuss ethics, specifically ethics in the material world.

What do we mean  when we  say we have earned something? (It's a rhetorical question, I'm about to suggest an answer.) Why, I think it means some work went into the acquisition of the money or property and perhaps that the amount of work is in some way commensurate with  the value of the reward obtained.

Let's start with an easy example of earned versus unearned income. If I pull a gun on you and demand that you give me your wallet, you'll probably hand it over. (I only hope  this doesn't happen just before election day in a state where photo id is now required for voting.) Surely no one would argue that I earned the money I just extorted from you. I did have to make a minimal effort to take your  money - I had to get out of bed, get dressed,  brush my teeth, load my gun and find you - but only a truly twisted person would think  that qualifies as earning the cash I heisted.

Now let's blur things a little bit. Instead of using a gun, let's say I just notice that you've dropped your wallet and I pick it up and keep it. I'm a little less culpable, in the sense that I haven't put you in fear of your life, but again, no reasonable person could argue that I deserve to keep your property.

How about if I find your wallet after you've already left the area, and I make an effort to find you but can't locate where you live. Then I think most folks would say I'm entitled to keep the cash. A truly ethical person would declare it as income on his tax return, but frankly I doubt most people would do that either.

Okay, now instead of  finding your wallet I'm  somehow in Beverly Hills, and strolling along Rodeo Drive I find Paris Hilton's wallet. Again, I try  to find her, but without success. Do I have the same obligation to return the money  of someone who will never miss it as I have to return the lost money of someone of modest means?

Let's talk some more about Paris Hilton. Her grandfather (I think it was) made a huge fortune in the hotel business, and now she'll never have to work a day in her  life - and she hasn't as far as anyone can tell. Does she deserve the rewards being heaped on her? According to the law of the land, yes, she does, at least in that she hasn't held anyone up, but I guess most people feel a mixture of envy and resentment when we hear of her escapades.

Poor Paris' money is made from investments which she apparently didn't even decide on herself.  Accountants, economists and revenue agents refer to such income as "unearned." Should we let her keep it? She didn't earn it, either in the language of the tax code or in the ethical traditions most Americans espouse. But how would we ever get it away from her, and even if we did, how would we decide how to divvy it up?

Is it good for our democracy to have what amounts to a permanent leisure class, a scattering of Paris Hilton act-alikes across our landscape?  Our country has answered with a definite "maybe." We believe that a person who has worked hard or shown initiative and profited from it should be able to pass along his  property to his (or her) progeny. On the other hand, we don't agree that we want all those Parises cluttering up our nation, so we exact inheritance taxes on truly large fortunes.

Where am I going with all this? I don't really know, except that I'm home sick, and strange thoughts occur in the wee hours of the morning when sleep won't come. I do think our society distributes rewards on a willy-nilly basis. I'd be curious to hear what readers think.

MItt Romney as Governor

This is the Wikipedia article on Mitt Romney's tenure as governor of Massachusetts. Perhaps my Massachusetts friends can comment about its fairness and completeness, and about how "Romneycare" differs from "Obamacare?"

Romney

.

Governor of Massachusetts

2002 gubernatorial campaign

Main article: Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2002

In 2002, Republican Acting Governor Jane Swift's administration was plagued by political missteps and personal scandals.^[159] Many Republicans viewed her as a liability and considered her unable to win a general election.^[163] Prominent party figures – as well as the White House – wanted Romney to run for governor,^[161][164] and the opportunity appealed to him for its national visibility.^[165] One poll taken at that time showed Republicans favoring Romney over Swift by more than 50 percentage points.^[166] On March 19, 2002, Swift announced she would not seek her party's nomination, and hours later Romney declared his candidacy,^[166] for which he would face no opposition in the primary.^[167] In June 2002, the Massachusetts Democratic Party challenged Romney's eligibility to run for governor, noting that state law required seven years' consecutive residence and that Romney had filed his state tax returns as a Utah resident in 1999 and 2000.^[168][169] In response, the bipartisan Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission unanimously ruled that he had maintained sufficient financial and personal ties to Massachusetts and was therefore an eligible candidate.^[170]
Romney again ran as a political outsider.^[159] He played down his party affiliation,^[162] saying he was "not a partisan Republican" but rather a "moderate" with "progressive" views.^[171] He touted his private sector experience as qualifying him for addressing the state's fiscal problems^[167] and stressed his ability to obtain federal funds for the state, giving his Olympics record as evidence.^{[151][154][172]} He proposed to reorganize the state government while eliminating waste, fraud, and mismanagement.^[162][173] The campaign was the first to use microtargeting techniques, in which fine-grained groups of voters were reached with narrowly tailored messaging.^[174]
To overcome the image that had damaged him in the 1994 Senate race – that of a wealthy corporate buyout specialist out of touch with the needs of regular people – a series of "work days" were staged throughout the campaign, in which Romney performed blue-collar jobs such as herding cows and baling hay, unloading a fishing boat, and hauling garbage.^{[173][175][176]} Television ads highlighting the effort, as well as one portraying his family in gushing terms and showing him shirtless,^[175] received a poor public response and contributed to his being behind his Democratic opponent, Massachusetts State Treasurer Shannon O'Brien, in polls as late as mid-October.^[173][176] He rebounded with ads that accused O'Brien of being a failed watchdog for state pension fund losses in the stock market and that associated her husband, a former lobbyist, with the Enron scandal.^[162][176] During the election he contributed over $6 million – a state record at the time – to the nearly $10 million raised for his campaign overall.^[177][178] Romney was elected governor on November 5, 2002, with 50 percent of the vote to O'Brien's 45 percent.^[179]

Tenure, 2003–2007

Main article: Governorship of Mitt Romney

Massachusetts State House portrait of Governor Mitt Romney, by artist Richard Whitney

When Romney was sworn in as the 70th governor of Massachusetts on January 2, 2003,^[180] both houses of the Massachusetts state legislature held large Democratic majorities.^[181] He picked his cabinet and advisors more on managerial abilities than partisan affiliation.^[182] He declined his governor's salary during his term.^[183] Upon entering office in the middle of a fiscal year, he faced an immediate $650 million shortfall and a projected $3 billion deficit for the next year.^[162] Unexpected revenue of $1.0–1.3 billion from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2–1.5 billion.^[184][185] Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes,^[184] the state ran surpluses of around $600–700 million for the last two full fiscal years Romney was in office, although it began running deficits again after that.^{[nb 12]}
Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.^[162][184] He increased a special gasoline retailer fee by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue.^[162][184] (Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.)^[184] Romney also closed tax loopholes, in the interests of both better fairness and revenue increases, that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term.^{[162][190][191]} He did so in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases.^[190][191]
The state legislature, with the governor's support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.^[192] The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63 percent over four years.^[162][184] Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget, but all were overridden by the heavily Democratic legislature.^[193]
The cuts in state spending put added pressure on localities to reduce services or raise property taxes, and the share of town and city revenues coming from property taxes rose from 49 to 53 percent.^[162][184] The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship but remained below the national average.^[162]
Romney sought to bring near-universal health insurance coverage to the state. This came after Staples founder Stemberg told him at the start of his term that doing so would be the best way he could help people,^{[194][195][196]} and after the federal government, owing to the rules of Medicaid funding, threatened to cut $385 million in those payments to Massachusetts if the state did not reduce the number of uninsured recipients of health care services.^{[182][194][197]} Although he had not campaigned on the idea of universal health insurance,^[196] Romney decided that because people without insurance still received expensive health care, the money spent by the state for such care could be better used to subsidize insurance for the poor.^[195][196]
After positing that any measure adopted not raise taxes and not resemble the previous decade's failed "Hillarycare" proposal, Romney formed a team of consultants from diverse political backgrounds.^{[182][194][197]} Beginning in late 2004, they came up with a set of proposals more ambitious than an incremental one from the Massachusetts Senate and more acceptable to him than one from the Massachusetts House of Representatives that incorporated a new payroll tax.^{[182][194][197]} In particular, Romney pushed for incorporating an individual mandate at the state level.^[21] Past rival Ted Kennedy, who had made universal health coverage his life's work and who, over time, had developed a warm relationship with Romney,^[198] gave the plan a positive reception, which encouraged Democratic legislators to cooperate.^[194][197] The effort eventually gained the support of all major stakeholders within the state, and Romney helped break a logjam between rival Democratic leaders in the legislature.^[194][197]

There really wasn't Republican or Democrat in this. People ask me if this is conservative or liberal, and my answer is yes. It's liberal in the sense that we're getting our citizens health insurance. It's conservative in that we're not getting a government takeover.

—Mitt Romney upon passage of the Massachusetts health reform law in 2006.^[194]

On April 12, 2006, the governor signed the resulting Massachusetts health reform law, commonly called "Romneycare", which requires nearly all Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance coverage or face escalating tax penalties, such as the loss of their personal income tax exemption.^[199] The bill also establishes means-tested state subsidies for people who do not have adequate employer insurance and whose income is below a threshold, with funds that were previously used to compensate for the health costs of the uninsured.^{[200][201][202]} He vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including a controversial $295-per-employee assessment on businesses that do not offer health insurance and provisions guaranteeing dental benefits to Medicaid recipients.^[199][203] The legislature overrode all eight vetoes, but the governor's office said the differences were not essential.^[203] The law was the first of its kind in the nation and became the signature achievement of Romney's term in office.^{[197][nb 13]}
At the beginning of his governorship, Romney opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions, but advocated tolerance and supported some domestic partnership benefits.^{[197][205][206]} Faced with the dilemma of choosing between same-sex marriage or civil unions after the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriages (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), Romney reluctantly backed a state constitutional amendment in February 2004 that would have banned same-sex marriage but still allow civil unions, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.^[207] In May 2004, the governor instructed town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but citing a 1913 law that barred out-of-state residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home state, no marriage licenses were to be issued to out-of-state same-sex couples not planning to move to Massachusetts.^[205][208] In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, stating that the amendment confused voters who oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions.^[205] Instead, he endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would have banned same-sex marriage and made no provisions for civil unions.^[205] In 2004 and 2006, he urged the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.^[209][210]
In 2005, Romney revealed a change of view regarding abortion, moving from the "unequivocal" pro-choice position expressed during his 2002 campaign to a pro-life one in opposition to Roe v. Wade.^[197] He subsequently vetoed a bill on pro-life grounds that would expand access to emergency contraception in hospitals and pharmacies (the veto was overridden by the legislature).^[211]
Romney generally used the bully pulpit approach towards promoting his agenda, staging well-organized media events to appeal directly to the public rather than pushing his proposals in behind-doors sessions with the state legislature.^[197] He dealt with a public crisis of confidence in Boston's Big Dig project – that followed a fatal ceiling collapse in 2006 – by wresting control of the project from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.^[197] After two years of negotiating the state's participation in the landmark Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that instituted a cap and trade arrangement for power plant emissions in the Northeast, Romney pulled Massachusetts out of it shortly before its signing in December 2005, citing a lack of cost limits for industry.^[212]
During 2004, Romney spent considerable effort trying to bolster the state Republican Party, but it failed to gain any seats in the state legislative elections that year.^[162][213] He was given a prime-time appearance at the 2004 Republican National Convention, and was already being discussed as a potential 2008 presidential candidate.^[214] Midway through his term, Romney decided that he wanted to stage a full-time run for president,^[215] and on December 14, 2005, announced that he would not seek re-election for a second term.^[216] As chair of the Republican Governors Association, Romney traveled around the country, meeting prominent Republicans and building a national political network;^[215] he spent part or all of more than 200 days out of state during 2006, preparing for his run.^[217]
The governor had a 61 percent job approval rating in public polls after his initial fiscal actions in 2003, but it began to sink after that.^[218] The frequent out-of-state travel contributed to a decline in Romney's approval rating towards the end of his term;^[218][219] at 34 percent in November 2006, his rating level ranked 48th of the 50 U.S. governors.^[220] Dissatisfaction with Romney's administration and the weak condition of the Republican state party were among several factors that led to Democrat Deval Patrick's lopsided win over Republican Kerry Healey, Romney's Lieutenant Governor, in the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial election.^[219][221]
Romney filed to register a presidential campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission on his penultimate day in office as governor.^[222] His term ended January 4, 2007.

A Little More About History

Back when I was teaching history, I used to ask my  students on the first day of class why they were there. Why does the state want you to learn about history when there are so many other things you could be studying?

Answers were predictable. We study history to become better citizens, so we won't be hoodwinked by smooth-talking politicians, so we can appreciate all that our ancestors went through, or so we won't repeat the mistakes of the past. I would then reject all of these and suggest the only legitimate reason to study history is because it's fun. And if a student doesn't think it's fun to look at the past, why should that student bother?

I went on to ask whether history is cyclical - that is if certain themes develop and repeat themselves - or linear, meaning the past really doesn't have much to say about our present circumstances. And that, in turn, let me ask the students if they could think of metaphors for history.

I started them off with a couple of examples. The French historians, Will and Ariel Durant, liked to say that history is like a stream flowing between banks. The water represents all the supposedly great people, the politicians, generals, inventors and so forth, while on the banks the rest of us live, making a living, having families, singing songs and such. Historians, they said, are pessimists because they concentrate on the stream and ignore the banks.

Leo Tolstoy likened history to the image of a monkey riding the back of an elephant. The monkey chatters and screams and pulls on the elephant's ears, and thinks he's steering the elephant. Meanwhile, the elephant is just ambling along and only has about two things on his (or her) mind: getting enough to eat and making little elephants. Maybe he notices the monkey, but he doesn't pay much attention to it. Of course, like the Durants, Tolstoy equated the monkey with those "great" people and the elephant with the rest of humanity.

Other metaphors of history offered by the students included the sine curve from trigonometry and a coiled rattlesnake. Both are suggestions for a cyclical concept of history, one going up and down predictably and the other calling to our minds the image that events might be far apart chronologically, but close together on the coils. In like manner, there's the idea that history is like a long poem - it doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

My own image of history, which I finally gave to the students, is that history is like going to a carnival and looking in the mirrors at the funhouse. No matter how much you try to see a true reflection, there are going to be distortions. The quest of historians is to smooth out the mirrors, knowing they'll never be truly successful.

I'm bringing all this up because there's a guy named David Barton who seems to be warping the mirrors rather than flattening them. And I wouldn't care except that Mr. Barton now has a considerable influence on the teaching of American history. And I wouldn't bring that up except that his influence seems particularly strong in Texas. And I wouldn't bring that up except that Texas buys all its textbooks in a single purchase, rather than let the individual counties and municipalities decide on textbooks themselves. And I wouldn't bring that up except that Texas has more young people in their schools than any other state other than California.

All of which means that if you're a publisher of textbooks, Texas is your biggest single customer, and you'd better write those books to  comply with Mr. Barton's vision of our past, a view that is contradicted on myriad points by nearly all reputable historians.

Look him up yourself and decide if what he says is accurate. And remember, wishing something was so didn't make it so.

The President Visits Colorado Springs

Yesterday, I went to see the president. I don't mean I was invited to a colloquy or even to shoot a few baskets, but was simply one among many people who gathered at the Colorado College campus to get a look at our chief executive.

Years ago, when I was a park ranger, I was on a number of presidential protection details. I guarded Jimmy Carter in 1978 when he brought Anwar Sadat and Menachim Begin to Gettysburg. (Actually, I was halfway down Little Round Top, and guarded the statue of a New York Zouave.) Then, I was on patrol at Yorktown in 1981, when President Reagan came to town for the bicentennial celebration there, but didn't see him because I was helping a little lost boy find his parents when the motorcade went by. The next year I was on an outer ring of security during the economic summit in Williamsburg. Never saw the man but had fun  riding a motorscooter around the grounds at Carter's Grove plantation while the president hosted a dinner there.

Finally, I was detailed to Philadelphia on April Fools Day, 1987, when Reagan came to give a speech at Independence Hall.  I was on the corner of Sixth and Chestnut streets, and had been told to wear dress uniform rather than a parka. I remember the wind whistling around the corner, and that I was so cold I just prayed nobody would cause trouble because my hand was too numb for me to draw my revolver.

So I have had some experience with dignitary visits, and confidently set off, thinking I'd find a parking space at some distance and not get caught in a traffic jam after the president departed. In fact, I parked about two miles from campus and jauntily walked there. By the time I arrived, there was a huge line, stretching another half mile or so, and in the opposite direction from the one I had come from. Nothing daunted, I hoofed it to the end of the line, and struck up a conversation with some Canadians who arrived just after me.

People kept asking why Canadians wanted to see our president, and the answer, "Why not?" usually wasn't satisfactory. We waited about an hour before we began to make any progress towards the gates. Vendors of political buttons were doing a brisk business along the line, and Obama volunteers circulated, soliciting for more volunteers and helping people register to vote.

You have to pass through metal detectors to see a president now, a sensible precaution, but still somehow not very democratic. It would be nice if a citizen could just walk up to a president and say hello, but the days when that was possible are gone forever.

Nothing on my ticket said when the president would speak, and I was a little surprised when I learned he wasn't scheduled to arrive until two o'clock. Shade was at a premium, and I didn't get any. My hair has become very thin as I've aged, so I did get a burn on the old dome.

Volunteers passed out water bottles. The Democrats seem very good about tending to the needs of their crowds. I hope Republicans do the same.

Helicopters began circling the area at about 1:30. Then the motorcade arrived, two police SUV's followed by two black limousines bearing the presidential seal, then several more black cars and numerous press vehicles.

Most of the cars disappeared from my field of vision, but one of the limos backed up just behind the speaker's area. I guessed it was a getaway car in case of an assassination attempt, probably loaded with trauma equipment. I'm sure a doctor must travel with the president nowadays.

Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, warmed up the crowd. Then a local kindergarten teacher introduced the president, telling us that the extension of unemployment benefits had been a godsend to her family when her husband was out of work. She finished by saying her son will turn eighteen on November 10, too late to vote this year, but he is still working very hard to re-elect the president.

Barack Obama literally bounded out to the podium. He is thin, very thin, and the first impression one gets is that he's not physically substantial enough to be president. A strong wind would blow him away. Then he begins to speak, and any doubts of his physical capacity are forgotten. He speaks in that baritone voice and you know immediately that he can do the job.

It was a campaign speech. He reminded us of what he has done the last four years, and chided Mitt Romney. He did use the fairy-dust line to describe Romney's economic ideas. The crowd applauded, cheered, and chanted. "Four more years!" was the cry of the crowd, which made me cringe, thinking of Richard Nixon.

It was a stock speech, as I've said. Still, near the end I became very emotional. I like this man. I haven't felt this kind of affection for a politician since Robert Kennedy was murdered. "I'm too old and too fatalistic to give my heart to a politician," I told myself, but I did anyway, even if it was for just one day.

The president shook hands for a few minutes after he finished his speech, but I was too far away, and had lost sight of him. The crowd began to disperse.

A woman near me sported a tee shirt with the slogan, "Old white woman for Obama." I rather wish I had one that said "Old white man for Obama." Old white men are supposedly the most loyal GOP population segment, so I'd enjoy twitting them a bit.

The walk back to my little truck was very long, though I stopped for a very late lunch at a favorite restaurant with the interesting name, "Jose Muldoon's." By the time I returned home it was late afternoon and I was tired, hot, sweaty, and de-hydrated, despite quaffing two diet Pepsi's at Jose's. But I'm okay now.

I might have had my fill of going to see presidents. But I will volunteer for Obama for America.

A History Lesson

Back in 1896, the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan for president. Bryan was a 36 year-old congressman from Nebraska, and his ringing "cross of gold" speech at the Democratic convention stampeded the delegates. Horrified Republicans and conservative Democrats rallied around the GOP nominee, congressman William McKinley, who won the election handily.

So determined were the Republicans and their allies among the Democrats to defeat Bryan that they spent what at the time were unprecedented amounts of money to promote their man and disparage Bryan. It is said  workers across much of the country were told on election eve not to come back to work on Wednesday  if Bryan won on Tuesday. The employers said they would have to shut down to prepare for a government takeover if Bryan was elected.

Why were they so opposed to Bryan when they had managed to get through eight years with another Democrat in the White House - Grover Cleveland? Well, whenever I tried to explain why to my history students I could see eyes begin to get glassy and people started looking out the windows.

Bryan was on record calling for the government to coin silver free of charge at a ratio of 16:1 to gold. Well, that doesn't sound so very radical to modern ears, more incomprehensible than anything else. Why would that cause a ruckus?

The answer is that the debate was really about the money supply. The conservatives who insisted that our country stay on the gold standard were actually arguing for tight money - tight credit -  and a low or non-existent rate of inflation. By contrast, the Bryan Democrats wanted loose money - easy credit -  and a higher rate of inflation, or at least no deflation of the currency.

In truth, the national money supply was not expanding as fast as the population and the supply of goods and services. That in turn meant that money gradually became scarcer, and goods, services, and wages, paid less and less.

Falling wages are especially burdensome to people who are in debt. In 1896, that included most farmers who had mortgages, and wage-earners without special skills who were making subsistence money or less. By contrast, lenders were doing well, charging interest on loans that would be repaid with dollars that were increasing in value.

McKinley carried the business people of the country and the skilled laborers of the northeast. In fact, he won everything north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi. Bryan won the rest of the country. That northeastern quadrant was enough, however, to send McKinley to the White House and Bryan back to the prairie.

I'm bringing all this up for two reasons. First of all, the election of 1896 was one of the more important ones in American history. The nomination of Bryan put progressives in charge of the Democratic party, where they have remained to this day, with only a few short breaks. It defined the Democrats as the "easy money, easy credit" party. (In the musical "Hello Dolly" there is a line that goes, "Money is like manure. It's not worth a thing unless you spread it around, encouraging young things to grow." That could be the mantra of the Democrats.)

The Republicans also had a progressive ascendancy in the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, but by and large they have been the conservative party for the last century.

The other thing that made me think of 1896 was the hysteria associated with the election that year. Republicans predicted calamity if Bryan was elected. The government would take over everything, freedom would be eclipsed, and poverty would ensue. Perhaps, the more things change. . . .

(By the way, a future Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt, participated in rallies for McKinley in 1896.)

Birth control

Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly:

I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that’s Pearl Harbor day. The other is September 11th, and that’s the day of the terrorist attack,” Kelly said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.

It's the political season, and some rhetorical hyperbole is to be expected, but really, Congressman Kelly is way over the top here.

Recently I looked up Catholic teaching on artificial methods of birth control. The church is adamantly opposed to any use of contraceptives by either men or women, and equally against any voluntary sterilizations - no vasectomies or tubal ligations, thank you very much. Although all methods of birth control other than the rhythm method are morally objectionable, the church especially condemns the IUD, because it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. (As an aside, it seems curious to me that any mention of the "morning after pill" draws sharp vocal opposition from many Americans, but I've never heard of any controversy here about the IUD.)

Public opinion surveys consistently report that the great majority of Catholics do not follow church teachings on some or all of these strictures. Something on the order of 90% of Catholics have used birth control methods at one time or another. One assumes they don't think of themselves as any less Catholic than are those who abide completely by the teachings of the Vatican.

With so many people ignoring their teachings, perhaps the church fathers might want to re-examine the bases for their position against birth control. As I understand it, rhythm is approved, but condoms, pills, and such are condemned because the artificial methods tend to interrupt what nature intended, that is the creation of children.

The difference seems very subtle to me. In fact, refraining from sex in marriage seems less natural to me than having sex and using a device to prevent conception. Doesn't Paul say in his epistles that married people are not to withdraw from each other except during short intervals for prayer. Being celibate for two weeks every month isn't a short interval, in my opinion.

The other thing about all this that bothers me is the emphasis placed on it by the Catholic hierarchy. As I understand it, by provision of the Affordable Care Act, birth control methods are to be made available and covered 100% by group health insurance plans. Catholic churches and other churches are exempted from paying for this coverage in their plans.  This exemption does not apply to other church enterprises, most notably employees of Catholic schools and hospitals. The position of the church leaders, I guess, is that if they must provide this coverage it makes them complicit in sin. But it's a tenuous connection, and one must wonder if what they object to is making contraceptives available or having to pay for them, even indirectly.

There are other sins they could worry about, and we all have things to object about in federal spending. For myself, I'm deeply offended that, as far as I know, we have never fully divested ourselves of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Our government countenanced and carried out torture of captured Iraqis and others. To me, that's far more egregious, much farther from the teachings of Jesus, than douching is. I don't remember more than a tiny minority of clergymen objecting to waterboarding.

I pay my taxes anyway.

But Congressman Kelly says taking a pill is the moral equivalent of flying jet liners into buildings, killing thousands of people, and he's a congressman.