Maureen Dowd, "Romney Is President": Only Half the Picture

I am pro-choice. Always was, always will be. I found the comments of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock to be abhorrent and loathsome.

On the other hand, I am also "pro-marriage," and this includes gay marriage. As noted earlier this year in a New York Times article entitled "For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) by Jason DeParle and Sabrina Tavernise, "more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage." As further observed by this article:

"The shift is affecting children’s lives. Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems."

These statistics concerning unwed births necessarily tie into unemployment, crime and America's national debt. Much akin to the trend in national debt, this trend involving unwed births is unsustainable.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Romney Is President" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/dowd-romney-is-president.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd states:

"In its delusional death spiral, the white male patriarchy was so hard core, so redolent of country clubs and Cadillacs, it made little effort not to alienate women. The election had the largest gender gap in the history of the Gallup poll, with Obama winning the vote of single women by 36 percentage points."

However, Dowd fails to observe that 53% of married women voted for Romney (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20231337).

So why the difference between single women and married women? Are single women so much smarter than married women? I don't think so, but please don't go asking my wife, who has had to suffer my tomfoolery for almost 30 years.

A delusional death spiral involving white male patriarchy? Well, this would not be my choice of words, and I think Dowd has gotten it only half right. As reported by USA Today in May of this year (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-17/minority-births-census/55029100/1):

"Hispanics, blacks, Asians and other minorities in 2011 accounted for 50.4% of births, 49.7% of all children under 5 and slightly more than half of the 4 million kids under 1, the Census Bureau reports today."

Or in other words, an entirely different electorate is taking shape in the United States. The relative number of white voters will decline; however, I doubt that issues involving gender will heavily influence future elections.

Are Republicans so out of tune with this ongoing metamorphosis? I suggest that Maureen ask Susana Martinez, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio.

Like Dowd, am I pleased by the outcome of this election? Hardly. Two narcissists spent billions of campaign dollars without advancing a concrete plan how to remedy the American economy. Neither man addressed America's involvement in Afghanistan. Neither man was willing to oppose without qualification the sale of assault rifles.

America is in an uncontrolled economic tailspin, and this election represented a travesty and tragedy of unimagined proportions. Short-term pleasure continues to come at the expense of long-term benefits. I want to be surprised, but I don't see Obama, who lacks leadership and managerial qualities, avoiding an inevitable crash.

George Will, "What Romney needs in a running mate": Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal

Although it had been hoped that hiring in US in the beginning of 2012 portended an economic recovery, it is now thought that the dismal March jobs report, issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, indicates that warm winter weather artificially inflated February jobs growth (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/mild-winter-may-have-artificially-inflated-jobs-data-economists-fear/2012/04/06/gIQAb8clzS_story.html). In short, there are still 12.7 million Americans desperately seeking work.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "What Romney needs in a running mate" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-needs-a-heavy-hitter-as-his-vice-president/2012/04/06/gIQAB0sVzS_story.html?hpid=z2), George Will claims that if Romney chooses Marco Rubio as his running mate, he cannot expect that Rubio will have an effect on Hispanics nationwide. Will writes:

"But are, for example, Hispanics nationwide such a homogeneous cohort that, say, those who came to Colorado from Mexico will identify with a son of Cuban immigrants to Florida (Sen. Marco Rubio)? Do these realists know that, according to exit polls, Nevada’s Hispanic Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, won only about a third of the Hispanic vote in 2010?"

Will also observes that historically, "in the 16 elections since World War II, 10 presidential candidates have failed to carry the home state of their vice presidential running mates." This fact weighs against the choice by Romney of both Florida's Marco Rubio and New Jersey's Chris Christie.

Instead, Will points to two excellent choices: Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Indeed, it now appears that the November presidential election is going to turn on the stalled US economy, and although ordinarily presidential elections are not determined by the choice of one or another vice presidential candidate, this election could be different, particularly if Romney selects Ryan.

Ryan's budget plan is very much in the news, and has received praise from New York Times columnist David Brooks ("Ryan has at least taken a big step toward an eventual fiscal solution," see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/opinion/books-that-other-obama.html) and scathing criticism from President Obama ("thinly veiled social Darwinism," see: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/ryan-responds-to-obama-criticism-says-president-is-more-partisan-and-desperate-by-the-day/).

Let's hope Romney brings the US budget crisis and deficit to the fore by choosing Paul Ryan. I agree with David Brooks that Ryan's budget proposals do not amount to a panacea; however, there is much substance there and the basis for discussion, negotiation and an ultimate solution to America's crushing economic problems.

Paul Krugman's "Let’s Not Be Civil": An Ode to Intolerance

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Let’s Not Be Civil" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&hp), Paul Krugman denounces Republicans as brutal troglodytes, who should be treated accordingly:

"The point is that the two parties don’t just live in different moral universes, they also live in different intellectual universes, with Republicans in particular having a stable of supposed experts who reliably endorse whatever they propose.

. . . .

So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so — and take their case to the voters."

Sorry, Paul, I'm missing something here.

I understand your point, professor, that the two parties live in different moral and intellectual universes: Democrats are ethical and smart, while Republicans (e.g., Rhodes Scholar Bobby Jindal) are evil and dumb.

However, I don't understand why debate necessitates incivility.

Personally, I was impressed by the analysis of Paul Ryan's deficit reduction proposals by Ted Gayer, the co-director of the Economic Studies program and the Joseph A. Pechman Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, who is certainly not an expert in the Republican "stable" (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2010/08/06/in-defense-of-congressman-paul-ryan/):

"Given that columnist Paul Krugman relied on Tax Policy Center estimates to level claims that Congressman Paul Ryan is a 'flimflam man' and that Ryan’s plan to address our fiscal problems is a 'fraud,' I think a defense of the Congressman is in order.

First, it is worth citing budget estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). According to CBO, Congressman Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future Act would dramatically reduce the build up of America’s debt.

. . . .

On the spending side, Congressman Ryan’s plan achieves these substantial reductions in our long-term debt through such things as progressive reductions in Social Security benefits, increases in the eligibility age for Medicare, and the replacement of Medicare benefits with a voucher starting in 2021 (with an average initial voucher value for 65-year-olds of $5,900 in 2010 dollars).

On the revenue side, Ryan has proposed creating an alternative income tax system that has two marginal tax rates, eliminates most deductions and credits, and exempts all interest, dividends, and capital gains from the individual income tax.

. . . .

Ryan’s vision of broad-based tax reform, which essentially would shift us toward a consumption tax, needs to be adjusted in order to meet his stated goal of matching historical levels of revenue as a proportion of GDP. This indeed poses a challenge to Congressman Ryan to make specific changes to his tax reform plan in order to meet his revenue goal. Reasonable people can disagree about whether we should close our long-term fiscal gap primarily through spending reductions or tax increases, but Congressman Ryan’s proposal makes a useful contribution to this debate."

Republicans are "talking cruel nonsense"? Mr. Gayer doesn't think so.

But more to the point, I think it is possible for two adults to engage in a rational discussion without labeling someone a "flimflam man". Personally, I have always been concerned that incivility leads to intolerance, which in turn can bring about violence.