"The Road We've Traveled": Just Another Complete Coincidence?

President Obama's re-election committee recently released a 17-minute video called, "The Road We've Traveled."



The title is a bit curious, isn't it?  It sounds completely innocuous but why "The Road We've Traveled"?  The title doesn't convey success nor does it imply a sense that the President has overcome obstacles.

Stuart Chase

Out of sheer coincidence, supposed coiner of the term New Deal, Stuart Chase, wrote a book in 1942 called "The Road We Are Traveling."  Or is it a coincidence? Read on an you be the judge.  Is this a path toward greater freedom for mankind or is it the road to a new serfdom?

The Road We Are Traveling was sponsored by The Twentieth Century Fund, since renamed The Century Foundation.  According to their web site, they support "progressive ideas that advance security, opportunity, and equality."  They claim to be non-partisan, but also freely admit, "we are not neutral."  One of the trustees is John Podesta who is founder of the Center for American Progress, who was also President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, and was also co-chairman of the Obama Administration transition team.  But I'm sure that's all a coincidence, too.

In the book, Chase outlines how the world in 1942 is changing from a system based on "free enterprise" into a new, unknown system that he calls "X".  Here is an excerpt from pages 94 to 97.  One might go so far as to call this a "fundamental transformation."

(click a page to enlarge the original)

In war and peace, boom and depression, the march toward centralized, collective controls has continued. Planning has often been identified with socialism. Yet orthodox socialists themselves are far from pleased with the collectivism practiced in Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, and they look with grave suspicion on the New Deal. Something has appeared which nobody anticipated, nobody wanted and nobody really understands. Mr. James Burnham has called it the "managerial revolution," in the first intelligent attempt to understand it which I have seen. Many more studies will be needed before the mystery is cleared up. We have something called "X," which is displacing the system of free enterprise, all over the world. If we do not know yet what to call it, we can at least describe its major characteristics. They include, in most countries: 


Free Enterprise into "X"

• A strong, centralized government.
• An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms. In some countries, power is consolidated in a dictator, issuing decrees. (see "The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change" from The Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta)
• The control of banking, credit and security exchanges by the government. (see  Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)

• The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works. (see American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009)
• The underwriting of social security by the government--old-age pensions, mother's pensions, unemployment insurance and the like.
• The underwriting of food, housing and medical care, by the government. The United States is already experimenting with providing the essentials. Other nations are far along the road. (in 1942, the United States had passed Social Security, but had not passed the "Great Society" welfare and Medicare legislation of the Johnson Administration) 
• The use of the deficit spending techniques to finance these underwritings. The annually balanced budget has lost its old-time sanctity. (all of President Obama's budgets have had nearly trillion-dollar annual deficits.  The United States Senate has passed no budget in over 1,000 days)
• The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies. (see "FDR Ends Gold Standard in 1933" and "Nixon Ends Bretton Woods International Monetary System")
• The control or foreign trade by the government, with increasing emphasis on bilateral agreements and barter deals.
• The control of natural resources, with increasing emphasis on self-sufficiency.
• The control or energy sources--hydroelectric power, coal, petroleum, natural gas.
• The control of transportation--railway, highway, airway, waterway.
• The control of agricultural production. (see "Family-farm advocates say new child farm-labor rules would destroy farms' generational structure")
• The control of labor organizations, often to the point of prohibiting strikes.
• The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities. The CCC camps have just inaugurated military drill.
• Heavy taxation, with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.
• Not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control without ownership. It is interesting to recall that the same formula is used by the great corporations in depriving stockholders of power.
• The state control of communications and propaganda.

These characteristics are incipient in some countries, full-blown in others. If you check off those which are observable in the United States in 1942; in Britain, in Germany, in Mexico, in Japan, in Sweden, in Russia, a comparison of checkmarks will show some amazing parallels. Is the whole list good or bad? That is a meaningless question. Some items point strongly to community survival, which is perhaps the most fundamental good there is. Some are clearly contrary to the liberal democratic ideal. Most of them are anathema to the doctrines of Adam Smith. Good or bad, there they are, in the middle of the stage.


Study this list and think hard about it. At first reading, most Americans will not recognize it as something which applies to them. Yet there is not an item on the list which is not applicable in some degree to the United States. We have no official propaganda bureau yet, but the FCC controls radio broadcasting. Further, it is not a war list, though the war has increased the impact. These items are referents for "X," the new structure which is being molded, and for which there is as yet no name. Names are thrown around--"socialism," "state capitalism," "fascism,"-but they mean nothing, and only lead to confusion.


See also ...

• Download a PDF version of the complete "The Road We Are Traveling" [80.9 MB]
• A video rebuttal.

• And another, "The Road We Really Traveled" starring Barack Obama

One of These Things Is Not Like the Others ...

Cookie Monster of Sesame Street fame teaches children how to spot important difference while singing his equally-famous "One of These Things Is Not Like the Others" song. Let's see if we can spot any differences in how most Californians think about redistricting.

There were two -- count 'em two! -- redistricting measures on the November 2010 ballot in California. One, Proposition 20, extended existing redistricting reforms by empowering the Citizens Redistrict Commission to draw U.S. Congressional districts. Proposition 20 passed with a 60% plus majority.

The second redistricting initiative on the ballot was Proposition 27. Proposition 27's aim was to eliminate the Citizens Redistricting Commission and to return redistricting control back to the California Legislature. Why was this a bad idea? First, the California Legislature is dominated by one party with nearly a 2-to-1 majority. Second, everybody remembers the horrible job that the Legislature did drawing the 2001 political district lines. Proposition 27 was funded by 25 self-serving incumbent politicians and their well-connected, big-money party donors--many from outside of California! No surprise, Californians rejected Proposition 27, also by nearly a 60% majority.

At the county level, both Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 were nearly universally approved or rejected statewide. Note the key word, "nearly." One county, and only one county, voted completely opposite of all the others. See if you can spot which one. Look carefully.

Spot the difference yet? Look along the West coast (the left edge) mid-way up the state.

San Francisco county was the only California county to oppose Proposition 20 and support Proposition 27.

Initial Reflection on California 2010 Election Results

As a fourth-generation Californian and a fiscal conservative, I am obviously disappointed by the 2010 election results. I have little respect for Jerry Brown and even lower expectations from his second Gubernatorial administration. I cannot fathom how Californians could re-elect Senator Boxer, but I do acknowledge their hesitation with Carly Fiorina (I supported Tom Campbell in the primary). Are these really the best leaders that California can produce?

Fortunately, there were a few positives from the election.

First and foremost, the naked power grab by the Democratic Party oligarchy in California, Proposition 27, failed at the ballot box by nearly a 60% majority. Proposition 27's aim was to disband the Citizens Redistricting Commission and to return redistricting decisions to the California Legislature, currently dominated by the Democrats with a nearly 2-to-1 majority. Proposition 27 was funded by many well-connected, big money donors to the Democratic Party, many from outside California! For more information, see ...

Proposition 27 Revealed!

http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2010/09/proposition-27-revealed.html

Interestingly, the electorate not only defeated Proposition 27 but also passed Proposition 20 by a 60%+ majority. Proposition 20 increased the power and scope of the Citizens Redistricting Commission by expanding their redistricting responsibilities to include U.S. Congressional districts. This has big implications for future elections especially given the changes in the 2010 Census. As evidence that redistricting reform is needed, just look at how many California incumbents were re-elected in a year when other states removed long-standing incumbents from office. The poster boy for redistricting reform is 20-term Congressman Pete Stark, who received over 95% of his campaign contributions from out-of-state political action committees (PACs). Does he work for his constituents or for his benefactors?

Bill Lockyer was re-elected state Treasurer. Interestingly, in an 2009 address to the California Legislature he said, "Particularly I would say to the Democrats, in an era when we aren't going to have tax increases, give it up. Figure out how to be more efficient about spending the money we've got."

http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2010/02/california-treasurer-lockyer-scolds.html

His words were prescient about other California 2010 election results.

• Proposition 21 failed. There will be no additional car fees to pay for state parks (although I supported this one).

• Proposition 22 passed. The state can no longer raid local governments for funds.

• Proposition 24 failed. There will be no repeal of earlier corporate tax breaks.

• Proposition 26 passed. Fee increases now require a 2/3rd majority vote, just like taxes.

California's future will be interesting, to say the least. Over the last decade, California's government spending increased both as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP, or the size of the economy) and per person, adjusted for inflation (shown here as constant 2005 dollars).

The state's taxpayers still face a massively underfunded state employee pension problem along with dwindling tax revenues. The pension problem was spawned by the California Legislature when it approved overly generous pension benefits with SB 400 passed in 1999. Ahhhh, yes. Remember 1999? We were all going to get rich selling dog food from our web site--and then the Internet bubble popped. Californians and California businesses long ago adjusted to that economic reality. California's state government and pension system has yet to confront either the economic reality of the 2000 Internet bubble or the 2008 sub-prime mortgage bubble.

Again, in California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer's prescient words ...

It's impossible for this Legislature to reform the pension system and if we don't, we bankrupt the state.

...

And I don't think anybody can do it here because of who elected you. You're just captive of the current environment. I don't see any way out.

It really inspires confidence and provides hope for the future, doesn't it? What exactly did Bill Lockyer mean when he said, "I don't think anybody can do it here because of WHO elected you"? Who elected the California Legislators? Wasn't it the people? Or, was Bill Lockyer merely acknowledging the people that PAID to elect many of the California Legislature--namely public sector unions. After all, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California State Council of Service Employees (a.k.a. SEIU) are the two largest spenders in California politics, attempting to influence voters and public officials. See the full list on page 10 in the following document.

Big Money Talks: California's Billion Dollar Club

http://www.fppc.ca.gov/reports/Report31110.pdf

After the 2010 election, California Democrats now have nearly unanimous control of the State of California, including the following offices.

• Governor (Jerry Brown)
• Lt. Governor (Gavin Newsom)
• Secretary of State (Debra Bowen)
• Controller (John Chiang)
• Treasurer (Bill Lockyer)
• Attorney General (likely at the time of this writing)
• Insurance Commissioner (Dave Jones)
• A nearly two-thirds majority in the California Senate
• A nearly two-thirds majority in the California Assembly

California Democrats now OWN the government's response to success or failure of the California economy going forward. I hope and pray that they can show real leadership in addressing state's many daunting challenges. First and foremost, they must confront their traditional allies in California's public sector unions and adjust California's budget to reflect economic reality.

Personally, I expect conditions to deteriorate as more California taxpayers and businesses move to other states or at least leave California's taxation authority.

For a great read on how California arrived in this horrible situation, I recommend ...

The Golden State’s War on Itself: How politicians turned the California Dream into a nightmare

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_3_california-economy.html

The Big Spenders Behind the Scenes

Many political pundits and even the President and Vice-President themselves are decrying the amount of money being spent behind the scenes in the 2010 election. I happen to agree, as I have been concerned about this for about a decade now. Nearly half a trillion dollars, some $480 million, was spent just on 527 committee activity in the 2004, 2006, 2008, and so far in the 2010 elections.

However, look at who and which organizations are spending behind the scenes by examining the contribution to 527 political organizations, otherwise known as "soft money." This money is not subject to the same legal constraints as direct contributions to a state or national candidate.

Fortunately, organizations like the Center for Responsive Politics (www.OpenSecrets.org) scour the required campaign disclosure statements and publish the results.

Here are the total for the top contributors to 527 committees for the time period covering the 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010 election cycles. Obviously, not all the 2010 contributions are included as the 2010 election is still in progress.

(link to table)

A few things are notable from the table and chart.

• The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is the 800-pound gorilla of 527 campaign funding, providing nearly 30% of the total 527 funding. SEIU was a major contributor to the Obama Presidential campaign and various current and former SEIU executive members are now part of the Obama Administration, including frequent White House visitor, former SEIU President Andy Stern on the President's Deficit Commission and SEIU Secretary/Treasurer Anna Berger at the President's Small Business Summit.
• Many of those funding the Joint Victory Campaign 2004 are also major campaign contributors including George Soros of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute, Peter B. Lewis of the appropriately named Progressive Corp., and Stephen Bing of Shangri-la Entertainment.
• Those contributing to the Victory Campaign 2004 (not to be confused with the Joint Victory Campaign) were primarily smaller donors.
• Nine of the top ten donors gives primarily to Democratic Party candidates. The one Republican-oriented group is Perry Homes. Robert J. Perry is perhaps most infamously known for the Swiftboat campaign against John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential race.
• Golden West Financial is the brainchild of Herbert Sandler and Marion Sandler. Well Fargo Bank, who purchased Wachovia Corp. during the height of the 2008 financial crisism was forced to modify loans sold by Golden West Financial's World Savings, which was later purchased by Wachovia. Both of the Sandler's are major contributors to the Center for American Progress, a leftist, progressive think tank, also often connected with George Soros.

It is also interesting to see the contributions by election cycle. It becomes obvious that SEIU is the dominant 527 committee donor. It also becomes obvious of the huge sums spent in the 2004 and 2008 elections, which were Presidential election years.

(link to table)

See also ...

NPR: "Who's Who: Key Leaders Of Independent Groups"