A+ A A-

Froma Harrop - Record shows Democratic presidetns better for economy

Lend me your ears. I have come to praise President Obama and bury the myth that Republican presidents are better for the economy than Democratic presidents. Not only do Democrats produce superior economic results but they blow Republicans out of the water in the comparisons.

Let's turn the mic over to Bob Deitrick, a principal at Polaris Financial Partners in Westerville, Ohio. Deitrick crunched 80 years of numbers. Politically, 1929 to 2009 were exactly divided — 40 years under Republican presidents and 40 under Democrats.

He put his extraordinary findings in a book, "Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box."

Because President Obama was in office for only three years at the time of the writing, Deitrick and his co-author left him out. But Deitrick now has enough of an Obama track record to have recently declared in a Forbes interview, "By all measures, President Obama has outperformed every modern president."

His findings were so lopsided in favor of Democrats I had to ask him whether he is one. He said no. "I really was apolitical until 2000," start of the George W. Bush era. That's when he saw massive mismanagement of the economy at the expense of his middle- to upper-middle-class clients.

"The average retail investor got slammed, where hedge funds were allowed to take advantage of everyone else," he told me.

The best overall economic performance pre-Obama was that of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (whom Deitrick put together because of Kennedy's early death). No. 2 was Bill Clinton, with Franklin D. Roosevelt in third place.

The top six included two Republicans. Dwight Eisenhower ranked fourth, and Ronald Reagan sixth, edged out of fifth place by Harry Truman.

Were it not for Herbert Hoover, George W. would have ended up last.

Reagan was a "stimulus addict," in Deitrick's view. His economic growth came through massive spending on defense and deep tax cuts. The price was a tripling of the national debt.
Ordinary Americans did better under Clinton, who also left behind a budget surplus. Thanks to a growing economy and higher taxes on the rich, Obama has lowered the deficit to 4 percent of gross domestic product, down from over 10 percent at the end of the Bush years.

Here's an interesting calculation: Suppose that in 1929, you put $100,000 in a 401(k) fully invested in stocks. Under the 40 years of Republican presidents, you would have ended up with only $126,000. Under the Democrats, you would have amassed a retirement nest egg of $3.9 million! (All numbers are adjusted for inflation.)

If you added Obama, the Democrats' number would be much bigger.

Deitrick believes that presidents largely control the economy — through the bully pulpit and the power to appoint leaders, enact executive orders and issue vetoes. (Not everyone agrees they hold most economic cards.)

Deitrick is a disciple of Marriner Eccles, the rich Republican banker whom Roosevelt named Federal Reserve chairman. Eccles held that putting more money in middle-class hands is key to recovery and that trickle-down economics helps mainly those providing the trickle.

Speaking of income inequality, the gap between the top 1 percent and bottom 99 percent widened 20 percent in the 40 years Republicans ran the Oval Office. In the Democratic presidential years, it narrowed 16 percent.

Obama's greatest successes, Deitrick says, are the auto rescue plan and the Wall Street reforms, which revived faith among investors. The annual compound return on stocks has averaged between 25 and 30 percent (depending on the index) since the lows of March 2009.

Deitrick says he's perpetually shocked that Democrats don't trumpet their economic triumphs. You don't have to be a Democrat to wonder why.

(A member of the Providence Journal editorial board, Froma Harrop writes a nationally syndicated column from that city. She has written for such diverse publications as The New York Times, Harper's Bazaar and Institutional Investor.)

 

Last Updated on Monday, 30 December 2013 10:32

Hits: 322

Joe Kenney - I've a proven record of experience and results for constituents

The passing of Executive Councilor Ray Burton left a deep void in leadership and constituent service. A special election for January 21st (Primary) and March 11th (General) will be held to fill his seat. I am the only candidate with the necessary state experience to lead our district and help our constituents navigate a difficult bureaucracy. As a State Senator in District 3, I was deeply committed to helping my constituents. As a Marine with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I will not quit on issues like the Northern Pass which I am against.

You deserve a councilor who can hit the ground running. I'm proud of my record of constituent service which I learned from the master. I'm not just talking the talk. I have walked the walk working on issues with Ray.

I hope to meet you at one of our "Catch a Cup of Joe with Kenney" events. The first to post a photo on our "Kenney for Executive Council " Facebook page wins a free 1-pound bag of coffee. Politics can be fun, interesting and engaging. I think Ray would like the way we are running our campaign. It's people who matter. No one tells the people of District 1 how to vote. Votes are earned. It's totally out of touch with District 1 to run a big city, endorsement-based campaign. Our campaign is run out of the coffee houses of N.H. I ask for your endorsement. I want to hear your concerns.
Working with Councilor Burton on the Conway Scenic Vista project while acting as the Senate Transportation chairman, I secured the final piece of funding in the Capital Budget to complete the $2.6 million projects. During 14 years in the Legislature, I served on many committees including: Transportation, Health and Human Services, Executive, Departments and Administration, Commerce, Labor and Veterans Affairs. I was proud to establish the Purple Heart Trail in N.H., the Organ Donor Registry Law and more. I have worked with agency and department heads before I know how to navigate the state system for people.
I will be frugal and strong watchdog for the N.H. taxpayer! Judicial appointments must meet the constitutional principles of our state Constitution! District 1 must be represented on these boards.

The N.H. economy has been hit hard. I have already worked with local economic development councils, the BIA and regional planning commissions. As a state senator, I assisted in bringing a company called Loftware to the Pease Trade Authority, creating jobs.
N.H. business is burdened with over regulation. Anytime a state agency brings a rule change before the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR) an e-mail should be sent to the business impacted. JLCAR rules can wipe out a business if someone is not watching.

I do not have another business; I will devote a 100 percent of my time to you. I'll be open to your ideas, and available to have a cup of Joe with you. You may watch a series of interesting constituent testimonials including a Laconia veteran at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6iwWZ4fPfw or goggle "YouTube Joe Kenney He saved my life" .

Helping people is why I am running. I hope to earn your support, respect, and vote. You may follow our "Cup of Joe with Kenney" events on Facebook — Joe Kenney for Executive Council. Contact me with any questions at www.kenneyfornh.com, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at (603) 374-3333.
(Joe Kenney was in the legislature 14 years with terms as state representative, and state senator from District 3. He was the 2008 Republican nominee for governor. He has been a selectman in his home town of Wakefield. He is a Lt. Col. in the U.S. Marines and recently served in Afghanistan and Iraq.)

Last Updated on Friday, 27 December 2013 09:05

Hits: 449

Susan Estrich -3 more years

The disastrous rollout of Obamacare, worse than anyone anticipated or warned, could have doomed the president's second term. It would require something very big to take your eyes off of that disaster.

What an idea. Shut down the government.

How clever can you get? The only thing worse than Obamacare is the crowd that would close down the government, leaving people all over the place in the lurch, in what they conceded from the outset was a hopeless act of protest that would in practice change nothing.

The tea party, of course, wants more people like that in Washington. And they may get them. In the convoluted rules of Washington, that would be better for the Democrats than the Republicans, except that it would make getting things done even more difficult, which is not really good for the president, who has to figure out what to do for the next three years — apart from those things that other second-term presidents have done, like leave the country a lot.

The president could drill down on partisan politics, make it his priority to raise money for Democratic candidates, attack the "do-nothing" Republican Congress — all of which he probably will do.

Here's an idea. Acknowledge mistakes. Try to fix things. The big moves for President Obama may be fixing the big moves he's already made.

The health care system is the obvious example. It is going to be a mess, but it will be a mess that is post-Obamacare. Millions of people are covered under Obamacare. You can't "get rid" of it; there is no "it" anymore, no switch that can be turned off.

The question is: How do we fix all of the things people are complaining about without bankrupting ourselves? Not to mention all of the other things we need to fix.

Like the NSA and intelligence gathering. If Obama were a Republican president, the disclosures relating to surveillance programs would be a daily nightmare.
As it is, many of the people you might expect to be screaming the loudest are on the inside or are friends with the people on the inside, not to mention supporters of the president. So exactly whom should they scream at?
Really, the question should be: When is the administration going to step up to the issue? As far as I know, Obama is the only former professor of constitutional law to become president. A frightened and confused country might turn to such a president in search of a little bit of wisdom as to how to balance overwhelming interests (Security! Terrorism! Liberty!) on both sides. Hello?

Are we still at war in Afghanistan? Any news on Guantanamo? Okay. Just had to ask.

Immigration reform? What if you try to do it just the opposite of the way you did health care? Instead of all or nothing, piece by piece. Lots of steps. Hard things to oppose. It's true that, from a rules perspective, if you want comprehensive reform, you'd better have a comprehensive bill — but maybe it's enough to say we will have a long series of small reforms.

Education, anyone?

I am amazed at the anger I hear from people on the topic of Obama. Some of it, on both sides, may be unconscious racism. There are all kinds of reasons not to focus on race issues during the president's second term. On the other hand, why not?

Whenever I see a "candid" picture of Obama, I am reminded that I have no idea what this man is really like. Of course, I've read the books and I hear stories from those who know him. But five years into his presidency, I don't feel I have come to know him. And that allows me to project onto him attributes — of being cold and aloof, for example — that make it his fault, or worse, to be disappointed, as are many who thought they knew him.

Five years into his presidency, my guess is that fewer Americans believe they know and understand this president than did on the day he took office, which is an agenda of its own.

(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00

Hits: 222

Pat Buchanan - Persona non grata: Communism in the 40s & biblical Christianity now

Pope Francis' call for a truce notwithstanding, the culture war rages on in America.

Last week, a Utah judge struck down part of the state's anti-polygamy law, clearing the way for men to marry multiple spouses. Methodist pastor Frank Schaefer, defrocked for officiating at the same-sex marriage of his son, refused to recant, and joined a Dupont Circle congregation, declaring from the pulpit to repeated ovations Sunday, "Change is coming" to the United Methodist Church.

Major media stories both. Yet these were skirmishes alongside the culture war clash last week over the remarks to GQ magazine of Phil Robertson, patriarch of the clan of "Duck Dynasty," the wildly popular show on A&E.

Using crude terms, but biblically correct arguments, Robertson told GQ what he thought of homosexuality and moral relativism. Said Robertson: "Everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong. Sin becomes fine. ... Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. ... Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexuality offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself."

The homosexual lobby GLAAD swiftly demanded that Robertson be purged from "Duck Dynasty." And A&E suspended him indefinitely.

The backlash was swift and huge. Followers of "Duck Dynasty," Evangelicals, politicians and free-speech champions arose to defend Robertson's right to speak without punishment. Millions endorsed his views on what the Bible says and Christianity professes and promises.

The battle revealed an immense and intense hostility in Middle America to the moral agenda being imposed by our cultural elites.

While defenders of Robertson invoked the First Amendment, that is not the issue here. No one is denying Robertson his right to speak. What GLAAD wants to do is to blacklist Robertson, to punish him by taking away his podium, "Duck Dynasty." The gay rights militants cannot silence him, but they do have the power to cost him his job and take away his megaphone so that his vast audience can no longer hear him.

The blacklist of the Truman era did not deny the Hollywood Ten their right to produce movie scripts. It was an agreed-upon Hollywood policy not to commission or to use the work of unrepentant Communists as writers, producers or directors. Who were the Hollywood Ten? They were closet Communists, secret members of a Communist Party USA, then a wholly owned subsidiary of the greatest mass murderer in history, Joseph Stalin.

And of what were the Hollywood Ten guilty? When Stalinists were eradicating freedom and exterminating Eastern European Christians and overrunning China and murdering millions, as President Truman tried to rally the forces of freedom, the Hollywood Ten took the Fifth Amendment. They refused to repudiate Communism or name names of fellow Communists who were still reshaping the thinking of America from their upholstered perches in the film industry.

Today, however, the Hollywood Ten are regarded as martyrs, moral heroes. Had they been secret Nazis rather than secret Stalinists in those years, they would likely not be so beloved of the Hollyleft.

Contrast if you will the sins for which Phil Robertson is being blacklisted with those of the Hollywood Ten. He is a fundamentalist Christian professing his belief in what he holds to be Bible truths about sin, homosexuality, heaven and hell. For so doing, he is being censored by elites who wish to deny him access to the medium they largely control — television.

And what were the comparable sins of the Hollywood Ten? They were witting collaborators in a 70-year Communist conspiracy responsible for the murder of millions, which, in the 1940s, looked on the United States of America as the last impediment to world conquest. In that era, we were agreed that Communism and Communists were the enemies of America and mankind and should be regarded and treated as such.

To our modern moral and cultural elites, it is those who condemn the values of GLAAD who are the enemies of decency and progress who ought to be fired and blacklisted to prevent their poisonous views from being disseminated. In the Hollywood of the late 1940s, Communism was persona non grata. In the 21st century, biblical Christianity is persona non grata.

No, this is not the America we grew up in. And it is becoming less so. According to a CNN poll last week, while belief in God and the divinity of Christ is still shared by two-thirds of Americans, that share — older, more Republican, less educated — is falling.

Worldwide, too, Christianity at Christmas 2013 seems in a long retreat. Receding slowly in America, and moribund in Europe, Christianity is undergoing merciless persecutions in Africa and the Middle East — from Nigeria to the Central African Republic to Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

Compared to these folks suffering martyrdom for the faith, we have it easy here.

So, Sursum Corda. Lift up your hearts. And Merry Christmas.

(Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000. He won the New Hampshire Republican Primary in 1996.)

Last Updated on Thursday, 26 December 2013 07:17

Hits: 256

Lisa Morris - Medicaid expansion makes our mission more achievable

Just last month, the Lakes Region Partnership for Public Health expressed its support for Medicaid expansion in N.H. and explained how extending health care to the identified population is aligned with the Partnership's community-based mission.

Now that the Legislature's Special Session has failed to reach consensus on an expansion plan, the Partnership is reiterating its support for Medicaid expansion, given the critical impact such a move would have in the Lakes Region and on their health outcomes. The Partnership is hopeful that the Legislature can find common ground on this issue when it reconvenes in January.

Since the Affordable Care Act originally envisioned Medicaid expansion to be mandatory, no one foresaw that individuals who are not currently eligible for Medicaid but have incomes below $11,000 annually, are not eligible for health insurance subsidies on the Exchange and as a result, do not have access to affordable health insurance anywhere. The numbers are staggering. In N.H., approximately 40,000 people will be ineligible for a subsidy (In Belknap County, it's 1,980 people). That means that a young, underemployed worker in Laconia who suffers from asthma may miss days from work, try over-the-counter remedies to manage symptoms and may eventually end up in the emergency room with a full-blown asthma attack. Were Medicaid expansion in place, this individual would receive ongoing preventive care from a physician, be able to stay at work and avoid a costly, crisis-driven trip to the emergency room.

The Legislature wisely attempted to expand N.H.'s Health Insurance Premium Payment (HIPP) program that allows individuals to stay on employer-sponsored health plans with Medicaid picking up the cost differential to make it affordable for the employee. This is a win-win for all involved: the state saves money by not fully enrolling an individual in Medicaid; the employer has a healthier workforce; the employee has continuity of care with an affordable plan. Hopefully, this provision will be retained in the version of expansion that finally passes the Legislature.

The Partnership supports keeping individuals on employer-sponsored plans when possible especially because the Affordable Care Act mandates that such plans provide 10 "essential benefits". Too many employer-provided plans are catastrophic in nature: the deductibles and co-pays are so high that, while they pay catastrophic expenses and may keep a family from losing their home, covered individuals cannot afford routine, preventive care that helps them avoid those medical catastrophes.

The Partnership is especially supportive of the inclusion of substance abuse and mental health services in the provision of care under Medicaid expansion. Our Lakes Region communities are struggling to meet these needs for local individuals. Expanding Medicaid would not only mean our providers would receive reimbursement for services, but it would engage more underserved populations. Many of these individuals are currently being seen repeatedly in our emergency rooms. With Medicaid coverage and continuity of care, management of their symptoms, medication and behaviors could better be achieved.

The Lakes Region Partnership for Public Health's mission remains "to improve the health and well being of the Lakes Region." Medicaid expansion makes that mission more achievable as health benefits would be extended to many Lakes Region residents in need of dependable, available health coverage. Medicaid expansion would be good for the Lakes Region.

For more information and/or to receive enrollment assistance in the Health Insurance Marketplace, please contact the ServiceLink Resource Center in your area. ServiceLink's toll free number is 1-866-634-9412. To find a location www.servicelink.org.

(Lisa Morris is executive director of the Lakes Region Partnership for Public Health. She wrote this column on behalf of the LRPPH Board of Directors.)

Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00

Hits: 260

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN