The devil I know

AS AN INDEPENDENT VOTER, I am supporting Barack Obama this year, not because I believe he is a sterling example of integrity and leadership, but because he is the devil I know, and I believe he will do the least harm to most Americans and the world at large. I say to people with whom I talk at our local coffee shop, “Obama is like a broken finger, compared to Romney being a broken leg. Pick your poison.” I would want Romney to run my business, but my business is not the culture of diversified needs and unique stakeholders that is America. I believe based on the data and past history of Obama’s behavior that if you are like most Americans in the “99%,” Obama is the best choice to represent your interests. All presidents lie to some degree. It’s a job skill required by the “shadow elite” who pull the puppet strings. Reagan lied about Iran Contra and Grenada, Clinton lied about covert CIA operations in Africa, Bush lied about WMDs and 9/11. The extent of Obama’s lies will become clearer with time. Regardless, here we are in probably the most corrupt, warlike nation in today’s world (based on dollars and covert incursions), trying to decide who is the best criminal liar to lead our country. Generally, the issues at the forefront in the upcoming election are the economy and job creation, the environment and climate change, women’s and gay rights, foreign affairs and national security, social responsibility, taxation and consumer protection. Most of these distill down to economics, human empathy and justice. The sole issue, for someone out of work or underemployed, is job creation. And for those with the “big bucks” — like Mitt Romney’s friends who are able to avoid paying income taxes by sheltering their money in the Grand Caymans or Luxembourg — are concerned about continuing crony capitalist subsidies, avoiding taxes, keeping the military strong and creating profit-making enemies, and removing controls on banking and business. Women, gays and people of color want government out of their private lives — except where it can create a level playing field in the job market and in educational opportunities — and would like a helping hand to enable them to survive in our society. Then we have the predominately older, male white Christian extremists who would prefer that we regress a couple hundred years to a time when women were property who had no reproductive dominion over their bodies, minorities were kept in their subordinate places and the rule of law was primarily influenced by “fire and brimstone” beliefs. This group of radicals has helped move our country so far to the political right that someone such as Nixon or Reagan would now be seen as moderate and would have great difficulty getting elected. They’ve even managed to push a moderate like Mitt Romney to the fringes. Based on his track record, I consider Romney a right-wing moderate. After all, he supported single-payer health care when he was Massachusetts governor, believed women’s reproductive rights were only a medical, not a government issue, and avowed that gay marriage was not a priority for him. But his choice of running mate Paul Ryan, an extreme tea party type and the darling of the Koch brothers, exemplifies how concerned Romney is with pandering to right-wing extremists — and the more he panders, the more he simply becomes one of them. Ryan is no Sarah Palin ignoramus; he is a very bright and articulate politician whose agenda is to destroy Obamacare, eliminate Social Security and eviscerate union and other working class rights. But Ryan may have more serious problems than mere stupidity. He has been documented as participating in insider trading with the likes of Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs — a serious allegation that speaks to Ryan’s lack of integrity. Ryan may be fast on his feet, bright and articulate, but I believe he will turn out to be a millstone around Romney’s neck. Fourteen years of obscurity in the House of Representatives means Ryan could not possibly have been totally vetted before Romney chose him. When it comes to foreign policy, both Obama and Romney are way too hawkish for the needs of America, but we need to understand that the military industrial complex, corporate America and international bankers, now bolstered by Citizens United, dictate what happens in government. In the mix, Obama is more moderate and would be more inclined to scale back military spending and American imperialism. Meanwhile, on social and human rights issues, Romney has had to embarrassingly “flip flop” because of pressure from the far right. After nearly four years, Obama has finally gotten the courage and political sense to come out in support of gay rights, and in particular gay marriage, finally following the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who said, “Injustice for one is injustice for all.” To have a prosperous and civilized nation, we need to do whatever we can to empower those who are in the minority so they can fulfill their intellectual and economic potential, and participate in our society to the fullest. The influence of backward religious dogma is not beneficial to American society. Obama is more supportive of keeping the influence — and prejudices — of religion out of government. On another front, health issues that are the result of environmental factors and poor nutrition habits have become epidemic in the U.S., with the obesity rate now exceeding 30 percent. Obama advocates stricter food labeling laws, transparency in food ingredients, higher air quality and, generally, stronger environmental stewardship. Romney advocates laissez faire regulation in all these areas, inviting greed and abuse. One of the most important jobs of a president is the appointment of Supreme Court justices. With the court presently stacked with right-wing corporate lackeys and an elderly liberal, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, headed for retirement, this country does not need anymore “bench puppets” to give the corporations and banks more power. Citizens United was an egregious error and a stain on our nation’s character; Romney has said he would appoint justices in the mold of that abominable decision’s most ardent defenders. The biggest issue for most of us is the economy. “Trickle-down economics” for the most part is a myth perpetrated by those in the “1%” who do not want to pay taxes. I agree that a certain amount of investment capital is critical for funding new research and building manufacturing infrastructure. At present many corporations are flush with cash, and wealthy individuals have the liquidity for new investment opportunities. Capital finds the best return balanced with a modicum of risk — it has no patriotism or desire to create jobs, only return on investment, sometimes to the detriment of human beings and the environment. Approximately 70 percent of our GDP comes from middle-class spending. If we want to create jobs and jump-start the economy, we need to lower taxes for the 99% and increase taxes on the 1%, whose lifestyles will not be materially affected. Romney, whose net worth is estimated at $250 million, paid approximately 13 percent in taxes in recent years — or so he claims — largely because his income mostly derives from investments. This unconscionably low tax rate for the privileged few is an insult to the human value of working people. A working person has a payroll tax of 7.65 percent applied up through $106,800 of earnings; why should a CEO making million of dollars per year receive an exemption of more than $890,000 on income not subject to payroll taxes? This amounts to $68,000 per year that the elite may use to send their children to the best private schools and colleges, while the working class struggle to pay tuition, or their children become saddled with loans that are not even dischargeable in bankruptcy. Obama favors economic policies that favor the working class, while Romney has a real conflict of interest in raising the capital gains rate from a present historic low of 15 percent to above the weighted average of 25 percent. Why should working people be in a higher tax situation than the privileged wealthy? In the final analysis, we must bring America back to the center, halting its move in a dangerous direction of fascist oligarchy. I urge everyone to vote for the “broken finger,” because the “broken leg” will cripple the dream of the American middle class.