Mitch McConnell: The New Dr. No

Thanks to last election day's capture of the senate by Republicans (with a lot of gratitude going towards the record low voting numbers), Mitch McConnell, Kentucky republican and distant relative of Kermit the Frog, became senate majority leader. While there is still some time in the current session of congress, McConnell has already taken the time to object to two of President Obama's recent policy announcements: the first being net neutrality, the second being the recent announcement of a climate agreement between the world's two largest polluters, the USA and China.

McConnell was quick to criticize the two as both being a stifling presence to 'innovation,' without going into much detail as to what that actually means, specifically criticizing the climate deal as being a hindrance to creating jobs in the country.

Regardless of whether or not he's right or wrong, McConnell is not being magnanimous in victory; instead, he's actively demonstrating that the next two years will become an endless row of soundbites and pointed fingers accusing the other side of an inability to compromise, all in preparation for the 2016 presidential election.

This plays into what McConnell perceives as a national swing towards Republicans: what they perceive from the election is momentum that they're going to try to ride into 2016 and unify the government under a Republican banner. So, McConnell will continue to tout that he and republicans are actively working to pass bills, but the president's intransigence stops them from passing. And thus, under a republican government, there can be efficiency, action, etc.

To him, this will put Obama in a poor light, as the two houses of congress are finally working in tandem to pass laws for the country. It is a plan, in essence, to turn Obama into a political liability and force democrats to tread carefully around issues that Obama championed in his presidential terms, especially in 2016.

This, of course, discounts the other 2/3 of Americans who simply didn't vote in 2014.

From now until the next presidential/house election, it is up to democrats to organize and reach out not just to the party base, but to independents and moderates. McConnell's soundbite, lame-duck government can be turned on the republicans to show that, while bills have been moving from house to senate only to be vetoed by the president, it is the contents of the bills that are unreasonable.

For instance, one of the main rallying points for republicans this past election was the repeal of the ACA (colloquially known as Obamacare), something that may be feasible under a united republican government. That would certainly be a shame, however, because the ACA dropped the uninsured rate in America to impressive levels. The list of topics will likely grow, given that questions regarding financial regulation and climate change will be swelling in the upcoming years.

Unfortunately for all, voter apathy, as demonstrated in the previous election, is at an all-time high. Democrats brought out nostalgic favorite Bill Clinton to run trump speeches all around the country in support for candidates, though the only problem with that is that you won't get much more than core democrats on to see old Bill speak.

Going forward, democrats have to posture themselves with candidates who can be perceived as not being beholden to business interests, who are outspoken and confident, and who can be seen as energetic personalities. This encapsulated Obama in his 2008 run, and is the aura of Senator Liz Warren, a party favorite.

But this won't happen. At least, it's not likely. After the past 6 years, with revelations about the NSA, drone strikes, financial regulation, et al that have come to light, many might perceive both parties as being equally bad, or one as being less bad than the other. It's the least ideal situation in politics, but with all the insurmountable walls that third parties are forced to climb, it's the inevitable spiral of winner-take-all.

So, for the next 2 years, when Obama says yes, McConnell will say no. He'll say it so much, in fact, that he'll start to understand the word better than anyone else. Every curve, every crevice, every cliff, he will be able to navigate its walls blindfolded, because that will be his phrase of choice for every policy that Obama takes. Perhaps we should fear the day that he says 'yes.'

That's all for now, 
Das Flüg

Mmm...Capitalism

President Obama recently spoke in front of the Chamber of Commerce, a notably conservative institution, to many large business leaders, urging them to begin spending their saved money in order to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Many business moguls have a view of the Obama administration as anti-business due to the new health care law and many regulations that businesses say "quell capitalism." President Obama, in his speech, promised to reform the tax code and remove many superfluous regulations.

While I do agree that corporations should be using their money to create jobs, such as those in research and development, manufacturing, etc., I somehow doubt that they will change their business practices drastically. One must always remember that a business does not have a nation's best interest as its own; the best interest of a business is always to have increasing revenue. Why do many manufacturing and low-expertise jobs go overseas? There is less regulation on business and corporations can traditionally pay the workers less, thus ensuring a higher profit margin. To think that a corporation will change its practices without first groveling at its knees and acceding to every demand is naive.

Strategically, the president made a good political move by speaking at a venue that has called his health care law "anti-capitalistic." By going to the Chamber of Commerce, he showed that he is willing to work with businesses to better improve relations between business and government. This may, however, be taken by business as a sign of weakness on the part of Obama, lending to a theory that business has the US in a vice grip.

So, how far does Obama go when attempting to compromise with business? Does he remove environmental regulations? Does he lower the tax rate for businesses? Does he offer incentives to business to create jobs in the US? We shall see, though nothing is certain now with a divided government, and the president knows that.

The word "compromise" can be construed 1 of 2 ways: a willingness to reach an undisputed conclusion by giving up and accepting certain options, or as an abandonment, an extrication of what composed a certain object. The definition that Obama chooses in the coming year and a half may just be left up to history.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

P.S. Visit here for free financial tips!*

*Note: May or may not be financial tips.