The Political Business Cycle: What Republicans are not Talking About

The business cycle is a term used to describe all of the ups and downs that every business goes through over the course of it's life time. There are the times of great prosperity, production and profits are at or near there maximum potential as is the number of employees they have hired-the economy is doing good. When the economy goes through a slump or a recession profits, production and the number of employees usually goes down as well, it's all part of the cycle.

The political business cycle, on the other hand, has a somewhat different definition. The "political business cycle" refers to economic policies (fiscal policy, monetary policy) enacted by our elected officials for the purpose of political gain. These policies may have relatively quick positive impact on the economy but be destine to cause problems in the long term. Our elected officials may reason that "I will implement the policy to win the election, if I win I will reverse course and minimize the damage, if I lose it will not be my problem".

In the past this approach has been used almost exclusively to bring about a positive impact on the economy, if only for a short time. However, since the 2010 mid-term election have we witnessed the "political business cycle" in a much more sinister light?

 When The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell , said: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” how far was he and other Republicans willing to go to achieve that goal?

Conventional wisdom and experience tells us that during a recession the national debt goes up, largely due to the reduced tax revenue resulting from high unemployment and lower production and in most cases stimulus spending. Experience also shows that under these circumstances cutting government spending to offset the debt will only result in higher unemployment and an even longer recession with a much more difficult recovery resulting in even more lost tax revenue. Mit Romney himself did a great job of explaining the effects of such cuts when asked why he wouldn't emplement all of his cuts emediatly if elected:

 "Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course. What you do is you make adjustments on a basis that show, in the first year, actions that over time get you to a balanced budget."

Two examples of how this works are clearly visible in Britain and Spain. Britain cut their government spending across the board and raised taxes to help lower their debt. The result, economic growth stalled and their national dept exceeded their estimates by almost 100%. Spain followed a similar course and their unemployment soared to 20% and their debt exploded.

 With that in mind, the questions we should all be asking ourselves are:

Why did house republicans force, bully and even blackmail America into making budget cuts at a time when they knew it would keep unemployment high and prolong the recession?

Why did they block every bill that was designed to lower unemployment including President Obama's  Jobs plan that would have created more than a million jobs?

Why have they wasted the past few months forcing over 30 re-votes on the Health care bill continuing to do so even after it was upheld by the supreme court, shouldn't that time have been used to find a solution to the upcoming mandatory cuts that will result in yet another recession?  Would finding a solution to that problem help remove some of the uncertainty that is preventing the private sector from hiring at a greater rate, is that the goal?

Who benefits from a weak economy and high unemployment?

Has our economy been sabotaged for the purpose of a political victory?

These are just a few of the questions that we should be asking, after we have asked and honestly answered these questions we should then ask ourselves what we can do to bring an end to the problem.


See also: Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy? The Guardian
Our Clinton Nightmare: factcheck.org

The irony of hurricane Sandy and Eric Cantor's campaign ads

Is Hurricane Sandy coming just days ahead of the election bad timing for Eric Cantor and the house Republicans? For some it serves as a daily reminder of their position following Hurricane Irene.

As my family and I prepare for the effects of Hurricane Sandy I can’t help but be reminded of hurricane Irene. In August 2011 my family and I hunkered down in our Richmond Virginia home as Hurricane Irene swept up the east coast of the United States. We lost our electricity early in the storm so we spent the night listening to the occasional tree falling outside and the sound of our privacy fence blowing across the yard like a kite with no-one holding the string. As the storm moved out of the area and the sun came up we were happy to find that with the exception of our neighbors utility shed that had been obliterated the damage in our immediate area was mostly confined to the fence and trees, we had been lucky. We would spend the next eight days cooking over a fire in the back yard and living by candle light before getting our electricity turned back on and that was short when compared to many in the region.

In the past, even the most hardened politician would have called for unity and a temporary suspension of the partisan politics of the day when faced with a disaster, particularly if it involves their constituents.

Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont said it best when he told the New York Times:

“Historically in this country we have understood that when communities and states experience disasters, we as a nation come together to address those. That is what being a nation is about,”

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of Irene Eric Cantor and the House Republicans did not call for unity, they did not call for the nation to come together nor did they put the partisanship on hold while Americans dealt with the disaster. In an unprecedented move, Eric Cantor announced that he and his counterparts would be holding disaster relief hostage, if they couldn’t have their way they wouldn’t approve the funding. Their response to the disaster served to prove to anyone who may have previously had doubts that for the house Republicans, nothing is sacred, nothing is off limits; even a natural disaster that affects millions of Americans is not more important than promoting their agenda.

For the past several days we have all been watching the projected path of Hurricane Sandy and listening intently to the expected effects of the coming landfall along the east coast. The real irony of it all is that for many of us here in Virginia the reports have been intermingled with Eric Cantor’s campaign ads serving as a constant reminder of what a vote for Cantor will get us in a time of crisis. With election so close at hand I don’t believe that we will be hearing any statements from Cantor or his counterparts regarding disaster relief, at least not before the election.

Is Sandy Bad Timing for the Republicans?

The Newsroom - Tea Party is the American Taliban

I stumbled across this video on YouTube and I thought I would post it here. We have all seen the tea party in action and it is quite clear that they will stop at nothing to get their own way. They have demonstrated a willingness to destroy America rather than compromise, they have held our economy hostage and refused to approve disaster relief after Joplin Missouri and Irene in 2011.

What I find most interesting about the tea party is that they call themselves patriots, the real patriots put on a uniform and risked their lives to defend this country and ensure our continued freedom. They fought for "We The People" not "We the Privileged few". They fought so that each and every one of us could go to the poll and vote, not for some states to purge their voter rolls and change laws to disenfranchise those voters who may disagree with them. The Tea Party is an embarresment to all Americans.

Should the Death Penalty be Abolished?

(Note: I originally wrote this as a paper for my English 112 class, it is rather long but I hope that it will be informative. A list of all sources used can be found Here.)

The death penalty has long been a point of debate; both sides make strong and seemingly logical arguments to support their positions. It seems that there is only one question that we need to ask to determine if the death penalty should be abolished: is our justice system infallible? The simple answer is that there is no perfect system of justice. In many cases mistakes, improperly informed juries, un-proven scientific evidence, incompetence and misconduct can lead to innocent people being wrongly convicted.

One of the most common arguments of pro-death penalty advocates is the need for justice; let the punishment fit the crime. A 2009 Dayton Daily News article seems to show that many of America’s police chiefs agree with this sentiment. A survey ordered by the Death Penalty Information Center of Washington, D.C found that 83% of the 500 police chiefs surveyed favored the death penalty in first degree murder cases. Kettering Police Chief James O’Dell told the Dayton Daily that he believed in the sanctity of life but “there are some people, I just have to say, the death penalty was made for.” (Beyerlein).

Another common argument in favor of the death penalty is the need for closure for the family of the victim. Mark Klaas is the father of Polly Klaas who was abducted and murdered in 1993 by Richard Allen Davis; Polly was twelve-years-old at the time. When asked if he believed that the execution of Richard Allen Davis would bring closure, he responded:

 I believe his execution would bring closure to my daughter. She is the one that he contemplates as he acts out in his prison cell. It's not going to change my life one way or the other. But I don't invest a lot of time or energy in thinking about Richard Allen Davis. He's dominated my family's life quite enough as it is. I'm content to see him at least be on death row and know that at some point he may have to face that final judgment (Brooks).

            Lora Owens was one of about 50 people who witnessed the highly publicized execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams in December 2005. Lora is the stepmother of Albert Owens, who was shot and killed by Williams during a robbery almost 30 years ago. She described the experience as “very difficult,” she went on to say: "I don't take pleasure in that, but I do believe that the justice system worked.” After the execution Owens was described as appearing to be willing to forgive Williams as she told reporters: "Even a man like Tookie Williams deserved to have someone who loves him,"(Victim’s)

            Bud Welch described his experience with the death penalty quite differently. Prior to April, 1995 Bud Welch was a self-described death penalty opponent; that changed for a brief period following the death of his daughter, Julie, in April 1995. Julie was among the 167 people killed in the Oklahoma City bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. For months following the death of his daughter Welch focused on little other than revenge, he didn’t feel the need for a trial, only retribution. During those months of focusing on revenge Bud made daily trips to the bombing site, he was also slowly killing himself with increasing alcohol abuse and cigarettes. With McVeigh’s trial fast approaching bud was making one of his daily trips to the bombing site when he had a revelation: "I realized his execution would not be part of my healing, I was able to get rid of the anger and need for revenge."(Velasco) Bud would later be one of five family members of the victims to ask the jury to spare McVeigh’s life. Three years after the bombing Bud met with Bill McVeigh, Timothy’s father, and found an instant connection with him: "I realized both me and Bill McVeigh would bury our children," he said. "When your children die, you bury them in your heart." (Velasco) Bud went on to become an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, a board member of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and president of Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights.

Balancedpolitics.org states the following on the pro-death penalty side of the debate: “DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence.” With that in mind, it would seem that we should be confident that know innocent person will be executed. We have all, to some degree, been led to believe that forensic science is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” but is it?  A study of the reliability of modern forensic science by the National Academy of Science stated:

 With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however, no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source. (NAS 7)

According to The Innocence Project as many as 50% of all wrongful convictions that were later overturned due to DNA evidence could be attributed to  un-validated or improper forensic science making it the leading cause of wrongful convictions.  They further point out that DNA testing is only possible in about 5-10% of all criminal cases that make their way into our courts.(“Innocence”) Despite recommendations made by NAS, there are no federal guidelines regarding the use and standards of forensic science in the courtroom. When faced with new and unproven “scientific evidence” or “expert testimony” the presiding judge must determine if it will be allowed as evidence, often without fully comprehending what he is ruling on.

Ray Krone, a former death penalty supporter, has traveled the world advocating for the abolishment of the death penalty. He has spoken at high schools, law schools and even to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  What makes Ray such a highly sought after expert on the subject? On April 8, 2002, Ray Krone became the 100^th death row inmate to be exonerated of all charges since 1973. It cost Ray more than ten years of his life, with the first three spent on death row, to earn this honor. Ray had been convicted and sentenced to death for a murder and sexual assault that he did not commit. Ray is an excellent example of how un-proven evidence and a misinformed jury can lead to an innocent person being found guilty. The prosecutions entire case rested on the fact that Ray lived in the general area, was a regular customer at the bar where the crime was committed and knew the victim. The only physical evidence introduced during the trial was a bite mark impression that the prosecutor told the jury proved that Ray committed the crime (Krone). In reality bite mark evidence is controversial at best. Experts disagree on the reliability and accuracy of bite marks as evidence. A study conducted in 1999 by a member of the American Board of Forensic Odontology found a 63 percent rate of misidentification using bite marks, findings that Ray’s case seems to support (Santos).

Although not death penalty cases the following two examples are current cases that serve to demonstrate the imperfect nature of our legal system:

Warren Horineck is currently serving 30 years in prison for the murder of his wife. Warren’s case can only be described as one of the most unusual cases in the history of criminal justice. Warren, an ex-police officer, was no angel, but no one involved in the investigation, including the prosecutor, believes that he committed this murder; no one involved in the case believes that a murder was committed by anyone. All of the evidence in the case seems to support Warren’s story that his wife committed suicide after a night of drinking. He was only charged due to a strange Texas law that allows private attorneys to seek a grand jury indictment without the involvement of the prosecutor. Despite the fact that the prosecutor’s office recused themselves from the case and the lead investigator, as well as the CSI, took the stand in defense of the suspect, he was convicted. He was convicted solely on the testimony of a paid expert witness, Tom Bevell, who specializes in blood spatter. Bevell testified that the blood found on Warren’s shirt was the result of back spatter that had occurred when he fired the shot that killed his wife. The coroner involved in the original investigation has stated that the blood on Warren’s shirt and pants was consistent with someone administering CPR. Anita Zannin, a blood spatter pattern analyst, attempted to recreate the shooting only to discover that, if it happened the way the blood spatter expert says it did, there would be little if any blood on the shooter (CNN). Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, Warren remains in prison. The jury later said that their decision was based entirely on the testimony of Tom Bevell who still serves as a paid “expert” witness.

The case of the Winfrey family brings to light two even more troubling issues with our justice system: official misconduct and how a suspect’s financial situation can directly affect the outcome of their trial. Richard Winfrey Sr., Richard Winfrey Jr. and Megan Winfrey were charged with murder. The only evidence against them was a scent lineup in which blood hounds allegedly found their scent on the victim, and the word of a jailhouse informant. Richard Winfrey Sr. and Megan both went to trial with a court appointed attorney; they were both found guilty. It took two years for Richard Winfrey Jr. to go to trial. During this time, his family had saved enough money to pay for his defense. The defense discredited deputy Pikett, the self-trained dog handler, and found reason to believe that he had used commands to rig the outcome of the lineup.    It took less than 15 minutes for the jury to acquit Richard Winfrey Jr.. Richard Winfrey Sr. has since been acquitted and Megan is still in prison awaiting an appeal. Additional cases involving Deputy Pikett and his dogs are being scrutinized (Grissom).

As I stated earlier, 83% of the 500 police chiefs surveyed support the death penalty for first degree murder cases. However, when those same police chiefs were given a choice between the death penalty and a sentence of life without parole, only 47% favored the death penalty. When asked to list in order of effectiveness methods of reducing violent crime the increased use of the death penalty was overwhelmingly listed last. Hiring more police officers and reducing drug abuse and an improved economy were listed as the most effective methods of reducing violent crime. Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl said: “One question is, what are we trying to accomplish with the death penalty? If it’s deterrence, it doesn’t seem to get the job done at all. If it’s justice, that’s another question” (Beyerlein).

Norm Stamper, a police officer for 34 years, wrote an article speaking out against the death penalty. According to Stamper a 20 year study has shown that 10 of the twelve states that have abolished the death penalty consistently have murder rates lower than the national average. He points out that cutting back on appeals and attempting to speed up the death penalty process to save money will only result in a greater risk of executing an innocent person. Stamper goes on to say:

Our communities would be exponentially better off by reinvesting the time, money and resources we spend on trying to get a few people executed into crime prevention measures that work. Spending scarce public resources on after-school programs, mental health care, drug and alcohol treatment, education, more crime labs and new technologies, or on hiring more police officers, would truly help create safer communities.(Stamper)

In a 2008 op/ed written by Ray Samuels, a police officer for 33 years and chief of the Newark California police department, he expressed deep concern regarding the death penalty.  Ray began his article with:

THERE ARE three words you rarely hear from law enforcement: We were wrong. We do not like to admit it, but, despite our best efforts, we sometimes get it wrong. A lifetime in law enforcement has taught me that lesson and showed me that, when it comes to the death penalty, the risk of a mistake is just too great. (Samuels)

Samuels wrote the article after several pieces of legislation designed to help prevent wrongful convictions failed to pass because they were to “expensive”. Samuels points out that abolishing the death penalty would save the state of California more than $125 Million each year. He further points out that, if a mistake is made and an innocent person is sentenced to life, there is a chance to correct the mistake; once the death penalty is carried out there is no such opportunity.

            In his article Samuals states that mistaken witness identification and false confessions are the leading causes of wrongful convictions. How common are mistaken eye witness identifications? According to Gary L. Wells, professor of psychology at Iowa State University, it is far more common than we might like to believe. Wells, who has conducted extensive research into mistaken identification, says that out of 232 cases of wrongful conviction he reviewed 177 had resulted from mistaken eye witness identification. In a study conducted by Wells 200 crimes were staged; witnesses were rounded up and asked to identify the “suspect” from a police lineup. Prior to viewing the lineup the witnesses were told that the real suspect might not be in the lineup. The actual suspect was present in the first 100 lineups, 54% of the witnesses identified him correctly, 21% said they were not sure; the remainder identified the wrong person. In the next 100 lineups the witnesses were again told that the suspect might not be present and in fact he wasn’t. Despite the fact that the “suspect” was not in the lineup 68% of the witnesses identified a suspect. This is the results of what Wells has identified as “relative selection”; when the real suspect is not in the room the witnesses subconsciously focus on the closest match.(Wels)

            The idea of confessing to a crime that we did not commit seems unthinkable to most of us yet is happens. Why would an innocent person confess to a crime that they did not commit? Those with a psychological disorders, low IQ, compliant or suggestible personalities and anxiety disorders are most at risk for false confessions. In many cases they may lack the ability to comprehend the consequences of confessing. In almost every case of a false confession obtained during an interrogation false statements or false evidence presented by police have played a role. When faced with false statements such as “we found your fingerprints” or “we have a witness” a suspect, particularly those who’s memories are clouded by drugs or alcohol may begin to doubt their own reality and simply accept what they are being told leading them to confess.(Perina)

According to The Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics at year end, 2010, there were 31558 prisoners on death row nationally. Four states, California, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania held over half of all death row inmates in the United States.(Capital) When we compare this information with the FBI murder rate statistics for 2010 we find that California had 1811 murders, and Texas had 1246 murders making them the two states with the highest murder rates in the U.S. . Pennsylvania had 648 murders, giving them the fourth highest murder rate coming in behind New York. No statistics were available for Florida.(Murder) The statistics seem to call into question the deterrent effect of the death penalty on violent crime. (Note: these Numbers are not based on per capita and therefore could be considered as skewed)

Deathpenaltyinfo.org has published the “Innocence List”, a list of 140 people that they are aware of who were sentenced to death but have since been proven innocent. They make it clear that there is no way to be sure but based on the studies that have been done they believe that between 2.3 and 5% of inmates currently incarcerated in the U.S. were wrongfully convicted. To help put that in perspective if the number was only 1% it would equate to 20,000 people. There is only one question that we need to ask to determine if the death penalty should be abolished: is our justice system infallible?

Sources For: Should the Death Penalty be Abolished