Statistics to back you up

ILLUSTRATED: Here is a collection of stats, with citations, to back up your claims about the failure of Republican policies.

The theme that jumps out at me is "Resources". Liberals (who care about human rights and equity) already know that the distribution of resources is way off kilter. To conservatives (who care about property rights and efficiency) tell them that the portfolio mix is off. More people need money to make the economy work properly, too few people are wasting too much capital that they could never spend.
The link.

THE ECONOMY	JANUARY 20, 2001	TODAY UNDER BUSH
REAL GDP GROWTH1	4.09% Over Prior 8 Years	2.65% Over Prior 7 Years
NATIONAL DEBT2	$5.7 Trillion	$9.2 Trillion
BUDGET DEFICIT/SURPLUS3	$431 Billion Surplus over the Previous Three Budget Years	$734 Billion Deficit over the Previous Three Budget Years
NEW PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS CREATED4	1.76 Million Jobs Per Year Over Previous 8 Years	369,000 Jobs Per Year Over Previous 7 Years
AMERICANS IN POVERTY 5	31.6 Million	36.5 Million
QUALITY OF LIFE	JANUARY 20, 2001	TODAY UNDER BUSH
AMERICANS UNINSURED & CHANGE IN UNINSURED LEVEL6	38 Million Uninsured 4.5 Million Less in 2 Years	47 Million Uninsured 8.5 Million More in 6 Years
ANNUAL TOTAL PREMIUM COST7	$6,230 for Family Premium	$12,106 for Family Premium
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME & CHANGE IN MEDIAN INCOME8	$49,163 $6,000 Increase in 8 Years	$48,023 $1,100 Decrease in 6 Years
PRICE OF GAS9	$1.39/Gallon	$3.07/Gallon
COST OF COLLEGE10	$3,164 per year	$5,192 per year
PERSONAL SAVINGS RATE11	+2.3%	-0.5%
CONSUMER CREDIT DEBT12	$7.65 Trillion	$12.8 Trillion
UNITED STATES & THE WORLD	JANUARY 20, 2001	TODAY UNDER BUSH
U.S. TRADE DEFICIT13	$380 Billion	$759 Billion
STRENGTH OF U.S. DOLLAR14	1.07 Euros per Dollar	0.68 Euros Per Dollar
COMBAT READINESS15	All Active Duty Army Divisions Were Rated At The Highest Readiness Levels	Not A Single Active Duty Or Reserve Brigade In The U.S. Considered “Fully Combat Ready.”
FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCY16	52.75% of U.S. Liquid Fuel Consumption is Imported	60.38% of U.S. Liquid Fuel Consumption is Imported
VIEW OF AMERICA ABROAD17 PEW POLL OF TEN NATIONS	58.3% Viewed America Favorably	39.2% Viewed America Favorably
GREAT BRITAIN’S VIEW OF U.S.	83% Favorable	56% Favorable
INDONESIA’S VIEW OF U.S.	75% Favorable	30% Favorable
TURKEY’S VIEW OF U.S.	52% Favorable	12% Favorable
GERMANY’S VIEW OF U.S.	78% Favorable	37% Favorable

---

¹ Bureau of Economic Analysis

² Department of Treasury

³ Congressional Budget Office

⁴ Bureau of Labor Statistics

⁵ United States Census Bureau

⁶ United States Census Bureau

⁷ Kaiser Study of Employer Health Care Benefits

⁸ United States Census Bureau

⁹ Energy Information Administration

¹⁰ Higher Education Coordinating Board of Washington State

¹¹ Bureau of Economic Analysis

¹² Insurance Information Institute

¹³ United States Census Bureau

¹⁴ OANDA.com: The Currency Website

¹⁵ Speaker of the House Fact Sheet, 11/29/07

¹⁶ Energy Information Administration

¹⁷ Testimony of Andrew Kohut; President, Pew Research Center; 3/17/07

How much?/Then what?

ILLUSTRATED: What every American citizen should be asking every Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional candidate they meet.

As the name suggests, most posts on this blog tell Democrats how to communicate. However this entry is for all American citizens regarding how they should be challenging federal candidates about Iraq. This article in the New York Times sums up the tremendous moral, financial, and policy decisions facing the government one year from now.

For politicians who claim “get out now”: ask then what? What moral obligation do we owe the Iraqi people, and what is the Middle East strategy if Iraq is chaotic? This interview transcript from Mother Jones (a pretty liberal magazine) simply won't do for Democratic politicians.

For politicians who claim “stick it out”: ask how much? How much American blood and treasure will be lost? Where will we get the funds and how will you rebuild the Army? GOP politicians like John McCain talk about the long term but have no real proposal to pay for it, given the fiscal and monetary situation.

Mesopotamian Oil Trust

ILLUSTRATED- Democrats have their model in discussing Iraq's future and why we can (mostly) get out.

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq's National Security Adviser has just given all Democrats a simple blueprint for an Iraq, that only Iraq politicians can forge for themselves. American soldiers, under General Petraeus, have done all they can to secure the country.
As stated before on this blog, Security + Oil$ = Political Deal. A viable polity needs security and an economy. American's need to help keep its territorial integrity and fight terrorists. Iraq's need to get control of their oil and make a deal themselves.
Iraq's federal government should mostly be an oil trust executor, with small ministries for defense, finance, and diplomacy. Everything else left to the provinces. I think conservatives are supposed to like that kind of political model. Also tell them this is forced responsibility like welfare reform.

Framing the Debate for '08

ILLUSTRATED: If we nail down these four lenses in the public's perception, we will win the White House and strengthen control of Capitol Hill.

Iraq: Presidents set policies, not generals. Petraeus is great at executing strategy, but the overall policy is a failing one. Democrats will have a new policy on Day 1.

Terrorism: You can protect the country and the Constitution. Compromising our Constitution is the biggest capitulation of all to the terrorists.

Economy: (At this writing I do not know whether the GDP will contract for two quarters aka "recession") No matter what the macro numbers say, wealth is going to a few people who will use it for their own interests. Most Americans are worse off than they were four years ago.
Government is for the public interest, not an enemy of commerce or property rights. Government is to assure that our resources are allocated in a way for the country to grow in the future, now they are out of whack.

Immigration: Democrats support the rule of law and due process. We are strengthened by immigration and we will have a fair process.

Policy > Strategy > Operations > Tactics

ILLUSTRATED: The civilian political leadership sets policy, not generals

Here what Democrats need to say: "General Petraeus has done a great job executing a security strategy. However Bush's policy is a failure. Presidents set policy and (our nominee) will set a new policy...It will be to disengage, bring most troops home, a few left to fight terrorists, and send a few to beef up Afghanistan."

A week or so after the November '06 elections, I saw a leading political reporter speak. He said that by the turn of 2008, all major Republican candidates would be against the war. WRONG. Tonight was the Michigan Republican Primary, the third different winner after as many serious contests. The exit polls showed support for the war among the voters. Given that there is no front runner, we can expect that it will be difficult for the eventual GOP winner to change positions before the fall.

Basically our nominee, will be calling for a fast reduction of the vast majority of troops. Leaving a couple of divisions to fight terrorists and maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq. I suspect the GOP nominee will do as Bush does and parrot whatever General Petraeus calls for.

France's World War I Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau said that "war is too important to be left to the generals". This does not mean that the President and Secretary of Defense need to pick targets and schedule supply convoys. It does mean that they are to set policy.

Several times on this blog I have commended General Petraeus for doing a yeoman's job at counterinsurgency and tamping down the violence. But he is doing what good generals do: execute strategy. As an air force cadet, I learned the three levels of war are strategic, operational, and tactical. The abstraction beyond strategic is policymaking. President and Cabinet secretaries are supposed to set policy in the Middle East and the military's force structure.

Democrats need to start hammering this home so the population gets it.

Under reported issues in the campaign

ILLUSTRATED: Here are some issues over the horizon that will need to be discussed.

Iraq: It is clear that the next president will have a tremendous moral decision very early on: the decision to remove the US Army from the chaos we helped create. On the other hand, if we were to stay, there ought to be a massive tax increase to offset other foreign and domestic policies. We cannot keep borrowing from foreigners as the dollar is tanking. The media ought to be discussing this since it will bedevil the next president.

The success of the surge is a misnomer. The surge (which by definition is temporary, ending in the spring) has been brilliantly executed to reduce violence. However we will lose critical mass in the spring and the violence will flare up. There has been no oil revenue deal thus no political deal in this Pax Iraq time frame. For the "get out now crowd" they must answer "then what?" For the "we need to stick it out" crowd, they need to answer "how much?"

Domestic Intelligence: A lot of talk, if not action, has been about emergency response and integrating agencies at each level of government. That is after a terror attack. What about before an attack? The FBI is creating a National Security Branch, after they have finally realized that detective work and intelligence gathering are different disciplines. The NYPD and the LAPD are way ahead of the rest of the country in gathering intelligence at the local level. I think an issue for Democrats is to support states in coordinating all intelligence gathering in their states. Not all cities have the size to specialize in something so sophisticated. Having oversight would also help secure civil liberties.

Capping Carbon Emissions: We need to do this. Period. A discussion has to be held regarding the massive job dislocations that will happen.

Long term care: This is not covered by Medicare. It's doubtful that there could ever be an employer based system since these are usually retirees. The government may have to help organize an economical way to care for the elderly who are living longer. To win over conservatives, mention how it is economically efficient to promote healthy communities, and not have people drain down their own nest eggs.

Medical privacy: By the end of the next president's first term, we will be able to buy our genetic map for $1,000, so I was told by a molecular biologist. This is helpful for personalizing our own care, but very harmful if insurance companies or employers got their hands on it. Even conservatives would support government protections for this, from corporate power.

Education: We are simply not producing enough from our education system. If the system was good enough, we would not need H1B visas. The federal government has the resources to raise the teaching profession. The federal government may not be the most efficient at administering schools, but it's money can alter the job market for young people to enter teaching.

Money and Grassroots

ILLUSTRATED: Face it, extensive grassroots organizing costs money

This article is being written in the middle of a great primary season in both parties. Thus this is being written without knowing how this nomination fight will play out.
Last night was the New Hampshire Primary, and most campaigns are running out of money. There are still some dates this month with only one state contest, and thus there still will be some retail politics from the candidates and campaigns that are intensive on grassroots organizing. Voters in these states like Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina will want the same attention from candidates and volunteers that Iowa and New Hampshire had.
But is costs money.

Let us remember that grassroots organizing is a tactic, like tv commercials, and direct mailers. "Grassroots" has become used as a metaphor for ideological, demonstrative activists. Those types of activists, particularly on the political Left, often rail against the influence of money in politics over people power.

But at the end of the day, the type of activity costs money. This will become obvious as the nomination plays out.