GOP

DP widens economic discrimination with free lunches

Posted on August 26, 2011. Filed under: GNP, Uncategorized |

Now that Oh Se-hoon has failed to reach the minimum quorum needed to overturn the DP’s signature we-love-all-people-and-they-will-love-us-with-votes policy issue of free kimchi for all, the sharks in DP are pouncing, demanding that he keeps his word and resigns. It’s safe to say that he won’t step-down until after the September by-elections which will help dim the pain the the GNP might feel otherwise. Pairing it with the Presidential election is a smarter move.

The entire issue of the free school lunch policy has been baffling. Take this cartoon from Hankyoreh for instance.

A man pulls up in a Mercedes with a license plate indicating he is from the wealthy conservative Gangnam District and says, “As our country is almost broke due to my tax breaks, you had better pay for you lunch,” rejecting the free school lunch program.

Apparently, Gangnam voters turned out in droves to vote down the free school lunch measure. Hankyoreh makes the claim that rich people didn’t want their tax breaks to be offset by this policy. That’s true. They didn’t want their tax money to fund this policy.

The problem with the claim in the cartoon is that it’s an outright lie.

First of all, Hankyoreh and the DP clearly misrepresented Oh Se-hoon’s position in their thirst to crush the  GNP in the upcoming election cycle.  He agreed to raise the percentage of students receiving free lunches from 35% to 50%. DP wanted 100% with no income differentiation. Now that they have gotten their way, they must own their claim that students will no longer have the ammunition to be able to discriminate upon one another based on income levels.

That, of course, won’t happen. Korea’s rapid economic rise puts great importance on wealth and status and kids learn that from their parents. Hell, even the Hankyoreh identifies where the wealth is (강남) a free lunch scam isn’t going to erase that reality.

Furthermore, there are many other indicators of wealth that children pick up on and while school lunches might be one of them, it’s certainly not the biggest one. Cram schools, or rather, the amount of cram schools that kids attend generally hint at the family income level.

And now that DP has given free lunches to all, those rich Gangnam parents will be able to send their kids to one more cram school thus widening the gap between the rich and poor.

Good move, DP. Next time leave the empty populism out of policy debates.

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Scott Brown, Ron Paul and the Future of the GOP

Posted on February 24, 2010. Filed under: 2010 Elections, 2012 Elections, Dems, Elections, GOP, Issues, Political Parties |

The GOP and their teabagging stooges are quite angry today. Yesterday, Scott Brown broke rank and voted in favor of the Senate jobs bill (along with Collins and Snowe). This should not be a major or breaking-story because congressmen USED to vote with their constituents in mind all the time. Voting across party lines is not unusual at all, yet the Tea Party appears to have already given up on Brown. They have filled his website and Facebook page with comments like this one:

“You, Sir, are a RINO Judas. I hope you enjoy your 30 pieces of silver.”

Amazing really. One single vote and he is deemed a Judas. All of this, of course, makes the 2010 election ever more potent. It’s not just about the Dems losing control of Congress anymore. If the GOP does in fact win BIG this fall,  are these “supporters” –those responsible for this apparent conservative revival– going to react in a similar way when a freshly minted congressman decides to vote with his district or state in mind? If they do, then the GOP is going to have a major problem in 2010.

Mike Madden over at Salon has the same thing on his mind. He poses that the GOP is going to have a hard time keeping the support of their new activist base. The platform that the Tea Party wants them to run against –which is the only way they are going to do well in 2010– is one that the GOP was booted out for in 2006.

“…most of the things Republicans say they’ll do if they take power again — cutting spending, increasing transparency, ending earmarks — were exactly what helped voters sour on Republican rule in 2006. To keep the new elements of their activist base happy, GOP leaders will have to stick to their plan. “Keeping the support of tea party activists will require keeping our promises, it’s as simple as that,” one GOP aide

It’s ludicrous to assume the GOP will do any of these things and they know it. That’s their concern. If the Tea Party is this angry about Scott Brown voting with his constituents and “against” the Tea Party, then the GOP is in a lot of trouble. They’re already spitting on Steele on a regular basis using trademark bagger language.

“Michael Steele is an imperial chairman,” grumbled one GOP fundraiser to Politico.

In my opinion, a bagger-fueled 2010 GOP resurgence is going to 1) highlight the fractures between the libertarians and conservatives and 2) splinter the presidential field in 2012 leaving the Dems in a good position. I’m not sure who’ll represent the GOP in 2012, but I can assure you that Ron Paul will be a strong candidate (regardless of party) and if the GOP burns their libertarian bridges, they can both  kiss their 2012 chances goodbye.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Are Joe Lieberman and Park Geun-hye banging?

Posted on February 23, 2010. Filed under: Dems, GNP, GOP, Issues, Policy |

Gross.

https://i2.wp.com/blog.prospect.org/blog/ezraklein/Joe_Lieberman.jpg https://i0.wp.com/newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41717000/jpg/_41717526_parkportraitap203.jpg

They might not be banging, but they certainly have a lot in common these days. Joe Lieberman –along with Gore– was referred to as “Sore Loserman” during the 2000 US Election recount. We all know the gruesome details of that election and the slogan was unfair then, but I think it fits him quite well now.

His uncompromising zeal for the Iraq war made him an easy target for the Dems and progressives. He cemented his image as a traitor to progressive values with his support for McCain in ’08 and has continued to be the official “giant douche” of the Senate during the health care debates of ’09. Along with his conservatives overlords, he has found himself on the wrong side of nearly every issue he has stood-up for. And even though he was forced to run as an Independent and faces active campaigns trying to strip of his chairmanship, he remains stubborn as ever.

Park Geun-hye has followed a similar path. She was so close to winning the GNP’s primary last cycle, but fell short only to turn into a “sore loser” who chooses to obstruct rather than lead or offer sound solutions. She knows she is on the wrong side of this Sejong debacle, yet she continues to publicize and press for intra-party conflict. This is clearly not about policy; it’s about Chungcheong votes. Her reasoning for support has been all over the place, but my personal favorite is this:

“If the party changes its official platform, approval by two-thirds of members is required.”

I  respect procedure as much as the next guy, but arguing that it’s impossible to change the platform (that she created in 2005) is absurd. She is the only one responsible for obstruction. Her pro-Park faction would follow her in a second, but she refuses to budge. Even as new information continues to pour in that clearly expresses the downside of the project, she sticks to her original plan (which of course was the plan that Roh created for victory in his bid for the Blue House).

Joe and Geun-hye were clearly meant for each other. They pander poorly, get caught for it and, in the face sharp criticism, mounting opposition and –most importantly– contrary facts, they decide to stand tall.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Paul vs Obama in 2012?

Posted on February 21, 2010. Filed under: 2012 Elections, Dems, Elections, GOP |

Only a few hours ago, I made this statement in reference to the Tea Party:
If you wanted to really break it down and see what this is about, draw a line in the sand; on one side is Palin and the other is Paul. They’d follow Palin in a second.
However, I just now stumbled upon this straw poll from the CPAC:
Ron Paul CPAC
Does this prove me wrong? Not really. CPAC is not a Tea Party event and the attendees are certainly more pro-GOP establishment than the baggers are. What this does offer is a solid glimpse as to who the Dems will be up against.
Regardless of this poll, I don’t think that Paul will win the nomination. He’s way too progressive in his social policies to make it past the primaries. I also found it interesting that Huckabee and Gingrich were not on the list. As a Dem, I’m most concerned about Ron Paul (and least threatened). I think he has the best chance of challenging Obama (mostly because of his youth appeal and ability to inspire), but Nate Silver believes that Gingrich poses a huge threat. I’m not so sure I agree.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

GOP Takeover Unlikely

Posted on February 19, 2010. Filed under: 2010 Elections, 2012 Elections, Dems, Elections, GOP, Issues |

American conservatives have gotten themselves very excited over the past couple days as CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) has been underway. The message is the same it’s always been: lower taxes, less government and more national security.

As we know, they’ve also been sounding the jobless and deficit alarm a lot also. Well, not really. It’s more like they set the bank alarm off, ran away and then called the cops when a Dem walked in the door.

Short-term memories are in no shortage when it comes to the GOP and their stooge baggers, but just in case you’ve drank their tea also, take a look at this:

https://i1.wp.com/farm3.static.flickr.com/2801/4190849095_61cc1777a2_o.jpg

Calling for tax cuts might get teabaggers hard and the GOP establishment something to talk about, but it’s pretty clear that it had a terrible effect on the deficit. Maybe Bush was just a bad president and other GOPers had it right when they tried to give tax breaks?

https://i0.wp.com/www.headybrew.net/images/content/budget_deficit_or_surplus.gif

Nope, but they like to claim that it’s all about the trickle-down effect. If we give tax breaks to the wealthy, then middle-Americans will also be helped because the rich will hire them. Does that pass the smell test? Are they as innocent as they claim?

chart of the day, jobs lost in the bush and obama administrations
The point is that even though the facts are there that prove the GOP cannot effectively run an economy or the country, they still manage pass themselves off as the party of the common man. They have proven to be successful at manipulating the masses over the past year and now they’re claiming they’ll take back control of the Senate. They’re hoping for a 1994-style takeover and even throwing some names for the new “contract” around.
Unfortunately for them, there’s something called statistics and reality that seems to be in their way. Intrade is giving them a 30% chance of a takeover and Nate Silver –master statistician who predicted almost every detail of the 2008 election– has a message as well: Republicans Must Defend Seats Too. The caveat is this enthusiasm gap and unless the Dems pass something tangible through reconciliation, it might be hard. The public likes it when they see the government doing something.

Regardless of whether they takeover or not, the ball is still in the Obama’s court as he’ll have a golden opportunity to sandbag the GOP and follow in the steps of the 1948 election where Truman rain against a “do nothing” Congress.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Policy, Politics and 체면: The Sejong City Fallout

Posted on February 17, 2010. Filed under: GNP, Issues, Policy, Political Parties |

The story behind the Sejong rift is not what’s being widely reported. What we hear is that the rift between Park Geun-hye & Company and the rest of the GNP is getting larger by the day. Every major paper has headlines dealing with the intra-party clash and yesterday, the Dongo Ilbo wrote-up had some reactions on the split and the entire Sejong City debacle.

While people might be divided and some pols are still wrangling over how to solidify the party, the real story is the ongoing cold war between Park Geun-hye and Prime Minister Chung Un-chan. The difficult part of this story is not who though, but why?

Does Park really want to press ahead with the original plan because it’s sound policy or she trying to position herself for a mid-term power grab thus gaining the  subsequent momentum for a 2012 cakewalk?

Does Chung truly believe that moving administrative offices to Sejong will hamper efficiency or is he also poised for a 2012 run himself?

Or are both of them trying to save face (체면) because they made very potent policy decisions which –if proven wrong– will ultimately damage their reputation beyond repair?

Let’s examine it.

As I mentioned before, 60% of Koreans support Lee Myung-bak’s revision while only 37% support the original plan (which Park is advocating for). It seems that Park knows she’s on the wrong side of the issue which could suggest she believes in the policy. However, over 1,000 Korean economists, scholars and politicians all banded together in support of a revision of the plan. Does she disagree with the following sentiment?

“When administrative bodies are divided, ministers, vice ministers and many officials have to move from one place to another and it is inefficient.”

Doubtful, but Park Geun-hye continues to rail against it, claiming Lee Myung-bak lied about his Sejong support to get elected. It’s clear that the original Sejong plan wasn’t as sound as once thought and it now appears that Park is pandering for political dividends in the Chungcheong province with her uncompromising zeal for the project. She knows the path to victory goes through the province, but did someone else pre-empt her move?

Could it be that Chung is more 11-dimensional than I thought? After all, it was Chung Un-chan who was at the forefront pushing for revision. He knew it’d be a wedge issue that would provoke Park to act and possibly try to distance herself from Lee and the mainstream GNP. Or was he acting on sound policy? He is an economist you know.

Incidentally, Chung happens to be from Gongju (South Chungcheong province), which is the area Park is pandering to. This –to me– suggests that he’s hoping to get more hometown support for his calls for revision. North Chungcheong has already expressed their opposition to the original bill and even though the Governor of South Chungcheong resigned over the revision, the momentum appears to be with the pro-Lee faction of the GNP.

In the end, this whole thing looks like an effort to save face. Both Chung and Park made a bold decision and neither one of them want to walk away from it. This whole damn thing was orchestrated by Roh Moo-hyun in an effort to win support in 2002 and it has snowballed to the point that we’re at right now.

From where I’m standing, Park Geun-hye bet on the wrong side and is trying to fight off a severe blow to her 체면. Chung is pushing sound policy in an attempt to politically wash the floor with Park and her allies. And if the recent calls to oust Chung were in response to said washing, it looks like he’s onto something.

Nice try, Hankyeorah. It looks like you’re learning from from Drudge.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Silver Lining of Bayh’s Retirement

Posted on February 16, 2010. Filed under: 2010 Elections, Dems, Elections, GOP, Media |

And there’s always a silver lining.

The resignation du jour that’s rattling the presses is that centrist, obstructionist Democrat, Evan Bayh has decided to retire. The GOP-favored MSM is playing into Michael Steele’s claim that Dems are “running for the hills.” Of course, being a member of the GOP requires the inability to speak the truth since the GOP faces MORE retirements that the Dems do, but that doesn’t matter when your party has contol of the conversation (as the GOP does right now).

The main obstacle for Dems is not that Bayh is retiring. I believe that to be a godsend since all he did was obstruct progressive policies. I’m no fan of Blue Dogs and couple Bayh with Nelson, then you have a deadly combination for progressives. Some are worried about the timing of this departure which give the Dems until Tuesday (in America) to get another name on the ballot. That’s not great, but there are two great things that will come from this.

1) It forces the GOP to make a decision as to who they’re putting on the ballot. They’re now stuck with two average candidates (Coats and Hostetler).

2) If one thing is true it’s that –nationwide– this election cycle will be an anti-incumbent one. Another truth is that in swing-states we can expect to see a GOP-leaning preference and enthusiasm gap. A new face might be the only thing that saves the Dems.

Unlike the retirement of Dodd, I was thrilled with this one. Bayh did very little to help the progressive cause. Without him, Dems don’t have to comprimise.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...