Let's Start at the Beginning

Professor J,

 While you've been thinking about the economy as a national security issue this week, I've been thinking about another kind of security. But they are related of course, as all things are. Some just more obviously and directly than others.

In the fallout of the Sandy Hook shooting and subsequent national grief we've heard a lot about gun control, violent video games, and prescription medications. While the nation's attention has been focused on these arguments, I noticed this info-graphic this week that made me wonder if we aren't making mistakes long, long before we think we are.

Study after study has shown the importance of bonding between parents and children. American moms and dads recognize this, of course, and do the best they can. But this chart makes it pretty clear that parents in the US are struggling to get any compensated time off at one of the most crucial times in the lives of their children. Meanwhile other countries (ones, by the way, that aren't exactly famous for mass shootings by their young men) are investing their resources on the front end of life where it can do the most good. As you have pointed out we prefer to spend exorbitant amounts of money prolonging life a few months at the end (and at what quality?). 

Are we doomed to be ever short sighted and reactionary? Is anyone in power taking the long view and acting proactively too much to ask or hope for?

Are we the insolent teenager among civilized nations? It's embarrassing how adult all the other countries seem by comparison sometimes. 

The Basis of Security

Most Madame M and Our Readers:

An excellent piece about the Chris Hedges talk!

What is the greatest certain threat to national security?  China?  Iran?  Terrorism? Nope.  Not even the national debt is.

The economy itself is the greatest national security threat.  While it holds elements of both symptom and cause, national debt is more symptom than cause of the threat to our national security.  And that symptom arises from a) cultural unwillingness to confront reality, b) class evasion of financial responsibility to fund government, c) gross over-allocation (and misallocation) of resources, and d) a plutocratic and net consumptive economy.

One does not have to read the book Empire of Illusion to understand that America and Americans are largely in both denial and the willing embrace of ignorance about the realities in front of them.  Conditions and rule-sets have both changed (and been changed), particularly about the political-economy.  Presented with either 1) adapting, or 2) confronting those doing the changing, we have done neither.  We have used our accumulated civilizational wealth to put off hard decisions, and have weakened ourselves in the process.  Those doing the changing have found in us ready receivers of their deflection, deception, diversion, and manipulation.  Many decades now of poor decisions, including selfish and short-sighted decisions and consumptive and unsustainable decisions, both as individuals and as governments (local, state, and national), have cascaded our problems and made them excruciatingly harder to address.  And our response to that hard picture has been to delay and cleave to illusion and diversion all the more.

There is also underfunding (often deliberate and selfish) of the government by the upper class. Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are at the lowest levels in over 50 years.  Effective tax rates (given the prevalence of different rates for unearned income and the carefully emplaced tax code provisions that allow further evasion) for the upper class and corporations are at their sustained lowest in 80 years.  This leads to markedly reduced funds for government.  And because we 1) demand more of our government(s) than ever before, 2) over-allocate and mis-allocate, and 3) yet continue to embrace illusion, we then often borrow—deeply—which only weakens us further. 

And not just governments borrow heavily—individuals and companies do too.

The general pattern of us as individuals, as society, and as economy, is one of consumption, not investment.  As seen in our individual mind-sets and practices (a short-term—usually at most monthly—fixation); our corporate mind-sets and practices (next quarter’s profit maximization); and our governments (short-term—usually yearly—tunnel visions, and even then, usually consumptive rather than investment in infrastructure, research and development, etc.).  At the federal government level, we have given the lion’s share of resources primarily to a “security” establishment and the elderly, and away from the young whose productivity is needed so intensely.  Security (military-industrial, intelligence, etc.) spending has been at such sustained high levels for so long our Framers would be unable to imagine it—and might be alarmed.  Such over-allocated spending is in the main a drain on the underlying economy, with any beneficial economic side-effects few and far between, especially when compared to what those resources could do by direct economic investment.  As for spending on the elderly, I’m not speaking of Social Security, which is a minor problem and one readily addressable.  I’m speaking of medical spending, which is, yes, unsustainable on the present model, but it is the resource diversion from the productive to the no longer productive (and largely consumptive) that is the colossal mis-allocation.  While the young founder with few economic resources and vastly reduced economic opportunity, we distribute resources in droves to the largest consumers of sick care—the elderly—whose economically productive years are past.  And by the consumption of those resources—often in the last year of life—the young are denied them, meaning the future of the economy has been set to be weakened, another cascading problem and a harbinger of Great Power, not just Superpower, decline.

There were some signs before, but the last 30-40 years have seen the rise of the plutocratic economy.  Steadily and systematically, a globalized corporate and upper class have changed the rules and structure of the economy.  Changed it away from middle-class centric to one instead characterized by often commoditized labor and absolute profit maximization.  An economy where considerations of patriotism, social responsibility, and sharing the gains of productivity have become not only irrelevant, but roadblocks to opportunistic manipulation of the “free market.” Things like the rise in Medicaid expenditures are reflective symptoms of the pattern of socializing costs and privatizing profits.  This economy—one where a factory that is not making ENOUGH profit is shipped overseas (and effectively at taxpayer expense)—rewards corporations and the wealthy, while enfeebling and shrinking the middle class foundation of what could be a sustainable, vibrant economy.  By doing so, we instead get a structurally weak servant-economy that transfers wealth from net consumers (U.S.) to net producers (China and the new economies).  And by this pattern, China puts us in their debt, making us vulnerable, especially if we have to keep borrowing.

“Civilizations die from suicide, not from murder,” Toynbee said. The selfishness, dysfunction, and lack of vision described in the paragraphs above make a wreck of an economy, and when that economy is center-stage of the world’s supposed superpower, civilization’s anchor becomes uprooted.  The economy drives nearly everything, and those inside and outside the Beltway have developed myopia about that fact.  The short-sighted in the “security” interest group, for example, say we HAVE to have all the gizmos and forces, and we HAVE to have them all over the world, because there are steep risks in not doing so.  They say this with no consideration to the overall economy.

They’re right, there are risks.  But the possible (and often vague) risks they talk about must be compared to the certain risk as the economy continues to weaken.  To address possible risk while ignoring certain risk is the height of not just irresponsibility, but morally criminal embrace of illusion.  Without a strong, vibrant, sustainable, middle-class centric economy, none of the rest of what you might want is possible: not “defense,” not spending on the elderly, not buying stuff from overseas, not even protecting the prime foundation of an economy—the environment.

Gallup, in the most comprehensive world-wide polling ever done, came to the greatest single theme on the minds of adults of the world: a living wage job for themselves and the rest of the people.  In that simple encapsulation is the greatest chance for peace, stability, sustainability, biosphere health, and progress in the human condition.

Because “it’s (still) the economy, stupid.”

An Evening with Chris Hedges and Mr. Snarky

Professor J,

Our readers may recall the year (!) we spent discussing Chris Hedges' book, Empire of Illusion. Since that book was released in 2009 he's become synonymous with the Occupy movement. I was fortunate enough to attend an event over the weekend sponsored by the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center where Mr. Hedges was to be the keynote speaker.

Earlier in the week my son had discovered CH's many speeches, both formal, like the one we attended and informal, like the ones at ground zero of the Occupy Wall Street camps and other protests. A week ago he came downstairs and asked "Didn't you read a book by that guy?" I resisted the urge to make our year's worth of blog posts required reading and simply said that I had and "Oh, by the way he's coming to town Saturday night to give a speech."  We decided to go and I ordered tickets online. We discussed how early we might need to get there to get a good seat and Mr. Snarky remarked that when he watches the video online the crowds are often sparse. Considering his reputation and the fact that it was at a church on the weekend of Dr. King's birthday I envisioned standing room only.

We arrived later than I had hoped but still in plenty of time to get a first rate seat. I scanned the crowd. It was diverse. I'd expected mostly a young age group but lots of gray hair was visible around the banquet tables. Compared to my last TEA Party experience I felt quite at home. Unlike that group, no one seated under white doves hanging from the ceiling looked threatening at all. Not a single person on hand could have been described as militant in any sense of the word. My son leaned over and said "I'll bet no one in this room owns a gun." He was trying to square what he was seeing and hearing with things he'd heard from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

As the speakers who preceded Hedges spoke, the priorities of the attendees became clear: righting injustice, building stronger communities, caring for the homeless and disadvantaged, improving education, improving community/police relations, and creating safe neighborhoods. I was noticing the disparity between what I'd heard and what I was seeing along with my son.

Mr. Hedges used his allotted time to cover things he frequently addresses in his books and in his columns on Truthdig so I'll not cover them here. (My son will be wondering why I took all those notes.) Maybe next time. Instead while he was speaking, I was struck by something. He's not a large man, nor an imposing one in any way. But he is authoritative, honest, and direct. The greatness he projects is in the power of conviction about the things he shares.  A conviction, it seemed that was honed through experiencing first hand the suffering of victims he'd come in contact with. Victims of war, victims of poverty, victims of greed.

The speech ended with a standing ovation and then the line began to form at the back of the room for book purchasing and signing. I picked up a copy of his latest work, my son purchased Death of the Liberal Class, and naturally I dragged along my dog eared, highlighted copy of Empire for him to inscribe.

As my son and I left the building he said "Are these the community organizers the right was so worried about before the 2008 election?"

I acknowledged that, indeed, they were.

"I've never seen a more harmless group of people in my life."

As we walked across the chilly parking lot in the dark he let me know that this had been the most enlightening thing he'd ever been to. I smiled one of those secret parent smiles and thought what a good lesson we'd both had. One about continuing to be open to new ideas and perspectives. Checking things out for yourself instead of taking someone else's word for it. And never being too young or old to challenge your own previous assumptions. 

Pasted!

Most Madame M:

Welcome back!

I am tickled that you feel my suggestions of January 10^th are “simple and doable enough.”  Since modern constitutional amendments start in Congress with a 2/3rds majority, there are a lot of people there who would find their own selfish or fearful reasons not to do 1 and 2.  And partisans on both sides would disagree with number 4, depending on how things were looking state legislature wise back in their states.  And as you said, number 3 would have fierce resistance.  But trusting in Colin Powell’s maxim that “optimism is a force multiplier,” maybe enough Americans could be persuaded to pressure their legislators!  :) Lot of groundwork to do!

As for Medicare, it wasn’t a well thought out program for several reasons.  I will mention just a few. 

It was an actuarial train wreck from the beginning.  The inversion once the baby boomers began retiring would be utterly unsustainable, especially with the paltry funding streams.

Of course, that problem was exacerbated off the scale by rising costs of medical care, a process that was greatly accelerated from the self-feeding aspect of medical care’s greatest users, the elderly, being given an almost free ride. 

And then we had to become even more isolated, with less family involvement medically, leading to even more of EVERYTHING—basic care, advanced care, prescriptions, long-term care, etc.

And then as our environment saw more toxins, as diets deteriorated, as we became more sedentary, and at the same time more disconnected, people became even sicker. 

Although all of this could not have been foreseen, or at least all its degrees, the advocates and politicians did not think those out, responding instead to pleas to avert medically-caused poverty in the elderly.  And so we have yet ANOTHER American problem caused by our infantile lack of foresight.

“We value war over health. Politics over solutions. Profit over nearly everything else.”  Well said Madame! 

We keep getting all sorts of disinformation, deception, and deflection coming at us.  For instance, the supposed study that “showed” that organic food "is not more nutritious.”  Doubtful, but perhaps it is the case.  Yet, how asinine.  For compared to what?  Freshly picked?  When?  Certainly not after transport and storage.  But it is all deception and deflection anyway, for the primary quality of organic food is ignored in the shallow and directed media coverage:  freedom from most or all pesticides and herbicides.

And what was the impetus for such a study?  And who trumpeted its conclusions?  Something we need to ask in MANY things that are “reported.”

By the way, I can’t stop smiling at your term: “paste eating toddlers.”  I keep picturing millions of Americans in their homes and cars and offices, etc., sitting around with a dull look, eating paste out of a jar. :)

This goes right along with my Kiplingesque thought for the week: If you can keep your sense of humor while all around you are losing theirs…

Catching Up, Clearing Up, Manning Up

Professor J,

Thanks for keeping everyone updated during my absence. Your clarity is helpful in catching up when one has been away and cut off from the news (A blissfully ignorant state, I'll admit). I'll also admit that recovering from vacation brain is hard.

In your January 10th posting the four expansions you proposed to add to the Norris Amendment to the Constitution seemed simple and doable enough. While #3 would certainly be a fight, numbers 1,2,4 really seemed as if they could be done fairly quickly and easily.

Can you expound on why you said that Medicare wasn't a well thought out program? 

Your comments about medical spending on the elderly are practical and I agree with them. We spend astronomical amounts of money on those near the end of life while not providing resources for those in the productive years of life. This kind of talk (as you allude to) makes people nervous as if we are valuing life based on how productive it is, or advocating the Palinesque "death squads." A far better solution would be to encourage people to take more personal responsibility for their own health, and spend an increased portion of public funds to that end. Just as in so many other areas of our society as well as personal lives, we need balance.  We are unable to speak the truth about what we value. We value war over health. Politics over solutions. Profit over nearly everything else. But we don't say these things of course. They are too true and brutal for us to acknowledge.

On a side note: for everyone who's tired of sorting out information, championing common sense, and  being the adult in a room full of paste eating toddlers, I say, don't give up. (This is where I like to add the movie quote from the idealistic character. In this case it's from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington):

Jefferson Smith: [His voice very hoarse] Just get up off the ground, that's all I ask. Get up there with that lady that's up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won't just see scenery; you'll see the whole parade of what Man's carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so's he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That's what you'd see. There's no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties. And, uh, if that's what the grownups have done with this world that was given to them, then we'd better get those boys' camps started fast and see what the kids can do. And it's not too late, because this country is bigger than the Taylors, or you, or me, or anything else. Great principles don't get lost once they come to light. They're right here; you just have to see them again!

Bitter or Better

Dear Readers:

I’m looking to provoke a conversation, regardless of the heat.  Yes, I’m going to go “there.”

But be not diverted by what I say, or you will play into the hands of the Radical Right who want to divert your attention from their deliberate underfunding of government, their greedy nonsense about taxation, and their fixation on so-called “entitlements.”  Because THAT diversion is sheer selfishness and greed on their parts, to get the conversation away from them and their (mis)deeds, and thinking that ONLY benefits programs need addressed. 

We have a resource allocation problem, both in taking in enough (and from where), and where those resources go once we have them.  On the revenue side, we don’t take in enough, largely because the corporations and uber-wealthy have rigged the system to escape what they used to pay when we were fiscally healthy.  On the allocation side, we have five huge categories which make everything else nearly insignificant: Military associated spending, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and Interest on the National Debt.  Solve those and you have solved the majority of your allocation side problems. 

Social Security was a good idea, for poverty of the elderly detracts from the descendants who must divert otherwise productive time and resources toward their elderly.  This does NOT mean sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters have no responsibility or can or should escape the honoring of their elders (we can learn a lot from Native Americans about honoring one’s elders).  It merely means that those elders can at once have some economic dignity while their descendants can make their way in the world without being excessively dragged down by economic burden from their predecessors.  Note that this applies both at the individual level and societal level.

Social Security has a separate funding stream, is only a mild problem, and is easily fixable.  Even if it isn’t “fixed,” at worst the program can continue with benefits reduced at most by one-third.

Military associated spending has been historically excessive for so long people have become numb to it.  But it is not economically productive, and is instead a drag on the economy as well as the budget.  No power in history has kept up this level of spending and survived.  There’s something to think about when talking about “risk.”

Interest on the national debt is artificially low right now, so we are getting a bit of a break, but it is still far too high.  You don’t need to be good at math to realize that each year of deficits means a bigger and snowballing problem.

Medicaid growth is largely a result of the abandonment of the working/lower class.  We have an economic system that permits too many “employers” to foist the true costs of their decisions onto the society, and they also make people sicker to boot.  Yet there is little doubt that we have done a poor job of defining what an acceptable level of care is, especially because Medicaid has no separate funding stream.  Both states and the federal government suffer for this gem.

And now to the country sized elephant in our midst: medical spending on the elderly.  Any alien watching us from space must marvel at what we do, and probably sends back reports that the illogic of this species precludes contact at this time. :)  To that alien it is obvious, although not comprehendible: we divert tremendous resources to the sick care and chronic health-conditions management of those whose productive years are largely past, who will have the most health problems regardless (and the costliest), and who often have highly abbreviated years remaining.  We do that while at the same time cutting resources to the young who need it most—and the society that needs those young to be resourced and productive. 

I am not asserting that Medicare was wrong.  Perhaps we do owe the elderly a level of medical care certainty.  But I AM saying that the discussion has been framed all wrong. Whatever this society feels it owes its elderly citizens, it should be considered within the larger picture frame of the whole society, and especially the energetic economic lifeblood of the society (generally considered 18-65, although both those numbers can be moved forward or extended a few years to provision for variances; and exceptions will always exist).   If we want sustainability, that has to be near the forefront of our thinking.  Not in some Nazi way at all, just a common sense way, in which dignity, and the long term, are in synchronicity.

Medicare was an incompletely considered idea.  Because it was inadequately framed, we find ourselves in the mess of today.  Health care (actually, “sick care”) is not the “tiger we ride because if we get off it may eat us.”  It is the parasite that it is draining away our energy and our vitality, and so weakened, may kill us.

We spend 18% of our GDP on “Health Care.”  Germany spends about 11%.  And arguably has better care.

We can do better. We must do better.  And we better start talking about it.  Not cleaving to illusion.

Or start apologizing now to our embittered descendants.

Gerrymandering and Other Sundry Matters

Yes, dear readers, you get me for a bonus posting because of Madame’s absence. 

How ironic that past times, when we arguably required little momentous legislation, we still got it.  Yet, now, when we require it desperately, we get a do-nothing, seized-up legislature.

Much of that comes from gerrymandering, the drawing of each federal Congressional district by partisan state legislatures to virtually ensure that one-party controls each seat.  This, along with other facilitators, has led to ideological rigidity and extreme selfishness, and, of course, easy service to plutocrats.  

Without Constitutional amendment, that isn’t going to change.  Along with a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and remove some of the extreme power of corporations and billionaires to influence our elections and elected officials, there’s a Congressional reform amendment needed.

What we need is an expansion to the proposed Norris Amendment to the Constitution.  This would do several important things:

1.     Abolish partisan caucuses in the Senate.

2.     Reform the Senate filibuster, and how it may be used.

3.     Curb influence of corporate and special interest money, and make transparent, known, and accountable what money there is and where it comes from.

4.     Make Congressional districts within states be demographically and geographically drawn by integrated computer models that allocate population near equally within those states, and that begin with the largest population centers and concentrically expand outward to take in more communities until the population division is met.  All that state legislatures would be permitted to do is make adjustments on the margins where the circles would otherwise overlap.  This meets the original intent of the Framers to have Congressional districts represent equal population sizes (understanding, of course, that some states that only get one representative due to small population size will not be able to meet this objective).

The tools to get back the republic the Framers made possible for us do exist.  A movement must grow and swell in order for those tools to become effected reality.  And it starts with information and discussion.

The House Is Still On Fire

No, that’s not a reference to the US House of Representatives, although it perhaps could be.

First off, dear readers, let’s wish Madame some stress-free (or at least minimal stress) rest and relaxation!  And thank her for covering in my own absence!

On to things, specifically ATRA, the American Taxpayer Relief Act (love those partially misleading law titles) that “averted” (at the last second) the “fiscal cliff” (slope, really). 

Yes, the fire has been “contained” so that it’s not consuming the ground floor.  Yet.  The legislators in Washington are counting on you the citizen neither knowing, nor understanding, nor caring enough, to look at the details.  If the corporate media, which partially created the “cliff” phenomenon, declares the legislation solved the problem, a busy public goes on to the diversions of their lives.  But should we?

The legislation is typical of the ridiculous legal sausage—bloated, ugly, special interest sensitive, and inclusion of multiple and seemingly unrelated areas—that Congress has become infamous for.  For instance:

The legislation incorporated (sort of) a long overdue Ag bill, although it left much out and mostly kicks it down the road for a year.  Just like most things in Washington (and often back home as well), there’s no facing of reality, or serious addressing of our very real and urgent problems.  So we get this twilight zone treatment.  And what was an Ag bill doing in the legislation, one might ask? Good question.  The trend toward omnibus bills was bad enough when we had 11 (13) separate appropriations.  Today, it's much worse, and this legislation is just another indication. 

The bill also has things about health care.  Many Medicare payments problems were kicked down the road and medical industry rewarded, although, to be fair, some exacting and clarification took place that will NOT benefit the medical industry. 

The law extended unemployment provisions for about a year.

Tax deductions and credits, especially for businesses, were extended. Far be it for the loud trumpeters who say that "closing loopholes" is the way to address deficits and avoid taxes, to actually make their actions match their words.    

As for what is supposed to be the law’s central provisions, here they are:

The payroll tax cut was not extended.  What this means is that the social security tax rate you were paying two years ago is what you’re now paying again.  While in general this is probably okay, as Social Security didn’t need the funding shortfall the payroll tax cut contributed to, the absence of other things about it is telling.  For instance, there is nothing about raising the cap on contributions, something that could solve Social Security's slight funding problem fairly easily.  And notice that of all the taxes that went back up, this one, the heaviest, hit the working poor and middle class (more on this in a bit). 

The AMT—Alternate Minimum Tax (a long-ago law designed to try to capture back some of the taxes that the rich with their accountants and lawyers often avoid)—had its boundaries adjusted so that it didn’t catch unintended middle class folks.  Much can be said about AMT, but that is a discussion for perhaps another time.

The Bush-era “temporary” tax break for dividends was made permanent.  That unearned income, which is not subject to Social Security or Medicare taxation, thus gets another bennie of a far lower tax rate than earned income taxation (you know, those rates for people earning a living rather than collecting dividends from large amounts of stock they own).  I’m aware of the false arguments about that, but as I’ve explained in The Professor blog on 14 October of last year, they don’t hold much, if any, real weight, and merely benefit the wealthy.

As for what were supposed to be the temporary Bush-era tax cuts (which should have never been enacted and blew a giant hemorrhage in the budget), most were made permanent.  Government is now taking in the lowest GDP percentage of revenue in 50-60 years, belying yet again the squealing by the rich about taxation, and a good indication that we have a deliberate underfunding problem, not just an overspending one.  

The only Bush-era tax cuts not made permanent are for the over $450,000 (note how quickly they ran away from it being $250,000) EARNERS.  Notice that’s not INVESTORS (unearned income—dividends, interest, capital gains), meaning it’s mostly a smokescreen.  Those earners also lost some deductions.

The sausage Congress put together with this law was made not subject to the Pay As You Go law provisions they set for themselves in 2010.

The matter of the debt ceiling was left open, so expect that political (but potentially highly damaging) farce shortly.

A bone they threw the public was that they didn't give themselves a COLA (cost of living adjustment), but of course they can at any time since those aren’t “raises” (raises, by constitutional amendment, can only go into force after a 2 year election has been held since the raise was passed). 

The Big Picture:  The 30+ year pattern (briefly interrupted during the economically golden age of much of the 1990s)—of starving the government by tax cuts to force reduced spending on things which benefit the general welfare—continues.   ATRA does next to nothing about our yawning chasm between revenues and expenses; indeed, it merely establishes more our illusional/delusional fantasies.  Deficits continue to be out of control, even as contractors, large corporations, and the wealthy benefit from direct and indirect government spending for them.

Most everyone should be upset about that, but the Millenials in particular should, if they are paying attention, be pissed as all hell, because they are being left a giant bag of you-know/you-don’t-wanna-know-what.

Fiscal Cliffs and Other Disasters

Dear Reader: The good professor is still unavailable for commentary. But just wait until he returns! I suspect he'll have much to say.

As you can see I am a day late posting. Am I the only one who is still looking at a Christmas tree in the living room? (Please say no) It has been denuded and now just looks depressing. As if the fiscal cliff debacle wasn't bad enough...

You may remember a few weeks ago when I listed some things we'd learned from the election and Hurricane Sandy. Here's an excerpt:

Governor Chris Christie is his own man. Known for his brashness and stubbornly sticking to his ideas, he gained a lot of credibility this week for having his priorities in place. An especially interesting explanation of his thinking was given in response to a silly question from Fox's Steve Doocy about whether or not Romney would get a photo-op touring the damage with the N.J. governor: 

“I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested, I’ve got a job to do here in New Jersey that’s much bigger than presidential politics and I could [sic] care less about any of that stuff. I have a job to do,” he added. “I’ve got 2.4 million people out of power, I’ve got devastation on the shore, I’ve got floods in the northern part of my state. If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics then you don’t know me.”

Since Obama's reelection Tuesday night Christie has been taken to task by commentators and radio talk show hosts for praising Obama's handling of the situation. Lou Dobbs referred to it as "slobbering over the president" and insinuated that it was a calculated move toward reelection in his predominately blue state.  He's being referred to by members of his own party as "Judas" and "traitor." Talk show host Laura Ingram said this week that it wouldn't surprise her if he became a democrat. Given how his party is treating him, who could blame him? 

Now here we are several weeks later, and I was pleased to see that this governor is continuing his lonely path of authentic leadership. In case you missed his most recent truth embracing speech, here's the video:

Kudos to the governor for calling it like he's sees it even when he's swimming upstream in his own party.