Intensely interested but lacking access

When I was working as a newspaper editor, I used to tell people that editors and reporters don't necessarily know more about politics and policy than the average, attentive citizen, but our jobs just kept us more focused on current events.

Almost two years out of the news business, I'm still intensely interested in the political process and governmental policy. For followers of politics and policy, this is an intriguing time on both the state and national levels. But I have to admit that my knowledge of the ins and outs of politics is not what it used to be. I still devour all the national and state political/governmental news in the News & Observer every morning (and deeply regret the diminution of news coverage caused by the fall-off in newspaper advertising), and I read some online blogs, columns and news that keep me informed about the state and national political scenes. I am intensely interested in whether President Obama will be able to replicate his 2008 strategy, whether N.C. Republicans will succeed in tearing down the programs and policies put in place by state Democrats over the past century, and whether the Congress will ever find the political will to address the budget deficit and debt crisis.

I'm no longer being paid to think about these issues, write about them and assign reporters to cover them, and I miss that intimate involvement with the forces that shape out daily lives. People spend most of their days doing what they are paid to do, and I am no longer paid to pay attention to politics and politicians. I find myself in the position of so many of the people I used to talk to in my former career — intensely interested observers of the political sphere.

But there is another difference between the way I used to view politics and how I view it now. As a newspaper editor, I had access to the candidates, strategists, foot soldiers and advisers in the political game. It was not unusual for a candidate for governor or senator to drop by my office and talk policy. What the candidates wanted was favorable news coverage or, perhaps, and editorial endorsement. What I got in return was some insight into the candidates and the strategies in an election. I also got to form an opinion about the personality and intellect of the candidate. Very few intensely interested observers got this insight, and now I understand just how privileged I was to have that access. Since leaving the newspaper business, I have talked one state legislator, a congressman and a few county and municipal officials (all of whom I knew personally from my earlier career) but no governors or candidates for high offices.

My interest in politics and policy may be undiminished, but my knowledge and understanding have declined because I no longer talk to the folks making the big decisions.

Perdue can help herself by vetoing budget

Republicans rode into town determined to make big changes. After more than a century in the legislative minority (except for a brief period in the 1990s when they controlled the House), Republicans held substantial majorities in both the House and Senate. They promised big — no tax increases, a budget passed long before July 1, improved schools, a better business climate.

Three weeks before the end of the fiscal year, the budget is finally on Gov. Bev Perdue's desk, and the best thing Perdue might do is veto it. Perdue has complained that the budget shortchanges education, and the chairman of the state Board of Education has vehemently complained about the budget, which, among other things, eliminates teacher aides after kindergarten and phases out the Teaching Fellows scholarship program. With five Democrats voting for the budget, Republican leaders have a veto-proof majority in the House. Nevertheless, Perdue has nothing to lose in vetoing the budget. She can make her point more effectively than she has in all the speeches and press conferences while challenging Republicans to stand behind their actions. Perdue's criticism of Republican budget cuts has resulted in an uptick in her popularity ratings, although she still has a long way to go to get re-elected. Pat McCrory, who is running hard to be the Republican gubernatorial nominee again, has to hope that Perdue will quietly let the budget pass.

Legislative Republicans have done more than pass a budget that undoes much of the educational strategy and tactics of the past 20 years. They have unashamedly aligned themselves with business interests to the detriment of the public in bill after bill. The broadband bill, pushed hard by the giant national corporations that have virtual monopolies in most areas, forbids new municipalities from getting into the broadband business, as Wilson and a few other cities have done. Although titled with other words, the bill is really a monopoly protection bill. Most North Carolinians will not have the option that Wilson residents have, to choose a cheaper, faster cable TV and Internet provider. Republicans pushed a bill that would prohibit Raleigh and other cities from ensuring that rental housing is safe and habitable. Republicans even tried to prohibit the Department of Transportation from forbidding left turns on some highways because some business people complained that the left turns, though dangerous, were good for business. They even tied the extension of unemployment benefits to budget cuts, making out-of-work North Carolinians pawns in a game of political chicken.

Republicans may be able to proclaim that they have won majorities and passed a new kind of budget, but Democrat Perdue can only help herself by vetoing the Republicans' budget. By 2012, as voters realize how cozy Republican legislators are with big corporations and how little they care about the plight of individual voters, the GOP gloating might be over.

The other "third rail of politics"

The late House Speaker Tip O'Neill once called Social Security the "third rail of politics" — meaning anyone who touched the program risked instant death, at least politically. If O'Neill were still around, he might say the same thing about Medicare.

It was Medicare, apparently, that turned the tables in Tuesday's election in upstate New York, where Democrat Kathy Hochul won a special election in a traditionally Republican district. Hochul's campaign emphasized her opposition to Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program — instead of the government paying directly to providers for the health care of Medicare recipients, Ryan would reduce costs by giving vouchers for recipients to purchase their own health care in the private sector.

What is interesting is that both parties have recognized that the current Medicare program is unsustainable. Some type of reform is necessary. President Obama took a lot of heat because his health care program required cuts in Medicare reimbursements to save money. Republicans screamed. President Bush had proposed cuts in Medicare reimbursements, too. Democrats had screamed. Tuesday's election indicates that we may have reached a point at which no one can afford to reshape Medicare, and both parties see Medicare changes as an invitation to attack the other party. This will lead to an impasse in which Medicare costs outgrow taxpayers' ability to pay for the program.

Then what?

Smart guy, but his foot is in his mouth

I've always thought that Newt Gingrich was a smart guy. He taught college-level history, and his revisionist history of the crucial battle of the Civil War, "Gettysburg," is surprisingly well-done. His 1994 "Contract with America" was a brilliant piece of political showmanship that helped the Republicans win the House for the first time in decades. He has also made a point of thinking creatively about America's political problems. He has been useful as a devil's advocate, often looking at problems from a different viewpoint and offering creative new approaches.

None of this suggests that he should be president of the United States. In addition to his sharp, creative mind, Gingrich has had a wide streak of self-righteousness, and, unfortunately, his self-righteous streak might be more character-shaping than his intellect. He has also made a habit of saying what he's thinking before fully thinking it through and, thereby, saying some outlandish things. Take, for example, his rejoinder after catching some flak after criticizing Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan: “Any ad which quotes what I said Sunday is a falsehood.”

And now, sanctimonious and short-tempered as ever, Gingrich is claiming the $250,000 to $500,000 he and his third wife (count 'em) owed Tiffany's is just a normal, everyday payment for a "frugal" couple who live within their means and always pay on time. The Washington Post digs into the debt a bit and finds more than gold dust.

Gingrich is a smart guy, but he shouldn't be president. And with his foot in his mouth like that, it will be hard for him to keep in the running.

After 1967 war, Israel had another option

If only history would offer a do-over, one of the world's most troublesome dilemmas might have been long-ago resolved. Unfortunately, history offers no mulligans.

President Obama's Thursday speech, aiming to respond to Arab demands for more democratic governments and to reset the Arab-Israeli conflict brought to mind a missed opportunity, perhaps the greatest missed opportunity of the 20th century. In the aftermath of the Six-Day War, the 44th anniversary of which we will celebrate next month, Israel looked invincible. Facing invasion from all sides by a coalition of Arab armies, Israeli Defense Forces struck first, pushing Syria off the Golan Heights overlooking northern Israel, shoving Jordanian soldiers back to the Jordan River, and halting their rout of Egyptian forces only at the Suez Canal. It was perhaps the most convincing military victory of the century. There was unrealistic talk that the Israeli Army was so good it might defeat the United States or the Soviet Union. The Arab nations that had planned to annihilate Israel from the map of the world were humiliated, and Israel celebrated what looked like a final victory over their adversaries.

Israel, as conquering armies usually do, held onto its newly captured lands. Israel reunited a divided Jerusalem and declared it, not Tel-Aviv, its new capital. Israel claimed former Jordanian territory all the way to the west bank of the Jordan River and openly discussed annexing the area as its rightful claim. Israel held power in the Gaza Strip, a narrow tract of land populated by entrenched refugees from an Arab-Israeli war two decades earlier. And Israel controlled the vast Sinai peninsula all the way to the western bank of the strategically and economically important Suez Canal. Israel, a tiny country, had multiplied its territory several-fold in just six days. Who could blame the Israelis for gloating a little?

But Israel's holding onto the West Bank, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and the Sinai gave rise to the next episode in the Arab-Israeli conflict — the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, an era of Arab terrorism and the demands for a separate Palestinian nation, the so-called two-state solution. Although Israel signed peace agreements with Egypt (returning the Sinai) and Jordan, its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank has engendered the terrorism-backed demands for a separate Palestinian state.

What if Israel had pursued a different course? What if Israel, instead of occupying the territories it had won fair-and-square, had chosen instead to pull back its armies and give back the lands it had conquered? Had Israel returned the West Bank (or at least substantial portions of it, keeping only East Jerusalem) to Jordan and turned over Gaza (along with Sinai) to Egypt, the Palestinian problem of the last 44 years would have been Jordan's and Egypt's, not Israel's. The West Bank had been captured from Jordan. Why not give it back, in return for a peace treaty? Likewise, Gaza could be given to Egypt to govern, along with all of Sinai. Palestinians such as Yasser Arafat could clamor for Palestinian independence, but their fight would be with the Arab rulers of Jordan and Egypt, not with Israel.

In hindsight, Israel would have been better off giving back its captured territory than keeping it with all of the turmoil and terror it brought. But hindsight, as they say, is always 20-20.

'Shiloh Rules' proves the past is still here

My review of "Shiloh Rules," which opened last Friday night at the Lauren Kennedy and Alan Campbell Theater at Barton College as part of the Theater of the American South:

“The past is not dead,” William Faulkner famously said. “In fact, it’s not even past.” Doris Baizley’s “Shiloh Rules,” the second installment of the 2011 Theater of the American South, proves Faulkner’s point: The past is always with us.

How much more with us could the past be than among a group of Civil War re-enactors on the Shiloh Battlefield National Park? “Shiloh Rules,” which opened Friday night, brings together six women — two Union re-enactors, two Confederate re-enactors, a Park Service ranger and a merchant of Civil War history — on one stormy night before the re-enactment of the decisive 1862 battle. All six women wrestle with history and identity and try to make sense of their callings.

Lighting director Liz Droessler, scenic designer Chris Bernier and sound designer Chris Droessler take full advantage of the “black box” style of the Lauren Kennedy and Alan Campbell Theater at Barton College. The audience flanks the stage on three sides, and entrances and exits come from all directions. Artillery fire, thunder and lightning are real enough to make audience members jump. Chirping crickets set the opening scene.

Jane Holding as enigmatic Southern refugee Cecelia Pettison stands out among uniformly strong performances by the entire cast. Pettison is more of an anachronism than a re-enactor, a woman firmly planted in the 19^th century with an 1860s view of the world. Holding’s Southern accent is pitch-perfect, a drawl that never drags as she scathingly berates the Yankees who “come down here to kill our loved ones.” Her “Well, I declare!” could have been uttered by many audience members’ grandmothers. The characters and cast are left to wonder whether Cecelia is some sort of ghost or spirit. “Modern does not exist for her,” says the Widow Beckwith, a woman who has found a way to make a living off of “living history.”

Pettison’s counterpart is Clara May Abbott of the Massachusetts Soldier Aid Society, convincingly played by Mary Rowland, who is coaching Meg Barton, played by Hilary Edwards, on the fine art of re-enacting — and planting one’s brain in 1862. Edwards’ offstage scream is enough to silence a rebel yell. Likewise, Pettison is teaching Lucygale Scruggs, played by Leanne Horton Heintz, to ignore everything she knows that happened after 1862.

Into this schoolroom of historical fantasy comes the Widow Beckwith, played by Bonnie K. Allison Gould, and Park Ranger Wilson, played by Barbette Hunter. Officer Wilson tries to enforce the 21^st century rules while 1862 is happening all around her. Widow Beckwith finds ways to bend the rules to her commercial benefit. Things get out of hand just as Officer Wilson is trying to enforce the rules against overnight camping on the battlefield. The characters confront a past that is never really past with all its racial overtones, cultural differences and violence, sparking some angry words and some scary moments as they play by Shiloh Rules.

These serious aspects are leavened with large doses of humor about the anachronisms of re-enacting events that happened 150 years ago. The re-enactment gets out of hand, just as the real fighting did 150 years ago. The result is powerful and enjoyable theater that combines serious social issues about the ways we perceive history with entertaining humor lines. “Shiloh Rules” fits well into the theater festival’s focus on the Civil War as the conflict’s sesquicentennial begins.

—Hal Tarleton

Social Security is part of the deficit now

This year's federal budget deficit is projected at around $1.4 trillion, and that number is getting the attention of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Even the most liberal of economists agree that deficits of that magnitude are unsustainable. The United States' credit standing might be in jeopardy if serious efforts to reduce the deficit are not undertaken quickly.

All that is old news, but one aspect of the deficit is not getting much attention. Part of the deficit consists of shortfalls in Social Security funding and the nation's obligation to repay money borrowed from the Social Security Trust Funds. In 2010, Social Security benefits exceeded Social Security taxes by about $49 billion. That's a tiny percentage of $1.4 trillion, but it's a factor in the overall deficit that had been projected for decades. Had Congress acted 10 or 20 years ago, this shortfall could have been avoided relatively painlessly.

Social Security has always worked by transferring wealth from workers to retirees. Since 1983, Social Security had built up a huge surplus to meet projected obligations when the baby boom generation began retiring. That day of reckoning is upon us, and Social Security revenues are no longer sufficient to pay promised benefits. Moreover, the billions of dollars that had been borrowed from Social Security have to be repaid, and those notes are coming due. For years, Social Security revenues have obscured the magnitude of the federal budget deficit as those excess revenues were spent for government operations. Those borrowed funds would have to be repaid through higher taxes, but no plan was in place to produce those revenues.

Now, America has a crippling budget deficit and no plan to balance the budget. Even Rep. Paul Ryan's austere budget proposal would only reduce the deficit over the next deficit; it would not produce a budget surplus, like the one we had in 2001. Contrary to what some politicians are claiming, Social Security is part of the deficit problem because its obligations exceed its revenues and the money borrowed from Social Security has to be repaid from other taxes.