Social Security: Lifetime Annuity Vouchers Offer Simple Solution

The Social Security debate is far more confusing than it needs to be. This is largely because voters are not clear about what they want the program to accomplish.

Policymakers have tried to use Social Security to pursue a variety of goals. The current program includes mechanisms to redistribute income (a left liberal objective). Now the Bush administration wants to reform the program to help build an "ownership society". Some view Social Security as a mechanism for rewarding hard work. Though these goals all have merit, the Social Security program is just not the right place to address them, as I will explain.

The issue becomes much simpler if we narrow down our focus to the core purpose of the program - guaranteeing a minimum income that keeps Americans out of poverty in their retirement years.

KEEPING OUR PROMISES

The proposal I discuss should not apply to current retirees - or those scheduled to start getting benefits in the next 20 years. I believe they should get annuities that will pay them the benefits they have already earned under the current rules. Unlike under current law, Americans should have a property right to these benefits.

Would this increase the national debt? On paper, yes, dramatically. But that's only because we don't count existing promised benefits as a legal debt - only a moral or political one. The left liberal argument that privatization would increase the national debt only has any force if one is willing to break the system's existing promises - which left liberals aren't - or shouldn't be - willing to consider.

LIFETIME ANNUITIES

There is a straightforward way to provide a minimum income during the last years of life. Provide every American with a voucher of a certain value, to be cashed in to a private insurance company in exchange for a lifetime annuity. These annuities (already available in the private market) would pay a fixed, inflation-adjusted income for the rest of the beneficiary's life.

The voucher could only be cashed in for an annuity that would pay a certain minimum income, not less than the poverty level - say $12,000 per year. Since it pays for life, the cost of a lifetime annuity is based on the beneficiary's life expectancy. So if everyone gets the same value voucher, everyone will be able to cash in their voucher with about the same number of years of life expectancy remaining.

This means that your Social Security retirement age would depend on your life expectancy. In other words, everyone gets about the same level of benefits for about the same number of years. This is much fairer than the current system, which penalizes those who are unlucky enough to die young - and these are disproportionately the poor and African-Americans.

Social Security benefits would be universal and not based on work history, so there would be no bias against stay-at-home parents. Immigrants would start becoming eligible for a portion of the benefits after perhaps 5 or 10 years in the United States and acheive full eligibility after perhaps 20 or 30 years.

Once the minimum income criterion is met, any excess value of the voucher could be used to buy additional benefits - including cash up front, if the beneficiary desires. Thus, for example, a person with a terminal illness and very short life expectancy would be able to get a large sum to spend immediately - and still be eligible for a gauranteed permanent income if they are fortunate enough to survive.

The voucher values could be set at perhaps $150,000 or $200,000 to provide the minimum benefit for ten or more years. This is far less than the average total value of benefits current retirees are scheduled to recieve - $400,000. So this is a far less expensive version of Social Security.

Of course, average benefit levels would be lower - but then, future Americans would ultimately have more after-tax income to invest as they choose. Retirement planning should be primarily left to the individual, with government only stepping in to gaurantee a minimum level of security.

SOCIAL SECURITY'S OTHER GOALS

The system I suggest does incidentally redistribute income from the wealthy to the poor, simply because it provides the same value of benefits to everyone, while the wealthy contribute more tax dollars.

As for creating an ownership society, that is simply not the proper role of what is essentially a social welfare program. An ownership society is founded on property rights, which fortunately we already have. Forcing people to invest part of their income in certain proscribed investments, as the Bush proposal would, does not foster an ownership society. It merely confuses the proper roles of the free market and the welfare state. Investment should be truly a matter of free choice. Government intervention merely impedes the efficiency of the market.

However, the lifetime annuity vouchers I propose should be a contractual obligation on the government and should be issued at age 18 to eliminate the uncertainty that surrounds retirement planning under the current system. Currently many young adults don't believe Social Security will be there for them when they retire - and certainly they can't be sure of benefit levels.

Rewarding work, again, is a function of the free market, not government programs. When government tries to reward private sector work, it inevitaby distorts the incentive structure. For example, if Social Security benefits are calculated to reward lower-income workers, this could push stay-at-home parents into low wage jobs when their work at home would actually be more valuable.

CLARITY ON GOALS

To find the best policy we must be clear on the goal. The current debate is marked by a lack of clarity on the goals of Social Security. By focusing narrowly on the goal of providing a minimum income to Americans during retirment years, it is possible to find a fairly simple solution - a lifetime annuity voucher of equal value being issued to every American.

Just Because You're Paranoid . . .

"Conspiracy Theories" Miss the Point

TallahasseJoe

"Just because you're parnoid don't mean they're not after you." This lyric from the rock band Nirvana sums up my feeling about the current swirl of vote fraud allegations arising from the 2004 presidential elections, promoted largely on left liberal blogs and mostly ignored by the mainstream press.

PREVENT FRAUD - DON'T WAIT FOR PROOF OF IT

Many of the accusations and "conspiracy theories" being bandied about may turn out to be false. There may not be evidence to support the claim that John Kerry should have won the election. But that doesn't mean we have a reliable, fraud-proof voting system. And it doesn't mean we should stop fighting for one.

Black Box Voting (blackboxvoting.org) has pointed out the ease with which fraud can be perpetrated with the electronic voting systems currently used in the swing states Ohio and Florida as well as many other states. Bev Harris, the organization's Executive Director, details the stunning flaws in these systems in her book, Black Box Voting, which can be read for free online.

The Founding Fathers understood that "power corrupts". They didn't write the Constitution with the premise that leaders can basically be trusted and we should wait around until there is proof of wrongdoing to question a leader's authority. Instead, the Founding Fathers built a clever system of checks and balances to prevent wrongdoing from happening in the first place. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than monarchy.

We should apply the same principle of checks and balances to our voting systems. Electronic voting may be appropriate - but it should come with a paper trail as a check against electronic fraud. And the computer programs involved should use open source code so that any programmer can check it for flaws.

Similarly, if we are going to have partisan elections officials, they should be kept in check by independent observers at every stage of the voting and vote-counting process.

"SMOKING GUN" MAY BE RED HERRING

What strategy should activists use to pursue electoral reforms? One tactic is to look for shocking evidence of fraud in the 2004 election - a "smoking gun" that will convince America of the need for reform. This might work - but it might backfire big time.

If activists think they've found a smoking gun and it turns out to be a hoax, the reform movement could be discredited. And unsubstantiated accusations against Republican officials by left liberal activists make electoral reform look like a "sour grapes" issue touted by "conspiracy theorists". Activists should follow the lead of Black Box Voting and portray electoral reform as the non-partisan issue it truly is.

The current allegations range from old-fashioned voter intimidation at the polls to newfangled electronic voting fraud.

Outstanding among recent "conspiracy theories" is the accusation made by computer programmer Clinton Curtis against U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) that Mr. Feeney asked Mr. Curtis to write software to facilitate vote fraud and "control the vote in South Florida".

Mr. Curtis has made his allegations in a detailed sworn affidavit and has repeated them in testimony before a forum held in Columbus Ohio by the Democrats of the House Judiciary Committee. Brad Blog, the news and opinion web site which broke the Curtis-Feeney story, has posted a video of part of Mr. Curtis' testimony.

At this point it seems to be a matter of Mr. Curtis' word against Mr. Feeney's. If the charges are true, Mr. Curtis deserves a great deal of credit for his courage. If the charges are false, of course, it is Mr. Feeney who deserves our sympathy.

My purpose here is not to evaluate the truth of Mr. Curtis' claims. My purpose is to point out that the truth of Mr. Curtis' claims is irrelevant to the electoral reform movement. Even if Mr. Curtis' claims, and others like them, are completely false, the fact remains that fraud like the kind Mr. Curtis describes could happen. And we can't take that kind of chance with our democracy.

Electoral reform advocates should distance themselves from allegations such as Mr. Curtis', at least until there is airtight evidence that the allegations are true. Otherwise, advocates risk being discredited as "the boy who cried wolf" when the allegations are not supported.

In one way, the issue of voting fraud is just like the issue of terrorism. We know we can't afford to wait around until terrorists attack and then address the issue. We have to do everything possible to prevent the attacks from happening in the first place.

Preventing voting fraud is just as important. In both cases, it is our very democracy that is at stake.

Libertarian Badnarik Hints Fraud May Have Swung Election

Exit Polls Pointed to Kerry

The Libertarian Party's 2004 presidential candidate, Micheal Badnarik, has hinted in a post on the party's web site that Sen. John Kerry(D-MA) may have been the legitimate victor in the election. Libertarians are not typically allied with Democrats or left liberals. Though socially liberal, Mr. Badnarik and his party are fiscally ultra-conservative and strongly oppose gun control.

According to Mr. Badnarik, "The phenomenon that is most damaging, in my point of view, is that for 20 years now, the media have been doing exit polls and using that information to project who was going to win that election," he said.

"And because people leaving the polling places are typically very candid, the exit polls have historically been within 1 percent of the actual vote totals.

"Now, all of a sudden in this election, the exit polls and the vote totals differ by a significant amount -- and the talking heads on television are looking at it and wondering why the exit polls were wrong in this election. From what I can see, there's no reason to believe the exit polls were wrong, and fairly good reasons to believe that it was the election process that was faulty."

Mr. Badnarik and David Cobb, the 2004 presidential candidate for the left liberal Green Party have sought a recount of the Ohio vote.

Programmer Claims He Made Vote-Fraud Software at House Member's Request

Electronic Vote Fraud Scheme Alleged

TallahasseeJoe

Computer programmer Clinton Curtis has claimed in a sworn affidavit that in fall of 2000, Tom Feeney, then corporate counsel and lobbyist to Yang Enterprises, Inc. and now the U.S. Representative from Florida's 24th district, asked Mr. Curtis to write computer software that would facilitate vote fraud with electronic voting systems, according to a reports by Brad Blog.

Mr. Curtis' detailed affidavit recounts a tale of intrigue that includes Chinese espionage and one man's violent death - ruled a suicide - with hints of foul play.

The web site of Yang Enterprises, Inc. calls Mr. Curtis' claims "%100 false" and promises that an "official statement" is forthcoming.

Mr. Curtis' allegations seem to have eluded mainstream media coverage, as searches today of the online archives of The New York Times, Washington Post, Tallahassee Democrat, and Miami Herald failed to reveal any relevant articles.

The Right is Right - About Some Things

The Future of the Left

TallahasseeJoe

The Left is going through an identity crisis right now.

This is nothing new. The Left (like the Right) has gone through several stages. The original Left was actually a bunch of capitalists who wanted to be free from the power of monarchs and feudal lords (the original Right). Then these capitalists became the Right.

The next phase of the Left was old fashioned socialism - the idea that "the people" or "the proletariat" should control all or at least most of society's productive resources - thus eliminating "exploitation" by capitalists.

The problem with this is that "the people" translates into "government" (often, ironically, a dictatorship) and governments are terribly inefficient at allocating resources compared to the market. So socialists pretty much faded into history. (The "democratic socialists" of Europe are completely different and don't usually advocate state ownership of productive resources.)

The next phase of the Left was left liberalism. This is where the American Left is now, and where it has been since the New Deal. The basic idea of left liberalism is a free market with some major exceptions.

You get to do what you want with your land until - oops, there's an endangered species on it. You just lost your property rights.

You get to sell whatever kind of guns you want until - oops, somebody got killed by one. You just became liable after the fact.

You get to charge whatever you want for medical services until - oops, somebody shows up with an emergency and can't pay - you have to take care of them for free.

My point is that left liberalism addresses real problems - but it does so without enough respect for individual rights and incentive structures.


WHAT'S NEXT FOR THE LEFT?

The next phase of the Left (I hope) will be a Left that continues to acknowledge a proper role for government in funding education, in guaranteeing basic health care, and in protecting the environment, among other areas. However, this Left will respect individual rights (including property rights), free markets, and incentive structures.

If private property is to be used for a public purpose (such as environmental protection), the owners will have to agree and receive compensation.

If certain basic services (such as medical care) are to be universally available, this will be explicitly paid for with tax dollars rather than implicitly imposed through unfunded mandates.

If private firms are to be held responsible for the consequences of their products, this will be made explicit in advance through legislation, not determined after the fact by the whim of a jury.

The Right has correctly pointed out major problems in left liberal philosophy. For too long, the Left has had deaf ears to these legitimate criticisms. However, I do not believe the Right has offered a viable alternative so far.

The Left has a lot of work to do to offer its own compelling and unifying vision of American society. It's not good enough for Democratic leaders to appeal to their traditional constituencies. Democratic leaders must reach out to new constituencies - not by compromising the party's principles but by finding more effective and persuasive ways of implementing those principles.

With all these changes, it might seem that "Right" and "Left" are merely arbitrary labels without common themes to define each of them. I do not think that is quite correct.

The Left has always been concerned with ameliorating the evils of arbitrary or over-concentrated power, whether in the form of hereditary elites, racial hierarchy, or class stratification. The Right, on the other hand, has always been concerned with preserving tradition and resisting excessive change.

The Left and the Right each has a valuable role to play - though in a sense, it is the Left that must always lead society into the future.

Voting Reforms Little Help to Poor: MIT Study

Easy Voting No Easy Answer

TallahasseeJoe

Electoral reforms enacted over the past thirty years to make voting easier have unexpectedly reinforced biases in favor or the well-educated and well-off, a new study suggests. The author urges electoral reformers to shift focus from institutional changes to encouraging political engagement.

The 2004 study, conducted by Adam J. Berinsky of the Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT), was published in the journal American Politics Research, Vol. 31, No. 10.

Reform advocacy groups like Common Cause note that less advantaged citizens are less likely to vote, and often argue that this reflects the "direct costs" of voting - the burden of actually getting to the polls amid the responsibilities of jobs and childcare.

Voting by mail, early voting, and easy access to absentee ballots have all been introduced to make voting easier. These reforms were widely expected to increase voter turnout, to make the electorate more representative of the general population, and to benefit Democratic candidates over their Republican rivals.

But the MIT study, "The Perverse Effects of Electoral Reform in the United States" claims that these reforms "may have slightly increased turnout" but have ironically increased the socioeconomic biases of the electorate. Dr. Berinsky bases his conclusions on a review of several empirical studies that examined voter turnout before and after the introduction of reforms.

Dr. Berinsky points out that the "direct costs" of getting to the polls are only half the story.

The deeper problem is that higher-income and better-educated voters tend to be more informed about and engaged in politics, an important part of why they are more likely to vote. It turns out that even these more privileged voters often miss an election - say, because they are sick or unexpectedly out of town on Election Day. But according to Dr. Berinsky, reforms like early voting make this group of voters less likely to miss elections for such superficial reasons.

Less privileged citizens, on the other hand, tend to be less interested in politics to begin with. Thus they may never vote at all - and the reforms do little to overcome their lack of interest.

"The true costs of participation lie not just in the expression of opinion but in the formation of political opinions . . . Certainly, making the act of participation as simple as possible is a worthy goal," Dr. Berinsky concludes, "but institutional reforms have taken us as far as they can toward a democratic electorate. . . we must focus reform efforts on increasing the engagement of the electorate with the political world . . ."

Greens, Libertarians Demand Ohio Recount

Minor Candidates Claim Impropriety

TallahasseeJoe

The Green and Libertarian parties are jointly demanding a recount of Ohio's presidential vote, claiming a number of irregularties.

According to a November 19 posting on the Ohio Green Party web site, "Attorneys for Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian Michael Badnarik have sent letters to each Ohio county election director asking them to begin preparations immediately for the recount of the presidential vote.

Although a demand for a recount is usually not made until after the vote has been certified, there are concerns that waiting that long would not allow enough time for the recount to be completed before the Ohio presidential electors meet on December 13 in Columbus.

The Ohio Secretary of State's office has told the press that certification of the vote would occur around December 6, allowing only a handful of days for a full recount prior to the December 13 meeting."

The posting links to an investigative report published on the political web site TomPaine.com claiming that Senator John Kerry was the legitimate winner in Ohio. A reversal of the Ohio outcome would give Mr. Kerry the presidency.

A statement on the web site of the Libertarian Party of Ohio, dated November 16, also notes the recount demand and suggests that Mr. Badnarik's campaign in particular was a target of impropriety, alleging that his name was inappropriately removed from the ballot in at least one Ohio precinct.

The statement acknowledges that the Libertarian Party does not expect to change the election result but hopes to draw attention to problems in Ohio election law.

Citing exit poll data that suggested a lead for Mr. Kerry, the TomPaine.com report attributes President George W. Bush's victory to "spoilage", the rejection of ballots by election officials - properly or improperly - on the basis of problems such as the "hanging" or "pregnant" chads that provoked controversy in the 2000 election. Spoilage routinely excludes about 3% of votes nationwide, according to the report.

Greg Palast, author of the report, suggests that Ohio election officials such as Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, may have used spoilage as a pretext for improperly excluding ballots cast for Mr. Kerry, thus pushing Mr. Bush to a narrow win.

The recount demand seems to have largely eluded the attention of mainstream newspapers. Searches of the online archives of The New York Times and The Washington Post for articles containing the word "Ohio" failed to reveal any headlines that mention the Green and Libertarian parties' claims.

Florida to Punish Kids for Schools' Failure

Failing Schools May Lose Funds

TallahasseeJoe

"Until now, schools that didn't do well enough on the FCAT had to watch as the state handed reward money to schools that did. But under a new state law that kicks in next year, schools could lose money if their students don't meet a range of goals, including higher test scores and improved graduation rates.", the St. Petersburg Times reported.

"By Dec. 1, the Florida Department of Education must submit a plan to the state Legislature that explains how it will tie funding to student performance. Under the new state law, at least 10 percent of state education dollars will hinge on how well students do. . . "

"But it's not clear what will happen to districts that fall short. The statute does not say whether funding will be cut or transferred, and who will make those decisions."

So if a school is failing - possibly because it is already underfunded - Florida's solution might be to cut that school's budget.

I do understand the need for accountability, and I'm not at all happy with our current system of public education. But cutting a school's budget ultimately punishes the kids - not the administrators.

TIME FOR REAL REFORM - SCHOOL CHOICE

There's a very simple way to make schools accountable. It's called school choice.

Let all parents decide what school to send their kids to (as long as the schools meet very basic minimum requirements), and let the state provide a voucher for the tuition. Students with special needs such as learning disabilities would get larger voucher amounts.

Local districts could still operate public schools the way they do now, but they'd have to compete with privately run schools for students and therefore for state funding. Schools - public or private - that couldn't attract enough students would go out of business. Meanwhile, educators with innovative ideas could appeal directly to parents instead of trying to sway politicians and bureaucrats.

The result would be highly customized schools for students with different learning styles and interests. One student would go to an arts-centered school, another to a school with a science theme. We do have such opportunities in Florida's public schools -but only for a small percentage of kids.

Of course, all kids should be required to learn the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic, and the states could still set these basic standards in a school choice framework.

CHOICE IN FLORIDA

A very limited form of choice is already part of Florida's education policy. Currently, if a Florida public school receives two grades of "F" from the state within a four year period, then the school is considered chronically failing and students are entitled to a voucher that can be used at other public or private schools.

A study by the Manhattan Institute shows that the more directly Florida schools were threatened with this competition from vouchers, the more their students improved on FCAT scores. Schools where students were already eligible for vouchers improved the most.

So competition does lead to improvement. Why not extend the same incentive to all Florida schools, instead of waiting till they hit rock bottom?

In the mean time, the worst of all possible worlds would be what Florida's threatening now - to cut funding to failing schools while leaving disadvantaged students stuck in them.

LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES BOTH HAVE IT WRONG

Old-fashioned left liberals often dislike the idea of school choice. They've even turned "vouchers" into a dirty word. Even the center-left progressives at the Democratic Leadership Council disparage "conservative choiceniks" while pushing to "expand choice and innovation within public [read: government-controlled] education".

Why should government have a monopoly on education? Why should local districts get to decide how many and what type of charter schools to allow? Are bureaucrats in Washington, in Tallahassee, or even at the local school district really in a better position to decide what's good for kids than the kids' own parents are?

Ironically, the Republicans, who used to talk about abolishing the federal Department of Education and leaving schooling up to the states, are responsible for the No Child Left Behind Act, a wasteful invasion of Washington bureaucracy into every public school in America.

Senator John Kerry could have pointed out this irony during his presidential campaign and called for repealing No Child Left Behind. Kerry could have proposed bold reforms to empower states, local communities, and families - generous federal funding with virtually no strings attached.

Mr. Kerry might also have brought up the the education funding gap that hurts America's poor communities. Despite the rhetoric of "compassionate conservatism" and the inaptly named No Child Left Behind Act, schools in high-poverty districts get an average of $1,348 less per student per year than those in low-poverty districts.

This funding gap takes into account all federal, state, and local funds. The idea that federal funds make up for local disparities is a myth. The federal government could help fix this by fine-tuning the formula it uses to distribute education dollars to the states.

But instead of bringing up these issues, Mr. Kerry simply proposed "fully funding" Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, apparently without otherwise changing it. In other words, he fell into the old liberal trap of trying to fix a mistake by funding it better.

BIG BROTHER KNOWS BEST?

The current push by "conservative" Republicans for federally mandated testing and "accountability" seems to me a natural outgrowth of the liberal big government philosophy. If government is going to run schools then government has to have some bureaucratic system to decide how well schools are doing. Enter the FCAT and similar tests.

The research shows that if schools have to compete for funds on the basis of the FCAT test, then students improve their FCAT scores. No surprise there. But that raises a deeper question: Does a standardized test like the FCAT really measure what's important about education? That's hard to say, especially since the questions that have appeared on past FCATs are kept secret.

But in any case the answer depends on what you think kids should be learning. And I think that should be left mainly up to parents - not to politicians and bureaucrats.

It's time for progressives to offer a real alternative to the old conservative-liberal paradigm. America's schools deserve generous public funding - but parents should call the shots on how the money gets spent.

A Day to Honor our Heroes - and Remember our Responsibility to Them

Veterans Day

TallahasseeJoe

November 11 is Veterans Day, a day to remember the heroism of the men and women who have made our freedom possible.

As President George W. Bush reminded us in his Veterans Day proclamation, "Americans live in freedom because of our veterans' courage, dedication to duty, and love of country."

Today, all Americans, regardless of their political perspective, should take a moment to reflect on the brave dedication of the soldiers who have lost their lives, or are currently risking their lives, in military service. Without noble sacrifices of this kind, our open discussion could never take place.

This very day, many Americans died in our nation's effort to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. If this effort succeeds, as we all hope it will, it will be our soldiers and the Iraqi soldiers fighting alongside them who deserve the credit for victory, as it is they who are paying the price for it.

If, on the other hand, any aspect of our nation's policy is misguided or poorly planned, our soldiers cannot be blamed in any way. Instead it will be the rest of us Americans, those who remain behind in peace and comfort, who will bear the full responsibility of our nation's errors. For it is we who have had the opportunity to consider and debate our course of action, and we who have elected the leaders that determine that course.

All Americans, and especially those (such as myself) who have been critical of the President's policy on Iraq, should ask themselves:

Have we done our best to educate ourselves and each other about the situation in Iraq?

Have we done all we could to understand the arguments both for and against the war?

Have we made a point of reaching out to those we disagree with and engaging them in genuine discussions on U.S. policy?

In a democracy, where our votes can determine our future, such discussions are a matter of war and peace, of freedom and oppression, of life and death.

I hope you might consider a contribution to Disabled American Veterans (DAV), which provides free professional assistance to veterans and their families in securing earned government benefits. This organization meets Better Business Bureau (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance Standards for Charity Accountability. (View BBB report on DAV.)

Think America's shifting to the right? Think again.

Drifting Right? Wrong!

"The United States is a moderate to conservative country," one journalist firmly concluded in the wake of the recent election, noting President George W. Bush's narrow win as evidence of a national "drift to the right".

Whoa. Hold on.

Didn't the Democratic Party just run John Kerry, a Massachussets liberal who protested the Vietnam War, against an incumbent war president?

Doesn't John Kerry have the most liberal voting record in the Senate?

Didn't John Kerry promise to raise taxes on the rich, increase federal funding of education and health care, and end the expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal?

And didn't John Kerry get 48% of the popular vote?

And didn't another 1% go to Ralph Nader, an even more liberal candidate?

So let me get this straight - 49% of the vote went to blatant liberals and all of a sudden we live in a "moderate to conservative country" drifting inevitably to the right? Help me out here - I don't get it.

Of course, Mr. Bush is claiming a "mandate" and many in the media are parroting that claim - even though Mr. Bush's margin of victory was the slimmest for an incumbent since 1916.

Fortunately, Americans know better. In a Gallup poll Wednesday night, only 30 percent agreed with the statement that Mr. Bush "has a mandate to advance the Republican Party's agenda." Nearly two-thirds - 63 percent - said he should "emphasize programs that both parties support."

What I think is that the priorities of Mr. Bush and the neoconservatives are totally out of line with the priorities of most Americans.

I think the Democrats lost because they still haven't done a good enough job of getting our message across to Middle America.

Don't believe me? Before you throw in the towel and move to Canada, consider the following:

In April of these year, 63% of Americans thought that high-income individuals were paying too little in taxes. In 2003, in a FOX poll (yes, FOX!) 61% said the Bush tax cuts had not helped their family.

Just this month (November 2004!), an Associated Press poll found 66% of Americans would rather balance the budget than cut taxes. And in the same poll, 55% said they would rather spend more on "education, health care, and economic development" than balance the budget.

So most Americans feel education and health care programs are important, tax cuts are a low priority, and the rich should pay more.

Wait - wasn't it John Kerry who wanted to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act, extend health insurance to 95% of Americans, and repeal the tax cut on the highest income bracket?

Mr. Bush, on the other hand, has made it a top priority to make his tax cuts permanent. Meanwhile he's run up the biggest deficit in real dollars since - well, since Ronald Reagan.

So how did Mr. Bush hold on to the White House? Was it the guns issue? We sure love our guns, don't we?

Well, remember that assault rifle ban that Mr. Bush quietly let expire under pressure from the National Rifle Association? 71% of Americans favored continuing the ban, in a Harriss poll taken just before the expiration.

The same month, 60% favored "stricter gun control". Gallup polls each year from 2001-2004 consistently found that 15% or less of Americans wanted "less strict" gun laws.

What about abortion? It is true that Americans are deeply divided on this issue, with 44% saying they are "more pro-choice" and 47% "more pro-life", with fairly similar splits for various other ways of framing the issue. But these numbers haven't changed much in polls going back several years - there is no clear trend in either direction.

And, 66% of Americans support a woman's right to have an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, according to a 2003 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. An Associated Press poll just after the recent election showed that 61% support upholding the Roe v. Wade decision.

I wonder how many of these people are aware that the Republican Party Platform (p. 84) calls for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion nationwide, with no exceptions. And Mr. Bush, who is very much in debt to the Religious Right for his re-election, has defended that part of the Republican platform.

So why did George W. Bush take the White House? And what can Democrats do better?

Click here for some ideas about what went wrong.

Click here for some proposals for how Democrats can go on the offensive even as the minority party.

Please post your comments.