Now that the dust has settled in the Safeway parking lot in Tucson, and we are falling all over each other to blame the horrific shooting on a deranged, lone gunman as opposed to placing the blame of such a despicable act on a political environment that is fraught with vicious, vitriolic and venomous discourse consisting of marching with signs that depict President Obama as the devil; or as a socialist Muslim; or right wing celebrities like Glenn Beck insisting that President Obama’s only problem is that he just “doesn’t like white people” which when you think about it means he didn’t like his own mother or grandparents. Now that we have done this and have all agreed to be nicer to one another, Republican lawmakers in the United States Congress, reinforced with newly minted Tea Party allies, have placed an assault on healthcare reform at the top of their agenda, planning to put a repeal of the new federal law to a vote, possibly as early as next week.
The reality is that at least for the present, repeal is unlikely to succeed, even if the repeal action passes in the House. Everyone from the most rabid Tea Partier to the most stubborn liberal understands that the effort to repeal would at the very least, have trouble clearing the Senate, and even if there was success in the Senate, President Obama would in the end, veto it.
I think the Republicans real strategy is to gain enough momentum so as to undermine support for healthcare reform in the 50 State Legislatures around the country, while in the interim, eviscerate the bill by gutting smaller provisions and ultimately clear the way for totally killing reform in a hoped for 2012 Republican administration.
That said, this new GOP offensive against healthcare reform also provides a golden opportunity for Democrats and their allies to present the benefits of healthcare reform once again to Americans, making a much stronger case now that some of the more popular provisions of the law went into effect on January 1st such as regulations that forbid co-pays on preventative care; compel insurance companies to invest a higher percentage of premiums received on real medical care and provide some Medicare beneficiaries with a 50 percent discount on prescription medicines.
What truly concerns me however is that the Democratic Party seems to be traveling on all too familiar ground by promising to pull out all the stops on defending healthcare reform, but as is usual with Democrats, they have up to now failed to do even the simple things, such as demonstrating how Republicans are totally committed to take such just won benefits as described above away from Americans. What seems to be coming out of the Democratic caucus instead is a lot of whining about how Republicans are simply “wasting their time” with their repeal efforts. There is simply no way to avoid healthcare reform debate at this point, so failing to address the real consequences of repeal only allows the Republicans, their Tea Party allies, and right wing talk media, the ability to once again dominate the discussion.
One critical concern we should all share is that if enacted, the House Republican’s repeal effort would increase the deficit by approximately $230 billion through 2021. This startling revelation comes directly from the always non-partisan Congressional Budget Office whose Director Douglas Elmendorf just this past week wrote to new House Speaker John Boehner. In his letter to Boehner, Elmendorf explained this astonishing phenomenon this way: “The March health care legislation contained a set of provisions designed to expand health insurance coverage, which CBO and [Joint Committee on Taxation] estimated would have a gross cost of about $930 billion and a net cost (after accounting for certain related changes in outlays and revenues) of about $780 billion over the 2012-2019 period. Repealing that legislation would eliminate such costs. But [the health care legislation] also included a number of provisions to reduce federal outlays (primarily for Medicare) and to increase federal revenues (mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance payroll tax and imposing fees on certain manufacturers and insurers); in March, CBO and JCT estimated that those provisions unrelated to insurance coverage would, on balance, reduce direct spending by about $500 billion and increase revenues by about $410 billion over the 2012-2019 period. If that legislation was repealed, such reductions in spending and increases in revenues would not occur. Thus, H.R. 2 would, on net, increase federal deficits over that period."
Mr. Elmendorf also adds in his letter to the Speaker that enacting repeal “would increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. For the decade beginning after 2021, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a share of the economy would probably be somewhat larger."
Consequently, the actual long-term cost of this repeal could reach $1.2 trillion while simultaneously 32 million fewer non-elderly people would have health insurance in 2019 if the law is repealed. This would reduce the total percentage of non-elderly Americans covered from 94 percent if the legislation is allowed to stay in place to 83 percent if healthcare reform is repealed. Worse still is that premiums for employment-based coverage from large employers would be slightly higher if the law is repealed and benefits would be correspondingly reduced.
A truly scary development is the number of states that have sued in federal court to nullify the healthcare legislation as unconstitutional. What makes this truly frightening is that the proponents of this effort acknowledge that they are targeting more than healthcare reform. Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s attorney general, has led that state’s legal challenge and has already won a victory in lower court that has labeled the requirement of people to purchase healthcare insurance if they are able to or be “fined” for not doing so as unconstitutional. In a recent speech before the Heritage Foundation, Cuccinelli admitted that healthcare was “secondary to the real important aspect of the case and that is to protect the Constitution as we essentially define the outer limits of federal power.”
What is particularly dangerous about these lawsuits however is a kind of radical constitutional theorizing that is driving them. These lawsuits are if nothing else, an all-out attack on the legal thinking and jurisprudence that has existed since the 1930s. And while the lawsuits themselves may not pose any immediate threat to federal healthcare reform, they could ultimately help to turn out conservative voters in 2012, especially when support for the repeal of healthcare reform is on the ballot and thus becomes a kind of litmus test for voters.
Getting back to my original point—now is an excellent time to get out and market the benefits of healthcare reform and at the risk of working from a totally negative perspective, impress upon the American electorate the absolute nightmare that would result should this reform be repealed. Now is the time to make the case that government needs to be in the business of providing healthcare reform, environmental protection and Social Security. Do we really want to go back to the days when there was no protection for our environment or there was no Social Security? Do we really want to go back to allowing our healthcare to be dictated totally by market forces? I think not.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
We Reap What We Sow
On January 12, 2011, presumptive 2012 Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who had been silent since the horrific Tucson shootings that had taken the lives of six people including a nine-year old girl and wounded 13 others including Arizona U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords issued a vigorous condemnation of her critics on Wednesday in a video accusing her detractors of “blood libel” in what she referred to as their rush to blame a hostile environment of political discourse across America for the Arizona massacre.
“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” the ex-Vice Presidential nominee said in a seven and a half minute video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
Ms. Palin’s use of a map with cross hairs hovering over a number of swing districts, including that of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, has become a symbol of the vitriolic political discourse that she and other conservative politicos, journalists and bloggers have denied exists in America today. Tim Pawlenty, a conservative rival for the 2012 Republican nomination and the former governor of Minnesota has said that he would not have produced such a map.
Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” is what has rocked the political world however. The term blood libel has been historically used to refer to the accusation that Jews throughout history have murdered Christian children and have then used their blood in religious rituals, as well as in preparing matzos (unleavened bread) for Passover and other meals. That false claim was circulated and widely believed for centuries and was responsible for the successful prosecution of anti-Semitism and the justification for violent pogroms against Jews. Ms. Palin’s use of the phrase in her video is one reason that it went viral so rapidly. Its use has itself attracted criticism, not the least because Congresswoman Giffords who remains in critical condition, is herself Jewish.
Reaction to Sarah Palin’s video has been swift. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat lawmaker in Florida, who is also a close friend of Ms. Giffords, immediately issued a statement repudiating her use of the phrase “blood libel.”
“Palin’s comments either show a complete ignorance of history, or blatant anti-Semitism,” said Jonathan Beeton, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s spokesperson. “Either way, it shows an appalling lack of sensitivity given Representative Gifford’s faith and the events of the past week.”
As if to prove just how wrong Sarah Palin and her fellow conservatives-in-denial are regarding the present state of political discourse in America today, the conservative blogger Michelle Malkin rushed to the defense of Ms. Palin, accusing liberals of being “Tucson massacre opportunists” for criticizing her. “The blamestream media is already up in arms—can we still say that?—over the use of the phrase ‘blood libel’, Ms. Malkin wrote. “The more moronic of Palin-bashers will simply gnash their teeth because she said “blood.” Idiocracy: The new normal.”
Pat Buchanan, who wrote in his syndicated column during the vetting process of Elena Kagan who had been nominated by President Obama to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, “If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than two percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats’ idea of diversity” also came to the defense of Sarah Palin’s use of the term blood libel calling it “excellent.”
The problem is probably that Sarah Palin does not understand Jewish sensitivity and history because she is unable to see Israel from her back yard.
The reality, at least for me, is that Congresswoman Gifford’s shooting and the death and wounding of so many who came to meet with her, are just the latest examples of ideologically motivated violence. For at least two years, we have been told how angry millions of Americans are. The Republicans have been at the forefront of the angry rhetoric spawned by this so-called anger that initially was manifested by public officials and politicians being verbally molested at town hall meetings and other public gatherings where politicians had come to meet and speak with their constituents. During the health care debates of 2009 and 2010, these public discourses took an especially heinous and violent turn as no politician—Republican or Democrat was truly safe. It seemed that the crazies for the most part had found their passport to the surface in the unexpected election of America’s first African-American to the presidency which gave them a real live focus to vent their frustration and yes, anger at the government and it has ultimately created an environment in which a politician feels perfectly justified in placing a crosshairs over an opponent’s congressional district as part of a discussion designed to defeat that person in an election.
One image I will never forget was the photo of an African-American man showing up at a President Obama public appearance in Arizona with an automatic weapon strapped to his back. In almost any other state in the country, that man would have been whisked off the street and taken directly to jail. Not in Arizona however, where the right to own, possess and carry any gun, un-concealed or concealed, is allowable. And this past Saturday, another Arizona gun owner was able to shoot his gun, in a public shopping center, again and again and again and again……
One of the dead sprawled on that Arizona parking lot was nine-year old Christina Taylor-Green who had just been elected to her school’s student council. Because of that electoral victory, a neighbor brought Christina to Congresswoman Gifford’s constituent outreach event so that she could see how adults put democracy into action.
What happened however, was that this baby, born on 9/11, became just one more victim of political violence in America, a violence that has been fueled by an incoherent and misplaced rage against government and politicians who are unable to bring prosperity and lost jobs back fast enough, and worse, a violence that is driven by racism and hatred for others who are different, whether they are the President of the United States or a Mexican family attempting to cross the border in order to have a better life—like so many millions of Europeans did in the early twentieth century. And all of this anger, this hatred, this deciding to ‘reload instead of retreat’ driven by right wing leaders and listened to raptly by their feeble minded followers lurking in the outer reaches of the internet, are being constantly spurred on by the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Jon Kyl and Rush Limbaugh. We now are witness to the deadly effect of all that hatred
I am vexed by everyone trying so hard to transfer the blame of the Arizona shootings away from the vitriolic state of American political discourse to a lone, mentally ill gunman with no real political agenda. For me, the harsh language on the right is a direct correlation to the Arizona tragedy. I realize that the root causes for Saturday’s horror are many and not very definitive: fear of what is to come or not come, anger motivated by the uncertainty and dread associated with joblessness, embarrassment at not being able to honor one’s financial commitments or the frustration at having one’s entire household budget crippled by the loss of $50 or $100 in expected income.
Maybe however, just maybe, it is the fact that too many of us have or have access to guns in this country. One in four Americans owns at least one gun. Today, the NRA and their various offshoots are spending millions to ensure that anyone who wants a gun shall have one. According to gun advocates, the right to gun ownership supersedes the right to employment, health care, a decent and viable education, even housing.
Don’t we all realize by now that too many guns are not used for sport or even legitimate protection but for dealing with feelings of inadequacy and fantasies driven by weaponry? It amazes me that someone who seemingly everyone thought was crazy could walk into a store and buy a weapon with the capacity to fire off 30 rounds at a time and then walk across the street into a Walmart of all places, to buy the ammunition that would facilitate his ability to kill six people and wound thirteen! I simply refuse to accept the fact that this is what Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and Lighthorse Harry Lee and the rest of the Continental Congress had in mind when they discussed a “well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”
Last night, President Obama spoke to the lack of civility in our political discourse. He did it however, in non-political terms. This is no easy feat—talking about politics apolitically—but he managed to pull it off in a way that even won kudos from Republicans. "At a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do -- it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds," Obama said.
On the day before the President of the United States was to address the nation regarding the shootings in Tucson, Rush Limbaugh reacted to the instantly despised mugshot of Jared Lee Loughner, the suspected shooter in the Arizona shooting, by publicly stating that Loughner is smiling in the picture because he knows he is backed by the Democratic Party.
Speaking on his radio show, Limbaugh said that Loughner was getting the exact attention that he wanted:
“What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democratic Party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim. He's the latest in a never-ending parade of victims brought about by the unfairness of America...this guy clearly understands he's getting all the attention and he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."
After all the bickering and accusations and finger pointing following the tragedy in Tucson this past Saturday, President Obama last night stepped up to the podium and became what news analyst Nate Silver has called the “adult in the room.” The last two weeks were meant to be the time when the Republicans returned to power as they took control of the House of Representatives. There was to be a vote to repeal healthcare and with that a simultaneous vicious dismantling of the new healthcare law because even the most ardent Tea Partier knows that the still-Democratic controlled Senate and White House will not allow such a thing. Instead, the Republicans are somewhat on the defensive, distancing themselves from the likes of Rush Limbaugh who just days ago was their hero. And then, there is the difference between the shrill Sarah Palin, who bogarded her way into the limelight with a feisty, attacking and petty video message that made the insensitive and crude claim that she had been the victim of a “blood libel.” The contrast between the 2008 VP Republican candidate and the 2008 elected President of the United States could not have been sharper. It is my hope and prayer that the good will generated by the President’s remarks last night will somehow usher in a period of political compromise and accomplishment heretofore not thought possible.
“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” the ex-Vice Presidential nominee said in a seven and a half minute video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
Ms. Palin’s use of a map with cross hairs hovering over a number of swing districts, including that of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, has become a symbol of the vitriolic political discourse that she and other conservative politicos, journalists and bloggers have denied exists in America today. Tim Pawlenty, a conservative rival for the 2012 Republican nomination and the former governor of Minnesota has said that he would not have produced such a map.
Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” is what has rocked the political world however. The term blood libel has been historically used to refer to the accusation that Jews throughout history have murdered Christian children and have then used their blood in religious rituals, as well as in preparing matzos (unleavened bread) for Passover and other meals. That false claim was circulated and widely believed for centuries and was responsible for the successful prosecution of anti-Semitism and the justification for violent pogroms against Jews. Ms. Palin’s use of the phrase in her video is one reason that it went viral so rapidly. Its use has itself attracted criticism, not the least because Congresswoman Giffords who remains in critical condition, is herself Jewish.
Reaction to Sarah Palin’s video has been swift. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat lawmaker in Florida, who is also a close friend of Ms. Giffords, immediately issued a statement repudiating her use of the phrase “blood libel.”
“Palin’s comments either show a complete ignorance of history, or blatant anti-Semitism,” said Jonathan Beeton, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s spokesperson. “Either way, it shows an appalling lack of sensitivity given Representative Gifford’s faith and the events of the past week.”
As if to prove just how wrong Sarah Palin and her fellow conservatives-in-denial are regarding the present state of political discourse in America today, the conservative blogger Michelle Malkin rushed to the defense of Ms. Palin, accusing liberals of being “Tucson massacre opportunists” for criticizing her. “The blamestream media is already up in arms—can we still say that?—over the use of the phrase ‘blood libel’, Ms. Malkin wrote. “The more moronic of Palin-bashers will simply gnash their teeth because she said “blood.” Idiocracy: The new normal.”
Pat Buchanan, who wrote in his syndicated column during the vetting process of Elena Kagan who had been nominated by President Obama to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, “If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than two percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this the Democrats’ idea of diversity” also came to the defense of Sarah Palin’s use of the term blood libel calling it “excellent.”
The problem is probably that Sarah Palin does not understand Jewish sensitivity and history because she is unable to see Israel from her back yard.
The reality, at least for me, is that Congresswoman Gifford’s shooting and the death and wounding of so many who came to meet with her, are just the latest examples of ideologically motivated violence. For at least two years, we have been told how angry millions of Americans are. The Republicans have been at the forefront of the angry rhetoric spawned by this so-called anger that initially was manifested by public officials and politicians being verbally molested at town hall meetings and other public gatherings where politicians had come to meet and speak with their constituents. During the health care debates of 2009 and 2010, these public discourses took an especially heinous and violent turn as no politician—Republican or Democrat was truly safe. It seemed that the crazies for the most part had found their passport to the surface in the unexpected election of America’s first African-American to the presidency which gave them a real live focus to vent their frustration and yes, anger at the government and it has ultimately created an environment in which a politician feels perfectly justified in placing a crosshairs over an opponent’s congressional district as part of a discussion designed to defeat that person in an election.
One image I will never forget was the photo of an African-American man showing up at a President Obama public appearance in Arizona with an automatic weapon strapped to his back. In almost any other state in the country, that man would have been whisked off the street and taken directly to jail. Not in Arizona however, where the right to own, possess and carry any gun, un-concealed or concealed, is allowable. And this past Saturday, another Arizona gun owner was able to shoot his gun, in a public shopping center, again and again and again and again……
One of the dead sprawled on that Arizona parking lot was nine-year old Christina Taylor-Green who had just been elected to her school’s student council. Because of that electoral victory, a neighbor brought Christina to Congresswoman Gifford’s constituent outreach event so that she could see how adults put democracy into action.
What happened however, was that this baby, born on 9/11, became just one more victim of political violence in America, a violence that has been fueled by an incoherent and misplaced rage against government and politicians who are unable to bring prosperity and lost jobs back fast enough, and worse, a violence that is driven by racism and hatred for others who are different, whether they are the President of the United States or a Mexican family attempting to cross the border in order to have a better life—like so many millions of Europeans did in the early twentieth century. And all of this anger, this hatred, this deciding to ‘reload instead of retreat’ driven by right wing leaders and listened to raptly by their feeble minded followers lurking in the outer reaches of the internet, are being constantly spurred on by the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Jon Kyl and Rush Limbaugh. We now are witness to the deadly effect of all that hatred
I am vexed by everyone trying so hard to transfer the blame of the Arizona shootings away from the vitriolic state of American political discourse to a lone, mentally ill gunman with no real political agenda. For me, the harsh language on the right is a direct correlation to the Arizona tragedy. I realize that the root causes for Saturday’s horror are many and not very definitive: fear of what is to come or not come, anger motivated by the uncertainty and dread associated with joblessness, embarrassment at not being able to honor one’s financial commitments or the frustration at having one’s entire household budget crippled by the loss of $50 or $100 in expected income.
Maybe however, just maybe, it is the fact that too many of us have or have access to guns in this country. One in four Americans owns at least one gun. Today, the NRA and their various offshoots are spending millions to ensure that anyone who wants a gun shall have one. According to gun advocates, the right to gun ownership supersedes the right to employment, health care, a decent and viable education, even housing.
Don’t we all realize by now that too many guns are not used for sport or even legitimate protection but for dealing with feelings of inadequacy and fantasies driven by weaponry? It amazes me that someone who seemingly everyone thought was crazy could walk into a store and buy a weapon with the capacity to fire off 30 rounds at a time and then walk across the street into a Walmart of all places, to buy the ammunition that would facilitate his ability to kill six people and wound thirteen! I simply refuse to accept the fact that this is what Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and Lighthorse Harry Lee and the rest of the Continental Congress had in mind when they discussed a “well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”
Last night, President Obama spoke to the lack of civility in our political discourse. He did it however, in non-political terms. This is no easy feat—talking about politics apolitically—but he managed to pull it off in a way that even won kudos from Republicans. "At a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do -- it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds," Obama said.
On the day before the President of the United States was to address the nation regarding the shootings in Tucson, Rush Limbaugh reacted to the instantly despised mugshot of Jared Lee Loughner, the suspected shooter in the Arizona shooting, by publicly stating that Loughner is smiling in the picture because he knows he is backed by the Democratic Party.
Speaking on his radio show, Limbaugh said that Loughner was getting the exact attention that he wanted:
“What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democratic Party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim. He's the latest in a never-ending parade of victims brought about by the unfairness of America...this guy clearly understands he's getting all the attention and he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."
After all the bickering and accusations and finger pointing following the tragedy in Tucson this past Saturday, President Obama last night stepped up to the podium and became what news analyst Nate Silver has called the “adult in the room.” The last two weeks were meant to be the time when the Republicans returned to power as they took control of the House of Representatives. There was to be a vote to repeal healthcare and with that a simultaneous vicious dismantling of the new healthcare law because even the most ardent Tea Partier knows that the still-Democratic controlled Senate and White House will not allow such a thing. Instead, the Republicans are somewhat on the defensive, distancing themselves from the likes of Rush Limbaugh who just days ago was their hero. And then, there is the difference between the shrill Sarah Palin, who bogarded her way into the limelight with a feisty, attacking and petty video message that made the insensitive and crude claim that she had been the victim of a “blood libel.” The contrast between the 2008 VP Republican candidate and the 2008 elected President of the United States could not have been sharper. It is my hope and prayer that the good will generated by the President’s remarks last night will somehow usher in a period of political compromise and accomplishment heretofore not thought possible.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
We the People
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
With the start of the 112th Congress, Tea Partiers are brimming with pride over the fact that the new House Republican leadership will begin this legislative session with a reading of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor. As the quote from the Preamble of the Constitution above shows, when you actually read this document in its entirety, it is not representative of what the Tea Party claims it stands for. The irony is that the joke is really on them—turns out the U.S. Constitution is a very progressive document.
The distortions brought on this past year and a half by Tea Party rhetoric may have caused many of us to forget the progressive nature of our Constitution’s narrative. In a July 2010 post on their website, the Constitution Accountability Center wrote.....
“We think the Constitution should frame our political debates and should be followed by our leaders, whatever their political stripe. But if the Tea Party wants to be taken seriously—and if it wants the media to continue fawning over it for its purported love for the Constitution—it should at least be required to make plausible claims about the words and meaning of our Nation’s charter. A close look at the Tea Party’s version of the Constitution shows that it bears little resemblance to our actual Constitution and could in fact threaten the constitutional values Americans cherish most.”
Powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution are substantial and broad. And, since our country’s beginnings, the American people have amended the Constitution to ensure that Congress would always have the tools it needed to address national challenges and more importantly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. Eight separate amendments have expanded the original powers of the central government, granting vast powers to the government in order to protect civil and voting rights, ensure liberty, and to raise funds through taxes on income. Many Tea Partiers “refudiate” (sic) these Amendments and some even want to repeal most if not all of them. Fortunately, for the rest of us, these Amendments are just as much a part of the Constitution as if they had been written in 1787. When the new members of Congress have been sworn in, they will be bound by their oath to uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts they agree with.
Consequently, as House members comply with the new requirement of citing constitutional authority for all proposed legislation, the rest of us should remain cognizant of how these references to the Constitution manifest the progressive history of our Constitution. I hereby humbly offer these following constitutional grants of authority to Congress that could be used to support key progressive policies:
• The “Power to lay and collect Taxes” to provide for the “general welfare of the United States” (Article I, Section 8), which gives the federal government broad authority to further national policies such as ensuring healthcare for the poor (Medicaid) and provide security for older Americans (Social Security).
• The power to establish “a uniform rule of Naturalization” (Article I, § 8), which mandates that only Congress can enact immigration reform and also that state anti-immigration laws, like the one in Arizona (Arizona SB 1070), are an unconstitutional infringement of Congress’ exclusive power to regulate immigration.
• The power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States” (Article I, § 8) which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, for example, the national health care and banking industries.
• The crucial power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” (Article I, § 8) for carrying out all constitutional powers granted to the federal government, which means for example that Congress can, after all, require individuals who can afford it, to obtain health insurance in order to carry out its authority to regulate the interstate health insurance industry and ensure affordable, non-discriminatory health care.
Reading the U.S. Constitution in its entirety should leave the unmistakable impression that our constitutional story is, inherently progressive. Throughout the history of our country, “We the People” have taken a great but on some levels flawed document and made it even greater. We have, in effect, created an even “more perfect union” by writing into our Constitution, through the Amendment process, the abolition of slavery, expanded democracy and voting rights for women and all Americans of color as well as other notions of equality and liberty.
If those of us on the left can recognize, understand and accept the progressive nature of the Constitution, then we should feel no need to disagree with or make fun of Speaker Boehner’s requirement that all bills contain a citation to the constitutional grant of authority that allows whatever legislation is being proposed. Instead, we should welcome the new Republican-led House of Representatives embracing of the Constitution and then hold all members of Congress to their oath to be faithful to it and to support it—all of it.
With the start of the 112th Congress, Tea Partiers are brimming with pride over the fact that the new House Republican leadership will begin this legislative session with a reading of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor. As the quote from the Preamble of the Constitution above shows, when you actually read this document in its entirety, it is not representative of what the Tea Party claims it stands for. The irony is that the joke is really on them—turns out the U.S. Constitution is a very progressive document.
The distortions brought on this past year and a half by Tea Party rhetoric may have caused many of us to forget the progressive nature of our Constitution’s narrative. In a July 2010 post on their website, the Constitution Accountability Center wrote.....
“We think the Constitution should frame our political debates and should be followed by our leaders, whatever their political stripe. But if the Tea Party wants to be taken seriously—and if it wants the media to continue fawning over it for its purported love for the Constitution—it should at least be required to make plausible claims about the words and meaning of our Nation’s charter. A close look at the Tea Party’s version of the Constitution shows that it bears little resemblance to our actual Constitution and could in fact threaten the constitutional values Americans cherish most.”
Powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution are substantial and broad. And, since our country’s beginnings, the American people have amended the Constitution to ensure that Congress would always have the tools it needed to address national challenges and more importantly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. Eight separate amendments have expanded the original powers of the central government, granting vast powers to the government in order to protect civil and voting rights, ensure liberty, and to raise funds through taxes on income. Many Tea Partiers “refudiate” (sic) these Amendments and some even want to repeal most if not all of them. Fortunately, for the rest of us, these Amendments are just as much a part of the Constitution as if they had been written in 1787. When the new members of Congress have been sworn in, they will be bound by their oath to uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts they agree with.
Consequently, as House members comply with the new requirement of citing constitutional authority for all proposed legislation, the rest of us should remain cognizant of how these references to the Constitution manifest the progressive history of our Constitution. I hereby humbly offer these following constitutional grants of authority to Congress that could be used to support key progressive policies:
• The “Power to lay and collect Taxes” to provide for the “general welfare of the United States” (Article I, Section 8), which gives the federal government broad authority to further national policies such as ensuring healthcare for the poor (Medicaid) and provide security for older Americans (Social Security).
• The power to establish “a uniform rule of Naturalization” (Article I, § 8), which mandates that only Congress can enact immigration reform and also that state anti-immigration laws, like the one in Arizona (Arizona SB 1070), are an unconstitutional infringement of Congress’ exclusive power to regulate immigration.
• The power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States” (Article I, § 8) which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, for example, the national health care and banking industries.
• The crucial power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” (Article I, § 8) for carrying out all constitutional powers granted to the federal government, which means for example that Congress can, after all, require individuals who can afford it, to obtain health insurance in order to carry out its authority to regulate the interstate health insurance industry and ensure affordable, non-discriminatory health care.
Reading the U.S. Constitution in its entirety should leave the unmistakable impression that our constitutional story is, inherently progressive. Throughout the history of our country, “We the People” have taken a great but on some levels flawed document and made it even greater. We have, in effect, created an even “more perfect union” by writing into our Constitution, through the Amendment process, the abolition of slavery, expanded democracy and voting rights for women and all Americans of color as well as other notions of equality and liberty.
If those of us on the left can recognize, understand and accept the progressive nature of the Constitution, then we should feel no need to disagree with or make fun of Speaker Boehner’s requirement that all bills contain a citation to the constitutional grant of authority that allows whatever legislation is being proposed. Instead, we should welcome the new Republican-led House of Representatives embracing of the Constitution and then hold all members of Congress to their oath to be faithful to it and to support it—all of it.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Race to the Bottom
The year 2010, the end of the first decade of this new century, may very well go down in American history as the year the varying political constituencies tried to see who could reach bottom first. It was not the incalculable amounts of money spent or the seemingly interminable campaigning, which were painful enough. It was not the polarizing rhetoric or the negative attacks politicians hurled at one another or even the persistent commitment to ridiculing one’s political opponent. It was, in the end, the fact that America’s politicians and their spin doctors completely disregarded the intelligence of the American electorate and the never-ending claims of anger driven by personal attacks that sullied this year’s political season.
We have been told by pundits, again and again how frustrated and angry we are, so instead of responding to that frustration and anger, politicians chose to stoke the fire, fueling the fears that are directly attributable to the current jobless rate, and in doing so, offered few solutions. I think I finally understand Mario Cuomo when he said that politicians campaign with poetry and govern with prose.
This of course is not the sole fault of the politicians. Something is very wrong when candidates are judged not by policy initiatives and creative ideas designed to resolve the frightening economic, social and international challenges, but instead are assessed by how effectively they perform on TV and who has the best sound bite.
It is of course critical for politicians to be skilled in reaching out to the American public so as to generate interest and support for their respective campaigns, but somehow we have sunk to the depths of indecency when our leaders invoke hatred, racism, sexism, fear of anyone different and what seems even more shameful is that we seem to encourage them in their pursuit of “take no prisoners” politics.
We all suffer when even before the votes are counted, the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate declares that it is his Party’s agenda between now and 2012 to make sure that Obama is a “one-term President.” I can understand that Senator McConnell of Kentucky wants a Republican to occupy the White House in 2012, but shouldn’t he be more committed to helping to govern in a way that will result in millions of Americans returning to the workplace? Shouldn’t he be more preoccupied with completing the drawdown in Iraq and ending the horrific war in Afghanistan? Shouldn’t he be more concerned with America’s crumbling infrastructure and failing public education system? Maybe it is just me, but I am more frightened by the words of Senator Jim DeMint, Republican from South Carolina who just months before the final vote on healthcare reform declared that he wanted the vote to be the President’s “Waterloo” thereby denying healthcare coverage for 30 million Americans than I am of the cost of providing access to healthcare for those Americans. Why is it right to spend billions on fighting two wars on the other side of the world, but it is wrong to help 30 million Americans right here have access to healthcare?
President Obama came into office immediately taking on the critical challenges of a failing economy, rising unemployment, and a desperately dysfunctional healthcare system, all within the first eighteen months of his new administration. Overly ambitious? Foolish? A formula for a mid-term election rout? Perhaps all of those things. The rise of the Tea Party was fueled in part by a small but raging opposition to the bank bailouts and the Troubled Assets Recovery Program (TARP) and let’s not forget the derisively put “Obamacare.” It is no small irony that the bailouts and TARP were on President Bush’s watch, something we seem to have forgotten due to some kind of national memory loss. Blamed for an anemic stimulus and unemployment at 10%, Democrats took what President Obama himself called a “shellacking” in this year’s mid-term election. Just two years after the President’s historic election, one of my favorite news magazines, The Economist, blared on its cover immediately following the mid-terms a picture of a posse: “The Republicans Ride In.”
Fighting between the left and the right will never be over. I don’t mean just the cable show battles, but the struggle between those who advocate government to play a major role in bettering society and those who consider such collective action as threats to individual liberties and freedoms; between those who are wary of unbridled and powerful economic interests and those who ally themselves with the forces of unrestrained capitalism, between those who champion tolerance and diversity and those who will fight to the death to protect and advance their version of American fundamentalism.
And yet, it is not always so black or white, us versus them or good against bad (take your pick on what is good or bad). Believe it or not, there are issues and even moments in American history that have transcended and defied the usual divides. Unless we somehow find our way and locate common ground we can all stand firmly on, compromises notwithstanding, then politics in American will devolve into one long, hideous war and on Election Day 2012, it could become even more hideous and last a lot longer.
We have been told by pundits, again and again how frustrated and angry we are, so instead of responding to that frustration and anger, politicians chose to stoke the fire, fueling the fears that are directly attributable to the current jobless rate, and in doing so, offered few solutions. I think I finally understand Mario Cuomo when he said that politicians campaign with poetry and govern with prose.
This of course is not the sole fault of the politicians. Something is very wrong when candidates are judged not by policy initiatives and creative ideas designed to resolve the frightening economic, social and international challenges, but instead are assessed by how effectively they perform on TV and who has the best sound bite.
It is of course critical for politicians to be skilled in reaching out to the American public so as to generate interest and support for their respective campaigns, but somehow we have sunk to the depths of indecency when our leaders invoke hatred, racism, sexism, fear of anyone different and what seems even more shameful is that we seem to encourage them in their pursuit of “take no prisoners” politics.
We all suffer when even before the votes are counted, the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate declares that it is his Party’s agenda between now and 2012 to make sure that Obama is a “one-term President.” I can understand that Senator McConnell of Kentucky wants a Republican to occupy the White House in 2012, but shouldn’t he be more committed to helping to govern in a way that will result in millions of Americans returning to the workplace? Shouldn’t he be more preoccupied with completing the drawdown in Iraq and ending the horrific war in Afghanistan? Shouldn’t he be more concerned with America’s crumbling infrastructure and failing public education system? Maybe it is just me, but I am more frightened by the words of Senator Jim DeMint, Republican from South Carolina who just months before the final vote on healthcare reform declared that he wanted the vote to be the President’s “Waterloo” thereby denying healthcare coverage for 30 million Americans than I am of the cost of providing access to healthcare for those Americans. Why is it right to spend billions on fighting two wars on the other side of the world, but it is wrong to help 30 million Americans right here have access to healthcare?
President Obama came into office immediately taking on the critical challenges of a failing economy, rising unemployment, and a desperately dysfunctional healthcare system, all within the first eighteen months of his new administration. Overly ambitious? Foolish? A formula for a mid-term election rout? Perhaps all of those things. The rise of the Tea Party was fueled in part by a small but raging opposition to the bank bailouts and the Troubled Assets Recovery Program (TARP) and let’s not forget the derisively put “Obamacare.” It is no small irony that the bailouts and TARP were on President Bush’s watch, something we seem to have forgotten due to some kind of national memory loss. Blamed for an anemic stimulus and unemployment at 10%, Democrats took what President Obama himself called a “shellacking” in this year’s mid-term election. Just two years after the President’s historic election, one of my favorite news magazines, The Economist, blared on its cover immediately following the mid-terms a picture of a posse: “The Republicans Ride In.”
Fighting between the left and the right will never be over. I don’t mean just the cable show battles, but the struggle between those who advocate government to play a major role in bettering society and those who consider such collective action as threats to individual liberties and freedoms; between those who are wary of unbridled and powerful economic interests and those who ally themselves with the forces of unrestrained capitalism, between those who champion tolerance and diversity and those who will fight to the death to protect and advance their version of American fundamentalism.
And yet, it is not always so black or white, us versus them or good against bad (take your pick on what is good or bad). Believe it or not, there are issues and even moments in American history that have transcended and defied the usual divides. Unless we somehow find our way and locate common ground we can all stand firmly on, compromises notwithstanding, then politics in American will devolve into one long, hideous war and on Election Day 2012, it could become even more hideous and last a lot longer.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell—an Embarrassment
What will be the future of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a military policy restricting the service of lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel?
In 1778, General George Washington ordered the dishonorable discharge of Lt. Frederick Gotthold, a Navy Ensign, on sodomy charges. This action on the part of Washington was a continuation of British policies prohibiting gay sex in the armed forces. The policy has been more or less continuously enforced ever since. In 1992, President Bill Clinton promised to end the ban, but ultimately negotiated a compromise with Congress that became known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT)” which prohibits gay sex but also prohibits any extensive investigation of same.
As it is laid out in USC 10 £ 654, the policy reads, “A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.”
Over 13,000 United States military personnel have been discharged under the policy since 1994. A 2006 study conducted by the University of California at Santa Barbara estimated that since its implementation, DADT has cost the U.S. military $363.9 million. The authors of the study emphasized that this estimate is conservative and does not take into consideration strategic vulnerabilities or possible casualties resulting from the discharge of relatively scarce personnel such as Arabic translators.
President Obama has supported repealing DADT since the beginning of his presidential campaign, as has every leading Democratic candidate since 2000. George W. Bush supported the policy and his predecessor Bill Clinton signed it into law.
According to a May 2005 Boston Globe poll, 79% of Americans—including 58% of self-identified conservatives—supported allowing lesbians and gay men to serve openly in the military. I should however, in the interests of full disclosure, share with you that the shift in public opinion has been gradual; only 63% supported lesbian and gay military personnel in a 2004 Gallup poll and 40% in a 1993 Gallup poll.
The most common argument against allowing lesbians and gay men to serve openly in the military is that it would negatively impact unit cohesion, as homophobic personnel would not want to serve in close quarters with lesbian and gay personnel. Military Times, a conservative leaning magazine to which many military personnel subscribe, found that 10% of readers polled stated that they would actually leave the armed forces if lesbian and gay men were allowed to openly serve.
The reality however, is that the inclusion of lesbian and gay personnel has had no discernibly negative impact on unit cohesion in other countries that allow gay and lesbian personnel to openly serve, such as Australia, Britain, Canada, Israel, France and Russia. A 2008 study by the University of California at Santa Barbara, chaired by four retired military officers (including a vice-admiral and a brigadier general), found no legitimate basis for the argument that allowing gay personnel to serve would undermine unit cohesion.
From a strictly constitutional perspective, the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause reads: “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” Because the policy of DADT results in lesbians and gay men being part of an identifiably targeted group, and no compelling basis can be stated to justify discrimination against lesbian and gay personnel, DADT would appear to be unconstitutional under this clause. That said, the U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to enforce the equal protection clause in cases involving lesbians and gay men.
While the policy has often been described as an executive branch decision, 10 USC £ 654 must either be struck down by a federal court or repealed by Congress. The Military Enhancement Readiness Act, legislation currently before Congress, would end the ban and advocates have suggested attaching it to the 2011 defense reauthorization bill, but a 2010 repeal is beginning to seem more likely, given the voracious appetite of the war in Afghanistan.
In 1778, General George Washington ordered the dishonorable discharge of Lt. Frederick Gotthold, a Navy Ensign, on sodomy charges. This action on the part of Washington was a continuation of British policies prohibiting gay sex in the armed forces. The policy has been more or less continuously enforced ever since. In 1992, President Bill Clinton promised to end the ban, but ultimately negotiated a compromise with Congress that became known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT)” which prohibits gay sex but also prohibits any extensive investigation of same.
As it is laid out in USC 10 £ 654, the policy reads, “A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.”
Over 13,000 United States military personnel have been discharged under the policy since 1994. A 2006 study conducted by the University of California at Santa Barbara estimated that since its implementation, DADT has cost the U.S. military $363.9 million. The authors of the study emphasized that this estimate is conservative and does not take into consideration strategic vulnerabilities or possible casualties resulting from the discharge of relatively scarce personnel such as Arabic translators.
President Obama has supported repealing DADT since the beginning of his presidential campaign, as has every leading Democratic candidate since 2000. George W. Bush supported the policy and his predecessor Bill Clinton signed it into law.
According to a May 2005 Boston Globe poll, 79% of Americans—including 58% of self-identified conservatives—supported allowing lesbians and gay men to serve openly in the military. I should however, in the interests of full disclosure, share with you that the shift in public opinion has been gradual; only 63% supported lesbian and gay military personnel in a 2004 Gallup poll and 40% in a 1993 Gallup poll.
The most common argument against allowing lesbians and gay men to serve openly in the military is that it would negatively impact unit cohesion, as homophobic personnel would not want to serve in close quarters with lesbian and gay personnel. Military Times, a conservative leaning magazine to which many military personnel subscribe, found that 10% of readers polled stated that they would actually leave the armed forces if lesbian and gay men were allowed to openly serve.
The reality however, is that the inclusion of lesbian and gay personnel has had no discernibly negative impact on unit cohesion in other countries that allow gay and lesbian personnel to openly serve, such as Australia, Britain, Canada, Israel, France and Russia. A 2008 study by the University of California at Santa Barbara, chaired by four retired military officers (including a vice-admiral and a brigadier general), found no legitimate basis for the argument that allowing gay personnel to serve would undermine unit cohesion.
From a strictly constitutional perspective, the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause reads: “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” Because the policy of DADT results in lesbians and gay men being part of an identifiably targeted group, and no compelling basis can be stated to justify discrimination against lesbian and gay personnel, DADT would appear to be unconstitutional under this clause. That said, the U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to enforce the equal protection clause in cases involving lesbians and gay men.
While the policy has often been described as an executive branch decision, 10 USC £ 654 must either be struck down by a federal court or repealed by Congress. The Military Enhancement Readiness Act, legislation currently before Congress, would end the ban and advocates have suggested attaching it to the 2011 defense reauthorization bill, but a 2010 repeal is beginning to seem more likely, given the voracious appetite of the war in Afghanistan.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Compromise = Victory
After months squabbling, posturing and pointing fingers, both Houses of Congress are edging towards some kind of resolution regarding the Bush tax cuts. Millions of Americans are out of work, but I think most of us can agree that many of the people who sit in both Chambers of the Congress deserve their jobs the least.
President Barack Obama has structured a compromise with the Republicans who for the better part of a year have fought tooth and nail to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of us. President Obama had been arguing that with the economy gasping for air, that it made absolutely no sense to keep providing tax breaks to those who need it the least. Even billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have expressed their support for the President’s position, but the Republican Party, hell bent to be the party of the rich, has put it all on the line to ensure that the wealthiest Americans get to keep all their money and the poorest Americans get to keep less.
Faced with the ethically bankrupt decision of the Republicans to allow unemployment insurance to expire for millions of Americans, especially so close to the holiday season, the President rightly spoke of how the GOP was in reality holding jobless Americans hostage so he had no choice but to strike a compromise. It reminds me of that age-old TV storyline where a kidnapper is holding a child hostage demanding a huge ransom for her safe return. Obviously, the parent will give the kidnapper whatever they demand knowing that in the end, the kidnapper will pay for their misdeed.
One could easily have the expectation that the Republicans along with their allies, the so-called Blue Dog Democrats, will surely pay a price at the polls in 2012 for taking such a public stand in support of the rich. They gained control of Congress because of a populist uprising, consisting primarily of Tea Partiers and other Americans who called themselves patriots.
The reality however, is that there is absolutely nothing patriotic about ensuring that the gap between the rich and poor widens to the point that America becomes an aristocracy. There is no justification for giving the rich tax cuts since despite what Republicans are saying they are not the ones who are creating jobs. Less than two percent of all tax returns for small businesses are filed by those earning over $250,000 per year and the rest of us can no longer afford to make them richer than they already are.
By securing this compromise, President Obama has shown Americans that the Republicans really have no desire to control the deficit. By turning their backs on an opportunity to reduce the deficit by taking back a tax break from those who did not need in the first place, The GOP is demonstrating that they only want to control the deficit on the backs of America’s middle class and America’s poor.
This is what President Obama had to say earlier this week about the compromise: “Republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the middle class unless they also get a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of the cost. We saw that in two different votes that were taken this weekend. And without a willingness to give on both sides, there is no reason to believe this stalemate won’t continue well into next year. This would be a chilling prospect for the American people, whose taxes are currently scheduled to go up on January 1st.”
I hope that as we get closer to November 2012, the American people will remember that the Republican’s first order of business after their mid-term election victory was to fight for tax cuts for the rich—the same rich who are not investing in the American economy but who along with banks are hoarding their wealth.
The President made the right decision to compromise and while thus far in his administration, having values when dealing with Republicans and weak-kneed Democrats afraid to govern has proven to be a liability, this is a political and moral victory for President Obama.
President Barack Obama has structured a compromise with the Republicans who for the better part of a year have fought tooth and nail to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of us. President Obama had been arguing that with the economy gasping for air, that it made absolutely no sense to keep providing tax breaks to those who need it the least. Even billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have expressed their support for the President’s position, but the Republican Party, hell bent to be the party of the rich, has put it all on the line to ensure that the wealthiest Americans get to keep all their money and the poorest Americans get to keep less.
Faced with the ethically bankrupt decision of the Republicans to allow unemployment insurance to expire for millions of Americans, especially so close to the holiday season, the President rightly spoke of how the GOP was in reality holding jobless Americans hostage so he had no choice but to strike a compromise. It reminds me of that age-old TV storyline where a kidnapper is holding a child hostage demanding a huge ransom for her safe return. Obviously, the parent will give the kidnapper whatever they demand knowing that in the end, the kidnapper will pay for their misdeed.
One could easily have the expectation that the Republicans along with their allies, the so-called Blue Dog Democrats, will surely pay a price at the polls in 2012 for taking such a public stand in support of the rich. They gained control of Congress because of a populist uprising, consisting primarily of Tea Partiers and other Americans who called themselves patriots.
The reality however, is that there is absolutely nothing patriotic about ensuring that the gap between the rich and poor widens to the point that America becomes an aristocracy. There is no justification for giving the rich tax cuts since despite what Republicans are saying they are not the ones who are creating jobs. Less than two percent of all tax returns for small businesses are filed by those earning over $250,000 per year and the rest of us can no longer afford to make them richer than they already are.
By securing this compromise, President Obama has shown Americans that the Republicans really have no desire to control the deficit. By turning their backs on an opportunity to reduce the deficit by taking back a tax break from those who did not need in the first place, The GOP is demonstrating that they only want to control the deficit on the backs of America’s middle class and America’s poor.
This is what President Obama had to say earlier this week about the compromise: “Republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the middle class unless they also get a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of the cost. We saw that in two different votes that were taken this weekend. And without a willingness to give on both sides, there is no reason to believe this stalemate won’t continue well into next year. This would be a chilling prospect for the American people, whose taxes are currently scheduled to go up on January 1st.”
I hope that as we get closer to November 2012, the American people will remember that the Republican’s first order of business after their mid-term election victory was to fight for tax cuts for the rich—the same rich who are not investing in the American economy but who along with banks are hoarding their wealth.
The President made the right decision to compromise and while thus far in his administration, having values when dealing with Republicans and weak-kneed Democrats afraid to govern has proven to be a liability, this is a political and moral victory for President Obama.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Awwww--the US Government is just like your family
So, your mortgage is overdue and you are lying awake at 3 a.m. wondering where the heck the money is going to come from this month when the hallway smoke alarm goes off. Now what should you do? Well, if you are like Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, those erstwhile members of President Obama’s deficit reduction commission who decided to make a splash while the President was visiting Asia, you would probably leap out of your bed, ignore the fire, run outside and plant a For Sale sign in the front yard.
Problem solved!
Let’s just ignore the fact that 9.6 million of our fellow citizens are flat out of work and more than 25 million other Americans are either out of work, trying to make ends meet with one or more part-time jobs, or maybe, they have simply given up. And if that were not enough, it is projected that Social Security will have exhausted its reserves by 2035. It must be a national emergency.
Those who are supposedly in the know seem to think there is an emergency. While watching CNN earlier this week, I watched John King and Ali Velshi comfort each other by showing their enormous wisdom when they shared with the rest of us that “deficit reduction will be the single biggest political issue over the next two years.”
John King wowed us all by stating that “The American people are ahead of their government and their politicians on this, because Ali, as you know, over the past two or three years every family in America has had to make incredibly difficult choices and do things they didn’t want to do. And so they look at Washington and they say why won’t you do things that you don’t want to do, why don’t you do something about this and be grown-ups?”
Of course, it is obvious that the thing to do is to immediately cut government spending, reduce demand which will result in putting more people out of work. Hey, the Republicans have promised us that if we just do that, prosperity will be here again.
As much as I like the guy, President Obama is just a little responsible for this government/family analogy. During his 2010 State of the Union Address when he first announced the formation of the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission he said, “Families across the country are tightening their belts and making touch decisions. The Federal Government should do the same.”
I mean after all, the United States government is just like your family. Can your family run deficits? Except for mortgages, auto loans, college loans, credit cards of course. Otherwise your family is exactly like the Social Security Administration, the Federal Reserve, the Pentagon, all those agencies. So get off your butt and go out and build some bridges, shore up the infrastructure, build some highways and high speed rail. Just make sure that you pay as you go.
Getting back to the deficit reduction commission: Just before Bowles and Simpson decided to beat their own panel to the punch and made the decision to speak out before the commission had even voted, CBS News conducted a survey to find out what Americans want from the new Congress to focus on beginning next January after they are sworn in. Fifty-six percent said “economy and jobs.” Believe it or not, the second biggest issue was “healthcare” at fourteen percent. And dragging up the rear was the “Budget deficit/national debt” at a staggering six percent!
The best way to cut the deficit is---hands? That’s right! The best way to reduce the deficit is through good old fashioned economic growth. The deficit we are burdened by today was caused almost entirely by the Bush tax cuts and the recession—to say nothing of the cost of waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously.
As my favorite economist, Dr. Dean Baker recently wrote on his website, “Anyone who bothered to sit down and look at the numbers would see that there was not a big deficit problem by any realistic measure until the housing bubble collapsed.”
For almost two years prior to the bubble collapse, Dean Baker warned often about the dangers of the then growing housing bubble. So, by the same mentality that made most of us discount those early naysayers to our invasion of Iraq, Baker just is not taken as seriously as those who scream on the radio and write in Op-Ed pages from coast to coast scare talk about deficit burden. And this, even after Dr. Baker was proven ultimately correct about the housing bubble all along and despite the fact that he writes in very easy to understand language so that we can all get it without getting a headache struggling through economic language that would drive Adam Smith to drink.
For the immediate future, Dr Baker writes that “people who want lower deficits in the current slump want more people to lose their jobs.” OK—maybe some of them don’t really want people to lose their jobs, but that would be the impact nonetheless. More importantly, further out into a more distant future, a huge part of the U.S. debt problem is due to Medicare (already the trumpets are being sounded by doctors threatening to leave Medicare if rates are cut). During the healthcare debate, Baker wrote that “Per person costs are projected to rise from a bit more than twice the average of other wealthy countries to three or four times the average per person cost. If healthcare costs increase as projected, it will have a devastating impact on the economy.”
What is the solution that Bowles-Simpson and company offer? “Establish a process to regularly evaluate cost growth.”
Man, what will they think of next?
Problem solved!
Let’s just ignore the fact that 9.6 million of our fellow citizens are flat out of work and more than 25 million other Americans are either out of work, trying to make ends meet with one or more part-time jobs, or maybe, they have simply given up. And if that were not enough, it is projected that Social Security will have exhausted its reserves by 2035. It must be a national emergency.
Those who are supposedly in the know seem to think there is an emergency. While watching CNN earlier this week, I watched John King and Ali Velshi comfort each other by showing their enormous wisdom when they shared with the rest of us that “deficit reduction will be the single biggest political issue over the next two years.”
John King wowed us all by stating that “The American people are ahead of their government and their politicians on this, because Ali, as you know, over the past two or three years every family in America has had to make incredibly difficult choices and do things they didn’t want to do. And so they look at Washington and they say why won’t you do things that you don’t want to do, why don’t you do something about this and be grown-ups?”
Of course, it is obvious that the thing to do is to immediately cut government spending, reduce demand which will result in putting more people out of work. Hey, the Republicans have promised us that if we just do that, prosperity will be here again.
As much as I like the guy, President Obama is just a little responsible for this government/family analogy. During his 2010 State of the Union Address when he first announced the formation of the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission he said, “Families across the country are tightening their belts and making touch decisions. The Federal Government should do the same.”
I mean after all, the United States government is just like your family. Can your family run deficits? Except for mortgages, auto loans, college loans, credit cards of course. Otherwise your family is exactly like the Social Security Administration, the Federal Reserve, the Pentagon, all those agencies. So get off your butt and go out and build some bridges, shore up the infrastructure, build some highways and high speed rail. Just make sure that you pay as you go.
Getting back to the deficit reduction commission: Just before Bowles and Simpson decided to beat their own panel to the punch and made the decision to speak out before the commission had even voted, CBS News conducted a survey to find out what Americans want from the new Congress to focus on beginning next January after they are sworn in. Fifty-six percent said “economy and jobs.” Believe it or not, the second biggest issue was “healthcare” at fourteen percent. And dragging up the rear was the “Budget deficit/national debt” at a staggering six percent!
The best way to cut the deficit is---hands? That’s right! The best way to reduce the deficit is through good old fashioned economic growth. The deficit we are burdened by today was caused almost entirely by the Bush tax cuts and the recession—to say nothing of the cost of waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously.
As my favorite economist, Dr. Dean Baker recently wrote on his website, “Anyone who bothered to sit down and look at the numbers would see that there was not a big deficit problem by any realistic measure until the housing bubble collapsed.”
For almost two years prior to the bubble collapse, Dean Baker warned often about the dangers of the then growing housing bubble. So, by the same mentality that made most of us discount those early naysayers to our invasion of Iraq, Baker just is not taken as seriously as those who scream on the radio and write in Op-Ed pages from coast to coast scare talk about deficit burden. And this, even after Dr. Baker was proven ultimately correct about the housing bubble all along and despite the fact that he writes in very easy to understand language so that we can all get it without getting a headache struggling through economic language that would drive Adam Smith to drink.
For the immediate future, Dr Baker writes that “people who want lower deficits in the current slump want more people to lose their jobs.” OK—maybe some of them don’t really want people to lose their jobs, but that would be the impact nonetheless. More importantly, further out into a more distant future, a huge part of the U.S. debt problem is due to Medicare (already the trumpets are being sounded by doctors threatening to leave Medicare if rates are cut). During the healthcare debate, Baker wrote that “Per person costs are projected to rise from a bit more than twice the average of other wealthy countries to three or four times the average per person cost. If healthcare costs increase as projected, it will have a devastating impact on the economy.”
What is the solution that Bowles-Simpson and company offer? “Establish a process to regularly evaluate cost growth.”
Man, what will they think of next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
