Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Why it is not “both parties” ruining Washington

March 16th, 2013

I often hear the argument that the current gridlock in Washington is a result of “both sides.” Political discussions with my RepublicanRepublican Congressional Leadership friends usually start out with their position that, “my side is right the other side is wrong.” All too often their arguments are word-for-word talking point straight from Fox News, like “Obama has failed to lead.” When I point out that their side (the Republicans) have engaged in unprecedented obstruction and political gamesmanship, they usually end up throwing up their hands and saying, “Well both side are a joke, and they are both guilty.” That answer is a cop-out.

I agree that both sides have some responsibility for our current problems. However, the more I learn about the details and history of how the two parties work together, the more I am convinced of the following conclusions:

  • Republicans have become much more extreme since the 1970s, while Democrats have stayed about the same. In fact, this is the most extreme Republican Party in history—and the conservative media industrial-complex has helped shift much of the Republican base in the same direction.
  • The primary goal of Republicans in congress is to block anything Obama supports, even when it is their own idea or legislation that will help the American people.
  • Republican tactics are undemocratic: They are attempting to make it harder for people to vote (voter ID laws, fewer voting locations, etc.); they are redrawing election districts in their favor (as a result, they kept control of congress in spite of receiving fewer votes nationwide); they have used the filibuster at record levels (i.e., as a minority party, they have blocked much of the legislation of the democratically elected majority party); and they push policies that will benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

I will provide evidence and additional detail in support of these conclusion below.

Conclusion

Democrats have not been innocent in the political battles of recent years. Obama has said that he could have reach out more effectively to congressional Republicans during his first two years in office. And Democrats have been almost as bad as Republicans in their close work with lobbyist and acceptance of corporate donations. They have also attempted redistricting (i.e., gerrymandering) in their favor, although not nearly to the level of Republicans.

However, what congressional Republicans have been doing is completely unprecedented. Political scientists Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein described today’s Republican Party:

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented.

In the third and now fourth years of the Obama presidency, divided government has produced something closer to complete gridlock than we have ever seen in our time in Washington, with partisan divides even leading last year to America’s first credit downgrade (source).

From the very beginning of the Obama administration, as discussed in a Republican strategy meeting on the night of Obama’s 2009 inauguration, Republicans planned to “Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies.” (source; see also: Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives, by Robert Draper). In an October 2010 interview with National Journal, Republican senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for Obama to be  one-term president.” (Though McConnell later backtracked and said, “I don’t want the president to fail, I want him to change.”)

The decision not to work with Obama was made before he took office, and was meant to make him a one-term president, even if this meant harming the American economy (e.g., unprecedented use of the debt ceiling leading to the U.S. Credit downgrade, blocking bills that would help the economy and create jobs, etc.). It is not surprising that one year after the Republicans took control of congress in 2010, they received the lowest approval ratings in polling history, at just 9%.

The bottom line is that the Republicans are hurting their own party, and even more so they are hurting the country that they claim to love. The problem in Washington is not “both sides.” The problem is an extreme Republican Party that is hellbent on keeping and gaining additional power at any cost. I encourage my Republican friends to be a voice of reason within the Republican Party, rather than being pulled to the fringe where the GOP is currently residing.

 

See additional detail below.

» Read more: Why it is not “both parties” ruining Washington

Highlights from Obama’s Second Inaugural Speech

January 23rd, 2013

President Barack Obama marked the start of his second term with an inaugural speech at the U.S. Capitol. To read/watch the entire speech click here. Here are some the best lines from the speech:

 

We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class.

…But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity…we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war…we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

…We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully – not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.

…And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.

Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.

Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.

Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.

That is our generation’s task – to make these words, these rights, these values – of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time – but it does require us to act in our time.

Obama has Shrunk Government, While Bush Grew It

October 12th, 2012

OBAMA HAS SHRUNK GOVERNMENT, WHILE BUSH GREW IT

Republicans like to position themselves as the small government party. For people who care about facts here is an interesting little factoid.

Obama shrunk government, Bush grew it. (Who’s the “socialist”?)

Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/07/economic-policy

Obama’s view of Free Market and Government

October 10th, 2012

OBAMA BELIEFS ABOUT THE FREE MARKET VS. GOVERNMENT

“We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk-takers, the entrepreneurs who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system.” (Convention speech)

“From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.”

 

But he continues:

“But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.”

 

“For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens. As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.”

 

“But that starts by being honest about what’s causing our deficit. You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys. Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense. Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research. Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare. And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes.”

(Source)

Afghanistan in Hindsight

July 5th, 2011

We are approaching the ten year anniversary of the September 11th attacks. So much has happened since that day. Over time, history seems to have been blurred quite a bit, especially when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. Let’s review a few critical facts about what led us to Afghanistan in the first place. This is a common story of imperialist scope creep (and we don’t hear much about how this mission has added to the much-discussed national debt). We just don’t learn the hard lessons of history, therefore we are condemned to repeat it. Here are some facts worth reviewing:

  • Feb. 1998 – bin Laden releases a statement declaring Jihad against “Jews and Crusaders”; explains that the Jihadist war is over (1) US occupation of holy lands in Saudi Arabia (since the gulf war); (2) America’s continuing aggression against the Iraqi people; and (3) its support of Israel
  • 1999 - UN imposes an air embargo and financial sanctions to force Afghanistan to hand over Osama bin Laden for trial.
  • Early 2000 –  The FBI was warned about the attacks more than a year before 9/11 (see also: link)
  • January 2001 – UN imposes further sanctions on Taliban to force them to hand over Osama bin Laden.
  • Aug. 2001 – President Bush received a briefing on Aug 6th, 2001 that read “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”
  • Sept. 11th, 2001 –  Attacks on Trade Towers and Pentagon
  • Sept. 20, 2001 – President Bush warns that the Taliban must deliver bin Laden of they will share his fate (source).
  • Sept. 22, 2001 - Afghanistan’s Islamic clerics asked bin Laden to leave the impoverished country on his own volition (source).
  • Sept. 22, 2001 – Taliban envoy to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, states: “Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Usama bin Laden in light of the evidence.” Asked if the Taliban were ready to hand bin Laden over, he snapped “No” but his translator said, “No, not without evidence.” He said, “We are ready to cooperate if we are shown evidence.” (source) This was seen as a rejection of Bush’s ultimatum.
  • Sept. 21, 2001 –  Bush explains “Why they hate us”; he explains, “They hate our freedoms.” He declares a “war on terror.” (source)
  • Sept. 2001 –  The US Prepares for war in Afghanistan
  • Oct. 2001 –  bin Laden releases a statement to explain to Americans why there “is hate against you.”
  • October 2001 - US, Britain launch air strikes against Afghanistan after Taliban fail to hand over Osama bin Laden
  • Oct. 14, 2001 –  Taliban offers to turn over bin Laden if the US stops its bombing campaign; Bush rejects the offer (source).
  • Nov. 2001 – Taliban government falls
  • Nov. 2002 -  bin Laden writes a “letter to America,” explaining why he opposes America (and it was not, as Bush asserted, because they “hate our freedoms”)
  • June 2002 - Hamid Karzai elected as interim head of state.
  • May 2005 – Details emerge of alleged prisoner abuse by US forces at detention centers.
  • May 2006 – Violent anti-US protests in Kabul, the worst since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, erupt after a US military vehicle crashes and kills several people.
  • August 2007 – Opium production has soared to a record high, the UN reports.
  • June 2008 – Taliban engineers massive jail-break from Kandahar prison, freeing at least 350 insurgents.
  • September 2008 – President Bush sends an extra 4,500 US troops to Afghanistan, in a move he described as a “quiet surge”.
  • November 2008 – Taliban militants reject an offer of peace talks from President Karzai, saying there can be no negotiations until foreign troops leave Afghanistan.
  • February 2009 - Up to 20 Nato countries pledge to increase military and other commitments in Afghanistan after USA announces dispatch of 17,000 extra troops.
  • March 2009 – President Barack Obama unveils a new US strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to combat what he calls an increasingly perilous situation. An extra 4,000 US personnel will train and bolster the Afghan army and police, and there will also be support for civilian development.
  • December 2009 - US President Barack Obama decides to boost US troop numbers in Afghanistan by 30,000, bringing total to 100,000. He also says the United States will begin withdrawing its forces by July 2011.
  • May 1st, 2011 – Osama bin Laden is killed by US forces.
  • June 2011 – US opens talks with the Taliban; Secretary Clinton declares talks with Taliban as “necessary.” (source)
  • June 2011 – Obama give speech. Promises removal of 10,000 troops by the end of 2011, 33,000 by July 2012, and all U.S. troops by 2014. (source)

This time line tells a powerful story about how the hunt for one man (or a small group of men) turned into the longest war in American history. George Bush was determined to go to war, and it did not matter if the Taliban would have been willing to hand over bin Laden for a trial. And at the time, the American people were understandably behind Bush, with strong emotions after 9/11. Over time, support for the war has eroded. Yet more recently, people are optimistic. Now, 60% of American adults say we are winning war on terror, up from 41% before capture of Bin Laden (source). Many are now saying that “Osama Bin Laden is dead, our original mission in Afghanistan has been accomplished, let’s bring the troops home.” I agree. We should bring them home. But no one is really asking why we have been there so long in the first place. We wanted to hunt down a gang of thugs who attacked our country. Did we really need to send 100,000 military personnel (and even more military contractors) to occupy an entire country in order to accomplish the mission of hunting down bin Laden and his fellow conspirators? Why are we failing to take any lessons from this horrible experience, this tremendous waste of lives and treasure? Instead, we seem to be accepting what Noam Chomsky calls the doctrine of “change of course.” He explains:

“The doctrine is ‘yes, in the past, we did some wrong things because of our innocence or out of inadvertence, but now that’s all over, so we can’t not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff, which incidentally we suppressed and denied while it was happening, but must now be effaced from history as we march forward to a glorious future.’ And if you look, it is literally every two or three years that the doctrine is invoked. There is a qualification. We are permitted, in fact, required to recall with great horror the misdeeds of official enemies, and we’re also required to admire with awe, our own magnificent achievements in the past in both categories, relying in no small measure on self-serving reconstructions, which quickly collapse if you follow the path of paying attention to the facts, but fortunately, that dangerous course is excluded by the convenient doctrine of change of course, which blocks any such heresies. The doctrine is entirely understandable on the part of those who are engaged in criminal enterprises, which means just about any power system, any system of concentrated power past and present, and of course, it includes its acolytes, one of the major commitments of respected intellectuals right throughout history is to be the acolytes of the systems of power…[The] doctrine is dishonest, cowardly, but has advantages. It does protect us from the danger of understanding what’s happening before our eyes, and, therefore, inducing the kind of conformism that is useful to systems of power and domination…If you want to understand anything about the world that is to come, and have any influence on the way it evolves, [it is] more than useful to keep this in mind.” (source)

So the American people, generally, have been willing to accept this war, since it has been so skillfully connected with the Sept. 11th attacks. But this war really has very little to do with attacks on America. We were not attacked by Afghanistan. In fact, Pakistan had (has?) just as strong of ties with the Mujahidin (i.e., Al Qaeda) as the Taliban who governed Afghanistan. We did not attack Pakistan. And if it was a human rights mission to deliver democracy to the brutal state of Afghanistan, we should has started with Saudi Arabia, a primary oil supplier to the US. The point is, we should be fighting the “war on terror” with intelligence, police work, and special ops–not with the military executing counterinsurgency tactics. This strategy has never worked. Ask the British how that strategy worked against the American insurgents they were up against during the American Revolution (AKA, “The War for Independence”). Ask a Vietnam vet how well this strategy worked in that conflict. It does not work.

The most troubling aspect of the war has been the rise of terrorism since the war started (source). President Bush was warned by the CIA that there would be a rise in terrorism if we launched a war in a Muslim nation (source: Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, 2003, page 211; see also link). He was not concerned over the level of terrorism. We can speculate over what he was concerned about, but it could not have been to prevent or limit terror attacks. In fact, our decisions have played perfectly into bin Laden’s ultimate strategy.

Bin Laden: Mission Accomplished

FAIR journalist, Jim Naureckas, wrote:

“For bin Laden, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was not a threat to his plan for the triumph of his brand of right-wing Islam—it was the central element of that plan” (July 2011).

Rachel Maddow made a similar argument on her MSNBC show (5/3/11):

“Osama bin Laden’s stated goal for the 9/11 attacks was to cause us to spend ourselves into oblivion. His goal was to do something cheap and radical and traumatizing that would cause us to react in a way that bankrupted us. So that what they couldn’t take down by force or by ideological competition, we would take down ourselves by panic.”

Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein (5/3/11) also stated,

“Bin Laden, according to [Al-Qaeda expert] Gartenstein-Ross, had a strategy that we never bothered to understand, and thus that we never bothered to defend against. What he really wanted to do—and, more to the point, what he thought he could do—was bankrupt the United States of America. After all, he’d done the bankrupt-a-superpower thing before.”

What bin Laden learned from his fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Klein wrote, was that “superpowers fall because their economies crumble, not because they’re beaten on the battlefield,” and that they “are so allergic to losing that they’ll bankrupt themselves trying to conquer a mass of rocks and sand.” But, noted Klein, “it isn’t quite right to say bin Laden cost us all that money…. We didn’t need to respond to 9/11 by trying to reshape the entire Middle East, but we’re a superpower, and we think on that scale.” He concluded: “We can learn from our mistakes.”

In FAIR’s latest edition of Extra!, Jim Naureckas quotes Abdul Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi.  Abdul Bari Atwan was one of the few journalists based in the West to interview bin Laden, spending three days with him in the mountains of Afghanistan in 1996.

He told me personally that he can’t go and fight the Americans and their country. But if he manages to provoke them and bring them to the Middle East and to their Muslim worlds, where he can find them or fight them on his own turf, he will actually teach them a lesson.

According to Atwan, bin Laden expressed disappointment with the pullout of U.S. troops from Somalia:

He told me, again, that he expected the Americans to send troops to Somalia, and he sent his people to that country to wait for them in order to fight them. They managed actually to shoot down an American helicopter where 19 soldiers were killed, and he regretted that the Clinton administration decided to pull out their troops from Somalia and run away. He was so saddened by this. He thought they would stay there so he could fight them there. But for his bad luck, according to his definition, they left, and he was planning another provocation in order to drag them to Muslim soil.

Conclusion

We need to get out of Afghanistan, and completely out of Iraq. We need to open up a national dialogue about what we have learned from these experiences, and create or enforce laws that will prevent them from happening again. We need the media to responsibly report on the futility and horror of these wars. Amy Goodman recently said, “We need a media not brought to us by the weapons manufacturers.” We need to understand that many of our enemies were created by our own actions, and that we can significantly improve peace in the world. And it will not happen unless you and I do something about it.

More information:

Eyewitness Testimonies of Vets Against the War

9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows

Civilian Casualties

Iraq (and Afghanistan) Veterans Against the War

This is a clip of President Obama’s recent speech about the war in Afghanistan.

Republicans are Bad for the Economy

June 25th, 2011

Democrats Outperform Republicans by Wide Margin

The Dow Jones industrial average increased by 29.5% in the one-year period following Barack Obama’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009—the third best showing, going back 110 years, for the U.S. stock market in the 12 months following the inauguration of a new President. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first year, which began on March 4, 1933, tops the list with the Dow increasing by 96.5% over the next 12 months. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter trails his peers with a loss of 19.6%. On average, Presidents in the Democrat party saw an average one-year gain of 24%, while Republicans averaged 1%.

Barack Obama (DEM)

Inauguration Date: Jan. 20, 2009
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: +29.5%

At 468%, Genworth Financial was the best-performing S&P 500 stock during Obama’s first year in office.

William J. Clinton (DEM)

Inauguration Date: Jan. 20, 1993
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: +19.3%

The industrial sector was the best-performing sector in the 12 months following Clinton’s inauguration.

Woodrow Wilson (DEM)

Inauguration Date: Mar. 4, 1913
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: +0.5%

After World War I began during Wilson’s second year, the U.S. stock market closed for 4 1/2 months.

John F. Kennedy (DEM)

Inauguration Date: Jan. 20, 1961
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: +10.8%

The U.S. economy grew 6% in 1961, more than any other President’s first year since at least 1948.

Lyndon B. Johnson (DEM)

Inauguration Date: Nov. 22, 1963
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: +21.6%

The Dow increased 27% over the length of Johnson’s five-plus years in office, or about 5% a year.

Richard M. Nixon (REP)

Inauguration Date: Jan. 20, 1969
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: -17.0%

The Dow also lost 17% during the first year of Nixon’s second term.

Ronald Reagan (REP)

Inauguration Date: Jan. 20, 1981
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: -12.7%

The prime rate topped 21%—the highest level on record—during Reagan’s inaugural year.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (REP)

Inauguration Date: Jan. 20, 1953
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: +0.5%

The Dow hit a bottom in September 1953 and then went on to double over the next 2 1/2 years.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (DEM)

Inauguration Date: Mar. 4, 1933
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: +96.5%

The Dow Jones industrial average rose by an average 9% a year during FDR’s 12-year tenure.

George Bush (REP)

Inauguration Date: Jan. 20, 1989
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: +19.6%

The 1980s ended during Bush’s first year, with the Dow rising 228% over the decade, or 13% a year.

George W. Bush (REP)

Inauguration Date: Jan. 20, 2001
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: -7.7%

During his eight years in office, the Dow fell 22%, to 8,281. The S&P 500 lost 37%, closing at 850.

Gerald R. Ford (REP)

Inauguration Date: Aug. 9, 1974
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: +4.2%

The Dow fell 45% between Jan. 11, 1973, and Dec. 6, 1974, one of the worst bear markets in history.

Harry S. Truman (DEM)

Inauguration Date: Apr. 12, 1945
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: +30.9%

Almost 18 years after reaching 200 for the first time, the Dow again climbed to 200 in January 1946.

Herbert Hoover (REP)

Inauguration Date: Mar. 4, 1929
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: -15.6%

The Dow dropped 48% from Sept. 3 to Nov. 13 in 1929.

Jimmy Carter (DEM)

Inauguration Date: Jan. 20, 1977
Percentage Change in Dow Jones Industrial Average During First Year in Office: -19.6%

Inflation increased by more than 6% during Carter’s fi rst year.

Obama Throws Down

April 16th, 2011

Highlights from Obama’s important speech on the budget this week:

What we’ve been debating here in Washington for the last few weeks will affect your lives in ways that are potentially profound. This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want. It’s about the kind of country we believe in. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.

But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.

For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens. As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.

…America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

Of course, that’s not what happened. And so, by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our projected deficit was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more. In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pockets. It was the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.

So that’s how our fiscal challenge was created. This is how we got here. And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength, Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s. We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt. And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future.

…Ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future. We won’t be able to afford good schools, new research, or the repair of roads and bridges – all the things that will create new jobs and businesses here in America. Businesses will be less likely to invest and open up shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books. And if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, it could drive up interest rates for everyone who borrows money – making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage.

The good news is, this doesn’t have to be our future. This doesn’t have to be the country we leave to our children. We can solve this problem. We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before, and we can do it again.

But that starts by being honest about what’s causing our deficit. You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys. Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense. Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research. Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare. And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes.

Because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse –that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices. Or they suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.

So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.

Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%. But cuts to that 12% alone won’t solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget. A serious plan doesn’t require us to balance our budget overnight – in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we will need a phased-in approach – but it does require tough decisions and support from leaders in both parties. And above all, it will require us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five and ten and twenty years down the road.

THE REPUBLICAN PLAN

One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates. It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.

Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.

A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

OBAMA’S PLAN

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t.

Today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.

The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.

…Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.

Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again. Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like home ownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.

My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years. It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, our commitment to seniors, and our investments in the future.

In the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I have pledged here. But just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code. That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road.

So this is our vision for America – a vision where we live within our means while still investing in our future; where everyone makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and rising opportunity for our children.

Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach. Some will argue we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans. It’s just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don’t need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut. Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn’t be here without. That some of you wouldn’t be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them. Washington just hasn’t asked them to.

Others will say that we shouldn’t even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered. I’m sympathetic to this view, which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in December. It’s also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit – so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs. But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option. Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don’t begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.

Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.

Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective.

Of course, there are those who will simply say that there’s no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge. They’ll say the politics of this city are just too broken; that the choices are just too hard; that the parties are just too far apart. And after a few years in this job, I certainly have some sympathy for this view.

But I also know that we’ve come together and met big challenges before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together to save Social Security for future generations. The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together to reduce the deficit. President Clinton and a Republican Congress battled each other ferociously and still found a way to balance the budget. In the last few months, both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending cuts. And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

I believe we can and must come together again. This morning, I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach I laid out today. And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of June.

I don’t expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today. I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum. And though I’m sure the criticism of what I’ve said here today will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all bridge our differences, and find common ground.

This larger debate we’re having, about the size and role of government, has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the one we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. That’s a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates we can have.

But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we’ve always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. And we have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.

This sense of responsibility – to each other and to our country – this isn’t a partisan feeling. It isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism.

…And I know that if we can come together, and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive in our time, and pass on to our children the country we believe in. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.”

Infrastructure: The Best Government Investment

February 5th, 2011

In his recent State of the Union speech, President Obama promoted infrastructure development as an essential component to remaining competitive in the world, for providing jobs, and keeping our economy strong. Here’s what he said:

“Our infrastructure used to be the best, but our lead has slipped.  South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do.  Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do.  China is building faster trains and newer airports.  Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation’s infrastructure, they gave us a “D.”

We have to do better.  America is the nation that built the transcontinental railroad, brought electricity to rural communities, constructed the Interstate Highway System.  The jobs created by these projects didn’t just come from laying down track or pavement.  They came from businesses that opened near a town’s new train station or the new off-ramp.

So over the last two years, we’ve begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry.  And tonight, I’m proposing that we redouble those efforts.  (Applause.)

We’ll put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges.  We’ll make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based [on] what’s best for the economy, not politicians.”

Infrastructure spending was only 7.5% of the 2009 stimulus. Yet one dollar invested in infrastructure has a return of $1.59 in GDP growth, while most tax cuts don’t even return 50 cents.

“The performance of the nation’s transportation system is not keeping pace with the rate of growth of the demands on that system,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “As our economy recovers, the nation’s transportation infrastructure must be prepared to meet the projected growth in freight and population. Yet our index shows that from now through 2015 there will be a rapid decline in the performance of the system if we continue business as usual. Right now we’re on an unsustainable path.”

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explained, “The one thing we know is that the good thing about federal spending is it’s actually spent, that it actually does boost the economy. And if it’s infrastructure, it also leaves you with something of value afterwards. Whereas if you do it the way the Republicans want to do it, which is always tax breaks, first of all, it might not be not be spent or it might not help the economy at all. And then, you’ve got nothing to show for when the thing is over.”

See this press release by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Chris Farrell’s Bloomberg article, “U.S. Infrastructure Spending: No Time to Get Cheap,”

“Spending now on infrastructure stimulates the economy in a way that will help provide for long-term higher economic growth that will increase future tax revenue and bring down the debt-to-GDP ratio,” says David Aschauer, economist at Bates College.

The most striking example in U.S. history of the economic payoff from infrastructure expenditures has been largely obscured with time: the building of the Erie Canal. It was a 363-mile-long canal dug through the middle of New York State. A bold adventure, it cost about $7 million, an astounding sum equal to more than a third of all the banking and insurance capital in New York State (and more than three-quarters of the federal budget in 1810). The Canal was started in 1817 and finished 8 years later, after much political wrangling.

Perhaps even more striking (considering the current economic climate), after the panic of 1818 the price of money and labor fell sharply when the economy sank into recession. “By 1820, the canal commissioners were drawing contracts at prices 30 percent to 40 percent below what they had paid during the first three years of construction,” notes the late Peter Bernstein in Wedding of the Waters: The Erie Canal and the Making of a Great Nation.

When it was done, the cost of commercial transport plunged. For instance, it had taken three weeks and $120 to send a ton of flour from Buffalo to New York City before the canal opened. Afterwards, it took 8 days and $6. “The Erie Canal would prove to be the most consequential public works project in American history and make New York, both state and city, the linchpins of the American economy for more than a century,” writes historian John Steele Gordon in An Empire of Wealth. (source)

“In their 2005 paper, ‘Healthy Returns,’ they calculated that Americans gained more than $788 billion a year from transportation infrastructure and paid taxes and fees of $185 billion to support that infrastructure…’These findings establish clearly that strong commitments to surface transportation and the spending required to support it well serve America’s economic interest,’ they concluded.

Conclusion

The construction industry is in a depression, with about 20% unemployment. A national infrastructure investment will immediate improve the lives of hundred of thousands of workers in the construction industry, it will revitalize this critical part of our economy, it will improve public safety by improving our run-down public infrastructure, and it will inject new money into the economy in a way that will give us a strong return. Enough fear-mongering about the deficit. We need a substantial injection of capital into infrastructure now. Republicans need to stop filibustering initiatives to pass infrastructure investments. And Democrats need to make this priority number one! It is a priority that will affect all Americans in a positive way.

Further Reading:

http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/pe/pfma06/EdwardGramlich.pdf

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf34/conf34b.pdf

http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2010/september/us-chamber-commerce-releases-first-ever-indexes

State of the Union 2011: A Review

January 27th, 2011

President Obama’s State of the Union speech was a clear signal that he wants to work with House Republicans to get things done over the next two years. He focused on making America more competitive through education, infrastructure development, better government, and innovation. He spent more time on proposing a centrist agenda moving forward than he did on touting his accomplishments of the past year. Almost of of his proposals are centrist policy prescriptions–things that are difficult for anyone to disagree with. A CBS New Poll reported that 92% of people who watched the speech approved of Obama’s proposals, with only 8% who disapproved. The tone of his speech, and the agenda he is pursuing, are signs that he wants to keep going full steam to get things done, in spite of losing the House. But this is also a sign that he is gearing up for 2012.

See Rachel Maddow’s analysis on how Obama is steering to the center–the real center.

Here is a great breakdown of the speech by the Washington Post.

See also coverage by Democracy Now!

In contrast to Obama’s inspiring message about working together to improve our economy, Paul Ryan’s opposition response was a real downer.

His message focused on the threat of the deficit. This isn’t a surprise, since this is the guy who wrote the “Roadmap” that focuses on cutting programs that help people, but says nothing about corporate handouts or military spending.

He did attempt to bring some level of balance to his message when he acknowledged that Obama came into office with a wrecked economy: “There is no doubt the President came into office facing a severe fiscal and economic situation.” But then he quickly blasts the President’s stimulus as being ineffective: “Unfortunately, instead of restoring the fundamentals of economic growth, he engaged in a stimulus spending spree that not only failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs, but also plunged us even deeper into debt.”

He also blasts Obama’s ideas on investing in America (which includes eduction, infrastructure, and innovation). Even a basic understanding of U.S. economic history makes this criticism ridiculous. Does Congressman Ryan think the free market came up with the internet?

Here is Ryan’s vision of government: “We believe government’s role is both vital and limited – to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense … to secure our borders… to protect innocent life… to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights … to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity … and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves.” Yet, he wants to gut virtually every social program that takes care of “those who cannot provide for themselves.” He digs up old Reaganesque arguments about people abusing social programs: “If government’s growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America’s best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.” See how social programs are really spent. Congressman Ryan is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He is trying to say government can take “care of people who can’t provide for themselves,” bu t he also thinks that government social programs lull “able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependence.” The vast majority of people who receive government assistance are vulnerable people, mostly children, the elderly, the disabled, and mentally ill. Ryan also wants to blame the government for the recession: “Millions of families have fallen on hard times not because of our ideals of free enterprise – but because our leaders failed to live up to those ideals.” Either Ryan doesn’t get out much, or he is a damned liar in the back pocket of the powerful…And I am willing to accept that both are true.

(We won’t spend any time on Michelle Bachmann’s silly little fringe-wing response to the speech)

Back to the State of the Union.

We’ve gone through the speech and pulled out the highlights; the best ideas, quotes, and proposed actions. » Read more: State of the Union 2011: A Review

Obama at Midterm

December 7th, 2010

Obama isn’t doing nearly as bad as the media has made you think.

True, he isn’t making a lot of friends these days. Liberals feel like he is not pushing their agenda, or he is compromising too much; and conservatives think he is a socialist.

You can’t please all the people all the time, but you have to please most of the people most of the time if you are going to be a two-term president (Or in the case of George W., of you need to have most of the supreme court in your corner, and run against Herman Munster in term two).

This is a graph shown on Meet the Press from Sunday, Dec. 5th 2010.