Peggy Noonan, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, said on two occasions on this week's Meet The Press that serious people need to step up and do serious things. With regard to spending and the new Congress, she said that Republicans need to move in a serious way. And for the 2012 Presidential election, she said that Republicans need a credible alternative, a serious person, to which Bob Woodward interjected that that would rule out Sarah Palin. Who she has in mind for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination is anyone's guess because when she says 'someone serious,' we're hard pressed to find someone on the Republican side who is serious. As for Republicans moving in a serious way in the new Congress, we'll have to wait and see, but the tax cuts for the top 2% that the Republicans negotiated for did two things. One, it disqualified them as being serious about cutting spending and the debt. Secondly, it opened up the gates for President Obama to score a series of victories during the lame duck session. And on this note, we have to question Ms. Noonan's seriousness because she mentioned entitlement spending as a serious issue but didn't mention superfluous tax cuts for the rich.
As for the President's part, Mr. Obama was being pragmatic, to use a word from Valerie Jarrett on today's program. Not weak for compromising? Given the consequences of not making the deal and knowing the number of votes he had, or didn't have, pragmatism was the President's only course. However, these kinds of compromises may be good looking politically, but the reality of this kind of compromise will bring down the whole economic house.
So when Ms. Noonan kept interjecting her tidbits about how awful and wrong the healthcare bill is, it's difficult to take her seriously. She said the people don't understand the new healthcare coverage. That misunderstanding didn't just come from hearing the facts. Opposition to healthcare reform put out hundreds of millions of dollars worth of misinformation to try and defeat it. Ms. Noonan, with all due respect, is not even on a long list of people we'd seek out to get the pulse of the people.
On the other hand, the President, at least, acknowledged that he did not connect enough with the people this year and legislated too much instead of going and listening - this is according to Ms. Jarrett. The economic crisis sucked up too much of his time, she said, to have him spend more time out in the countryside. Nor did it allow him time to think about Sarah Palin, Ms. Jarrett's answer to Mr. Gregory's stupid question. That's like asking Timothy Geithner if he thinks about a game show host when trying to solve fiscal issues.
[What the press needs to do with Sarah Palin is to stop covering her, especially the liberal leaning press which is fixated on her more than the right, all in an attempt to further discredit her. Our advice is to just let Ms. Palin discredit herself as she weighs in on serious issues, and then this issue, will take care of itself.]
First and foremost, Mr. Brokaw said it best when he said that the President had a good month but let's not get ahead of ourselves. However, there was the defining of 'austerity,' which was presented on the screen as such: enforced or extreme economy. The joke is that everyone sitting at that table thinks of that all in the hypothetical, not the reality of it. Certainly, Washington throws that around without understanding, or feeling, the real consequences of their actions. And for Tea Party Republicans, the elected political figures talk austerity at the expense of the the citizenry of this movement who voted for them.
Which brings us back again to Ms. Noonan. She said in her sympathetic but I know better way, that 40 million people in this country are on food stamps, that there are entrenched state employee unions, and that we need a leader that we can trust. Excuse us for asking, but for her being a Republican, who the hell is she talking about? Mitch McConnell? John Boehner? These people are compromised lawmakers - completely in the pocket of the multi-national corporations. And that she would mention food stamps and state unions in the same breath subliminally equating the two is the type of Republican intellectualism that empowers the narrative and agenda of such politicians as McConnell and Boehner.
Ms. Noonan also mentioned political change in that adults today realize that their children won't have it better than they did so there is a lot of pessimism right now. It's these adults who created this situation in the first place. Anymore, Ms. Noonan is an ideologue, not a serious thinker, to which she calls.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
12.19.10: Vice President Joe Biden Interview
What's happening with Vice-President Joe Biden? What happened to the great gaffes we've become accustomed to? Mr. Biden provided clear answers, not ones we agree with in totality, but has he become the Administration's voice of reason. But that's not without having to sell the President's policies and deals such as the one Mr. Obama made on taxes. By the end of the interview, we got our old Joe back.
Mr. Biden said that this tax deal will grow the economy faster in the short term, potentially by as much as 3.5% in 2011, and that will translate directly into jobs. However, the question needs to be asked, why haven't these tax cuts that have been in place for 10 years created significantly more jobs already? Is it because business feels a particular amount of uncertainty? Hardly... tax cuts for the top 2% only add to the deficit, and the government needs tax revenue and it's the least painfully effected place to get it. That tax increase is what would really stimulate the economy.
Mr. Gregory asked it was a broken promise on the part of the Administration. Mr. Biden said that he and the President feel that the tax cuts are morally troubling, but that they had to make this deal. He later also said that the President is a "progressive leader that understands that politics is the art of the possible." That sounds real nice and all, but what it really means is that the President has to be a pragmatist with regard to the Republican Senators to get anything he wants to do done. How the administration should clearly position this and have its spokespeople out there spreading the message is that here's what the tax deal accomplished for the middle class... boom. boom. boom... (unemployment insurance, small business tax breaks, etc.) and to get these things Republicans wanted tax cuts for the rich.
Did they break a promise? Yes. It's all due in part by a broken vision. President Obama had a vision on where he wanted to lead America, but underestimated Republican, frankly 'old-guard', opposition. Hence, deals are made and promises broken... he's not the first and certainly won't be the last President to do it. Mr. Biden summed it up saying, "We got to the end, we didn't make it, so we had to do something." And in this case, something was better than nothing.
Mr. Biden also, once again, made it clear that their view of the election is that the American people want Republicans and Democrats to work together. At the time of this interview, which was Saturday, the vote for Don't Ask Don't Tell was still pending. As of this writing, we know that in fact the measure is passed. In that vote, there were 8 Republican Senators who broke ranks with the Senator McCain-lead opposition. On what is such a controversial issue for some, it was refreshing to see Senators who would otherwise be talked into voting the Republican party line, go with how they felt. We single out the Republicans in this instance because we've seen Democratic Senators go against their party for self-interest [i.e. Senators Nelson (D-NE) and Landreau (D-LA)] to break up the Democratic agenda, but that's the way it goes. Republicans, on the other hand, are not known for doing this, especially in the last 20 years or so.
So working together can happen, but as you can see, Republican Senators are still holding up three important pieces of legislation and one of those is the START Treaty, who said that some of the Republican criticism is substantive, but also said that it is essential for U.S. Security. It can not be ignored or overstated the wide swath of foreign policy officials, Secretaries of State, and pundits on both sides say that this should be passed. This treaty puts our inspectors on the ground in Russia so that we can monitor what they have and where they have it. Our nuclear weapons are not in jeopardy of being stolen, theirs are.
And then... the Joe Biden we know and love... "Come Hell or High Water", The United States is out of Afghanistan by 2014. Definitely news-worthy, but despite Mr. Biden also saying, "Your word means something in this town [Washington D.C.]," we take this 2014 statement with a grain of salt. It is still completely ambiguous what us 'getting out' on that date will look like. Mr. Biden also mentioned counter-terrorism, the hunt of Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, and we know that's not going to stop in we're not satisfied with the results at that time so it's a great sound bite, but we'll wait and see. And to go out onto somewhat of a limb, withdrawal in 2014 will still mean we'll have tens of thousands of people on the ground there... not much of a limb.
Lastly, Mr. Biden said that Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is closer to high-tech terrorist than being a reporter receiving the Pentagon Papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers), and that he's made it much more difficult for the United States to work with its friends and allies. Frankly, in this digital information age, the onus is on the United States to keep sensitive digital cables secure. If it's not Julian Assange, it will be some one else who commits the leaks. Irrespective of how you classify his actions, it doesn't change the fact that it was our [The United States] break down, and if one of the costs is that the Vice President has to go it alone in a meeting with world leaders, then so be it.
Mr. Biden said that this tax deal will grow the economy faster in the short term, potentially by as much as 3.5% in 2011, and that will translate directly into jobs. However, the question needs to be asked, why haven't these tax cuts that have been in place for 10 years created significantly more jobs already? Is it because business feels a particular amount of uncertainty? Hardly... tax cuts for the top 2% only add to the deficit, and the government needs tax revenue and it's the least painfully effected place to get it. That tax increase is what would really stimulate the economy.
Mr. Gregory asked it was a broken promise on the part of the Administration. Mr. Biden said that he and the President feel that the tax cuts are morally troubling, but that they had to make this deal. He later also said that the President is a "progressive leader that understands that politics is the art of the possible." That sounds real nice and all, but what it really means is that the President has to be a pragmatist with regard to the Republican Senators to get anything he wants to do done. How the administration should clearly position this and have its spokespeople out there spreading the message is that here's what the tax deal accomplished for the middle class... boom. boom. boom... (unemployment insurance, small business tax breaks, etc.) and to get these things Republicans wanted tax cuts for the rich.
Did they break a promise? Yes. It's all due in part by a broken vision. President Obama had a vision on where he wanted to lead America, but underestimated Republican, frankly 'old-guard', opposition. Hence, deals are made and promises broken... he's not the first and certainly won't be the last President to do it. Mr. Biden summed it up saying, "We got to the end, we didn't make it, so we had to do something." And in this case, something was better than nothing.
Mr. Biden also, once again, made it clear that their view of the election is that the American people want Republicans and Democrats to work together. At the time of this interview, which was Saturday, the vote for Don't Ask Don't Tell was still pending. As of this writing, we know that in fact the measure is passed. In that vote, there were 8 Republican Senators who broke ranks with the Senator McCain-lead opposition. On what is such a controversial issue for some, it was refreshing to see Senators who would otherwise be talked into voting the Republican party line, go with how they felt. We single out the Republicans in this instance because we've seen Democratic Senators go against their party for self-interest [i.e. Senators Nelson (D-NE) and Landreau (D-LA)] to break up the Democratic agenda, but that's the way it goes. Republicans, on the other hand, are not known for doing this, especially in the last 20 years or so.
So working together can happen, but as you can see, Republican Senators are still holding up three important pieces of legislation and one of those is the START Treaty, who said that some of the Republican criticism is substantive, but also said that it is essential for U.S. Security. It can not be ignored or overstated the wide swath of foreign policy officials, Secretaries of State, and pundits on both sides say that this should be passed. This treaty puts our inspectors on the ground in Russia so that we can monitor what they have and where they have it. Our nuclear weapons are not in jeopardy of being stolen, theirs are.
And then... the Joe Biden we know and love... "Come Hell or High Water", The United States is out of Afghanistan by 2014. Definitely news-worthy, but despite Mr. Biden also saying, "Your word means something in this town [Washington D.C.]," we take this 2014 statement with a grain of salt. It is still completely ambiguous what us 'getting out' on that date will look like. Mr. Biden also mentioned counter-terrorism, the hunt of Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, and we know that's not going to stop in we're not satisfied with the results at that time so it's a great sound bite, but we'll wait and see. And to go out onto somewhat of a limb, withdrawal in 2014 will still mean we'll have tens of thousands of people on the ground there... not much of a limb.
Lastly, Mr. Biden said that Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is closer to high-tech terrorist than being a reporter receiving the Pentagon Papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers), and that he's made it much more difficult for the United States to work with its friends and allies. Frankly, in this digital information age, the onus is on the United States to keep sensitive digital cables secure. If it's not Julian Assange, it will be some one else who commits the leaks. Irrespective of how you classify his actions, it doesn't change the fact that it was our [The United States] break down, and if one of the costs is that the Vice President has to go it alone in a meeting with world leaders, then so be it.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
12.12.10: The Tax Cuts, The Deal...
So is the deal President Obama cut on taxes with Senate Republicans a good one? Essentially, the only topic of today's Meet The Press, we'll break it down. But first, again, we have to eviscerate Harold Ford, who was on today's panel, because we're still trying to figure out how he is even a Democrat. He said that President Obama should lean in more for the deal saying it is good. Then he tries to take down Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) saying that the Democrats' views were resoundingly voted down on November 2nd in as much as that taxes should not be raised on anyone. Mr. Ford plays himself off as a Clinton economic Democrat but in reality is way to the right.
Also, with regard to this past midterm election, the Democrats views were not rejected. It's just that their views weren't communicated in an effective way that would rally the base. The Democrats made the mistake in the midterms of trying to go to the center. That's fine for a Presidential election, but in a midterm - you go hard to the base to churn out every vote you can. Independents are unreliable in a midterm election - it's just fact.
With that, there is no way to feel good when hearing the Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Austan Goolsbee endorse the deal while saying a major portion of it isn't good. To the average American who cares about these things but doesn't have time to research these things more deeply, that rings hollow coming off as a sign of lack of principle.
Is the deal a good one? Contrary to the stupid Mr. Ford would say, no it isn't. The different question is do the Democrats have to make this deal? Yes. NBC White House correspondent, Savannah Guthrie, on the panel, reminded us that the Democrats didn't make it a campaign issue, which some in the caucus wanted to do. But again, the Democrats' failure was that they should have brought this point to bear much before the election. If they had ingrained this notion that to bring spending under control, tax cuts for the rich would have to expire a year ago, then it's possible you could have seen the Tea Party, so strong with Republicans as we know, echoing that message in their own way. This notion of discontinuing the tax cuts for the rich could have evolved into conventional wisdom for when we were at this moment.
Instead, we're at the point where Republicans can protect their interests while the Democrats - center and left - can argue about the wisdom of this compromise amongst themselves because big increases for the middle class are at stake.
When the President, earlier this week, said to the effect that Republicans are taking hostages, that phrase resonated throughout cable news and the opinion columns. Imagine if the Democrats had 6 months to pound away at the Republicans with the soundbite. The outcome would be different.
Mr. Goolsbee did say that he felt 2012 would be a growth year for the U.S. economy, which it would have to be for the President to be reelected, but more importantly, we can not afford a 'lost decade' like the Japanese experienced in the 1990's. But what Mr. Goolsbee is seeing is that by doing this deal, the Republicans' corporate masters will feel more comfortable with the Obama policy direction and start investing money into America again.
Is President Obama, or for that matter former President Clinton, for continued tax cuts for the rich? Of course not, but they both endorsed the deal with Senate Republicans because at this late juncture, they have no choice if they want to save the middle class. What's really appalling is that in the vote last week to continue the tax cuts for the middle class, but suspend them for the wealthiest 2%, 5 Democrats in the Senate voted against the measure. And that's why this deal had to be made.
Now, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, today's ever-optimistic second guest, said we should be encouraged by all of this because at least it is something that it bipartisan. He explained that it better for individuals to be spending money to get the economy going than it is for the government to spend it. That's true, but with 38% of the money, as Congressman Weiner pointed out, going to the top 2% percent, how much is actually going to be spent?
During the panel, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot pointed out that this deal is simply maintaining the status quo. And the status quo, at this point as we all know, is unacceptable... unsustainable. What Mr. Gigot did not articulate is that the status quo is the Republican agenda. They do not advocate for larger tax reform as he suggested there should be.
Mr. Bloomberg pointed out that we're not investing in basic research and that we need immigrants in this county so that the inventions spawned from the research are invented here in The United States. Does he mean basic research like stem-cell research? He clearly stated that an immigrant attaining an graduate degree should get a green card upon completion and a path to citizenship.
You see where we're going with this. Republicans have lined up staunchly against the Dream Act and they have never been for stem cell research. Oh, how about energy research? Not if it's not done by an oil company. The common sense that Mr. Bloomberg is explaining is frankly not shared by half the people in power.
He also spoke about confidence, and how the lack of it is the single most significant impediment to growth. On all levels, people need to have the confidence to spend. Sadly, the remedies he's suggesting, research and immigration, are opposed on the basis of fear and suspicion, two qualities that never inspire confidence.
Post Note: For the record, we opine that there should be no debate on whether to move forward with stem-cell research. How would medicine have ever advanced if we did not pick apart our own bodies? How many cadavers in the name of medicine? Now, one would say that the embryonic stem cell is not dead and is the essence of life. If it is the essence of life then that makes it all the more important to study it. And it's not dead, it's just a cell frozen, immobile. The 'essence' is a religious argument and is thus a false basis on which to base any biological theory. We're done with the days of amputating limbs to see how they are connected. We're at the cellular/molecular stage now and this research is too vital to ever turn back.
Also, with regard to this past midterm election, the Democrats views were not rejected. It's just that their views weren't communicated in an effective way that would rally the base. The Democrats made the mistake in the midterms of trying to go to the center. That's fine for a Presidential election, but in a midterm - you go hard to the base to churn out every vote you can. Independents are unreliable in a midterm election - it's just fact.
With that, there is no way to feel good when hearing the Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Austan Goolsbee endorse the deal while saying a major portion of it isn't good. To the average American who cares about these things but doesn't have time to research these things more deeply, that rings hollow coming off as a sign of lack of principle.
Is the deal a good one? Contrary to the stupid Mr. Ford would say, no it isn't. The different question is do the Democrats have to make this deal? Yes. NBC White House correspondent, Savannah Guthrie, on the panel, reminded us that the Democrats didn't make it a campaign issue, which some in the caucus wanted to do. But again, the Democrats' failure was that they should have brought this point to bear much before the election. If they had ingrained this notion that to bring spending under control, tax cuts for the rich would have to expire a year ago, then it's possible you could have seen the Tea Party, so strong with Republicans as we know, echoing that message in their own way. This notion of discontinuing the tax cuts for the rich could have evolved into conventional wisdom for when we were at this moment.
Instead, we're at the point where Republicans can protect their interests while the Democrats - center and left - can argue about the wisdom of this compromise amongst themselves because big increases for the middle class are at stake.
When the President, earlier this week, said to the effect that Republicans are taking hostages, that phrase resonated throughout cable news and the opinion columns. Imagine if the Democrats had 6 months to pound away at the Republicans with the soundbite. The outcome would be different.
Mr. Goolsbee did say that he felt 2012 would be a growth year for the U.S. economy, which it would have to be for the President to be reelected, but more importantly, we can not afford a 'lost decade' like the Japanese experienced in the 1990's. But what Mr. Goolsbee is seeing is that by doing this deal, the Republicans' corporate masters will feel more comfortable with the Obama policy direction and start investing money into America again.
Is President Obama, or for that matter former President Clinton, for continued tax cuts for the rich? Of course not, but they both endorsed the deal with Senate Republicans because at this late juncture, they have no choice if they want to save the middle class. What's really appalling is that in the vote last week to continue the tax cuts for the middle class, but suspend them for the wealthiest 2%, 5 Democrats in the Senate voted against the measure. And that's why this deal had to be made.
Now, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, today's ever-optimistic second guest, said we should be encouraged by all of this because at least it is something that it bipartisan. He explained that it better for individuals to be spending money to get the economy going than it is for the government to spend it. That's true, but with 38% of the money, as Congressman Weiner pointed out, going to the top 2% percent, how much is actually going to be spent?
During the panel, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot pointed out that this deal is simply maintaining the status quo. And the status quo, at this point as we all know, is unacceptable... unsustainable. What Mr. Gigot did not articulate is that the status quo is the Republican agenda. They do not advocate for larger tax reform as he suggested there should be.
Mr. Bloomberg pointed out that we're not investing in basic research and that we need immigrants in this county so that the inventions spawned from the research are invented here in The United States. Does he mean basic research like stem-cell research? He clearly stated that an immigrant attaining an graduate degree should get a green card upon completion and a path to citizenship.
You see where we're going with this. Republicans have lined up staunchly against the Dream Act and they have never been for stem cell research. Oh, how about energy research? Not if it's not done by an oil company. The common sense that Mr. Bloomberg is explaining is frankly not shared by half the people in power.
He also spoke about confidence, and how the lack of it is the single most significant impediment to growth. On all levels, people need to have the confidence to spend. Sadly, the remedies he's suggesting, research and immigration, are opposed on the basis of fear and suspicion, two qualities that never inspire confidence.
Post Note: For the record, we opine that there should be no debate on whether to move forward with stem-cell research. How would medicine have ever advanced if we did not pick apart our own bodies? How many cadavers in the name of medicine? Now, one would say that the embryonic stem cell is not dead and is the essence of life. If it is the essence of life then that makes it all the more important to study it. And it's not dead, it's just a cell frozen, immobile. The 'essence' is a religious argument and is thus a false basis on which to base any biological theory. We're done with the days of amputating limbs to see how they are connected. We're at the cellular/molecular stage now and this research is too vital to ever turn back.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
12.5.10: America's Anxiety
In the wake of the Senate vote this week on tax rates, you hear described in two different ways from two different Senators on today's program. The 'tax rate' we're referring to is to eliminate the Bush Tax Cuts for income over $250,000. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said it was defeated in a bipartisan effort hence leaving things in place. Conversely, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) put the blame solely on the Republicans.
There are two facts you need to know to make your own interpretation of this. One, the final vote was 53-46 in favor of raising the tax rate for income over $250,000. So the measure did, in fact, win the majority. And in those 46 votes, 5 Democrats voted with the Republicans. The reason the measure will not go through is because of the 60-vote 'traditional' consensus that the Senate needs to ratify. So did the measure not really lose? Was the vote bi-partisan?
Mr. Gregory framed the show in terms of 'America's Anxiety,' and there is no doubt that Americans are anxious. What's interesting about the Senators' respectively segments is that Senator McConnell talked in terms of what the American people want as for how they voted in the midterms, but it is Senator Kerry who seemed to understand the true gravity of where America is right now in terms of the rest of the world. And the anxiety extends when we review a vote like the one above. With all due respect to the traditions of the Senate body, this measure should go through, the Democrats should invoke censure. And that's not to even say that the measure is the right thing to do. The Opinion believes that it is, but that's not the point. Americans become anxious about their government when it isn't decisive. There was not doubt that the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress was decisive and we learn later that some decisions, ok... many decisions were incorrect for the country, but Americans can live with it because it was taking action. The inaction we're experiencing today is killing this country.
Senator Kerry cited a sad reality. It was in the United States that solar panel technology was invented, but it is now in China where 60% of the world's solar panels are made. Six trillion dollars will be spent in the next 20 years for energy technology, and the United States is in line for only 10%. If you peer into the entrepreneurial future, it's centered on energy technology. Taking the environmental debate out of the question, it is where the money will be as more of the world requires more energy. Why isn't The United States capitalizing on this? Pun intended.
Is this the foundation for the future that President Obama is talking about? Essentially, this is the question that was posed by David Brooks and Tom Friedman of the New York Times during the panel. To properly lay this foundation, we need to get our house in order first of course with what everyone would agree need to be big moves. But frankly, there is no political will on either side of the aisle to make a tough choice. Senator McConnell still refuses any specifics on where the sacrifice is going to come from, and when asked about the bi-partisan appointed Debt Commission, he said the following, "I endorse the effort of the commission..." The effort? He refused to comment on whether he agrees with any of it's recommendations. He continued that he is not going to negotiate on a Sunday talk show. Ok, that's fair enough, but then that answer allows for the latitude to think that he doesn't have the conviction in his ideas to state them on a Sunday talk show. We guess that we'll just have to wait until January to find out what the Republicans are going to do. They are holding up actions that need to be taken, and we agree that Republicans are holding unemployment benefits for those out of work 'hostage,' to use his term, by not extending them unless those tax entitlements are kept in place for the wealthiest 1%.
It is still this larger question that is most disquieting, and that is what direction is America going in and where will we be in terms of the rest of the world in 20 years? Before we jump into that, a couple of quick bits on some of the answers given by the Senators.
First, when Senator McConnell says that he is following the lead of Senator John McCain on D.A.D.T., that means that Republicans in the Senate are going to stall repeal for as long as they can. Whether you want repeal or not, that's the Republican position.
Secondly, Senator Kerry did his best to defend the President and said, in opposition to Mr. Gregory's assertion, that Mr. Obama is not caving in on his beliefs and tough political decisions. Mr. Kerry cited that T.A.R.P. and the Recovery Act were politically unpopular but that the truth is, those measures staved off a much worse economic situation, and there really isn't any question that this is true. Most people would agree that it is, but would debate the merit in saving institutions/businesses that failed. The bottom line is that the President has been a disappointment when it comes to standing up to his political opposition. Mike Murphy, Republican strategist, said during the panel that the President has broken the hearts of the left. That's a bit dramatic, but to the extent that the left have lost pretty much all faith in the President is correct.
Lastly, Senator McConnell called Julian Assange, Wikileaks founder, a high-tech terrorist and Senator Kerry said this latest document dump, 'hurts.' Well, Mr. Assange is not a high-tech terrorist. That doesn't mean we think what he's doing is right, but he is really just a publisher of leaked information. As that publisher, he has put it all into focus - he did not commit the crime. However, we agree with Senator Kerry that it is counter productive to release such information because it doesn't uncover crimes like the Pentagon papers did. Ultimately, however, these leaked documents give us important perspective. Mr. Friedman, during the panel, illustrated that they show us that the United States is in a vicious cycle of addiction to oil and credit. We get the cash from China and then give it to the Saudis for their oil. They in turn take the money and fund terrorism against us. We borrow more money from China to combat the terrorism. Ms. Kay summed it up by saying that it made a superpower's power look not so super.
This leads us back to the larger point. America's greatness, and now we have to say re-emergence, is dependent on our ability to determine our own future. But if you look at Mr. Friedman's example, we're denying ourselves that ability. Senator Kerry said that we can not cut our way to greatness, but we do need to cut those respective controlling influence over us. What Senator Kerry was referring to were tax cuts and weakening government.
As a frame of reference, Katty Kay, from the BBC, pointed out that in Europe people have taken to the streets to demand more from their governments whereas in the United States the call is for government to stay out of the way. Mr. Friedman mentioned that we need a hybird approach, but what he really meant was a balance of philosophies. As Senator McConnell said, we have to figure out a way to work together. As this limbo lingers, no one benefits.
There are two facts you need to know to make your own interpretation of this. One, the final vote was 53-46 in favor of raising the tax rate for income over $250,000. So the measure did, in fact, win the majority. And in those 46 votes, 5 Democrats voted with the Republicans. The reason the measure will not go through is because of the 60-vote 'traditional' consensus that the Senate needs to ratify. So did the measure not really lose? Was the vote bi-partisan?
Mr. Gregory framed the show in terms of 'America's Anxiety,' and there is no doubt that Americans are anxious. What's interesting about the Senators' respectively segments is that Senator McConnell talked in terms of what the American people want as for how they voted in the midterms, but it is Senator Kerry who seemed to understand the true gravity of where America is right now in terms of the rest of the world. And the anxiety extends when we review a vote like the one above. With all due respect to the traditions of the Senate body, this measure should go through, the Democrats should invoke censure. And that's not to even say that the measure is the right thing to do. The Opinion believes that it is, but that's not the point. Americans become anxious about their government when it isn't decisive. There was not doubt that the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress was decisive and we learn later that some decisions, ok... many decisions were incorrect for the country, but Americans can live with it because it was taking action. The inaction we're experiencing today is killing this country.
Senator Kerry cited a sad reality. It was in the United States that solar panel technology was invented, but it is now in China where 60% of the world's solar panels are made. Six trillion dollars will be spent in the next 20 years for energy technology, and the United States is in line for only 10%. If you peer into the entrepreneurial future, it's centered on energy technology. Taking the environmental debate out of the question, it is where the money will be as more of the world requires more energy. Why isn't The United States capitalizing on this? Pun intended.
Is this the foundation for the future that President Obama is talking about? Essentially, this is the question that was posed by David Brooks and Tom Friedman of the New York Times during the panel. To properly lay this foundation, we need to get our house in order first of course with what everyone would agree need to be big moves. But frankly, there is no political will on either side of the aisle to make a tough choice. Senator McConnell still refuses any specifics on where the sacrifice is going to come from, and when asked about the bi-partisan appointed Debt Commission, he said the following, "I endorse the effort of the commission..." The effort? He refused to comment on whether he agrees with any of it's recommendations. He continued that he is not going to negotiate on a Sunday talk show. Ok, that's fair enough, but then that answer allows for the latitude to think that he doesn't have the conviction in his ideas to state them on a Sunday talk show. We guess that we'll just have to wait until January to find out what the Republicans are going to do. They are holding up actions that need to be taken, and we agree that Republicans are holding unemployment benefits for those out of work 'hostage,' to use his term, by not extending them unless those tax entitlements are kept in place for the wealthiest 1%.
It is still this larger question that is most disquieting, and that is what direction is America going in and where will we be in terms of the rest of the world in 20 years? Before we jump into that, a couple of quick bits on some of the answers given by the Senators.
First, when Senator McConnell says that he is following the lead of Senator John McCain on D.A.D.T., that means that Republicans in the Senate are going to stall repeal for as long as they can. Whether you want repeal or not, that's the Republican position.
Secondly, Senator Kerry did his best to defend the President and said, in opposition to Mr. Gregory's assertion, that Mr. Obama is not caving in on his beliefs and tough political decisions. Mr. Kerry cited that T.A.R.P. and the Recovery Act were politically unpopular but that the truth is, those measures staved off a much worse economic situation, and there really isn't any question that this is true. Most people would agree that it is, but would debate the merit in saving institutions/businesses that failed. The bottom line is that the President has been a disappointment when it comes to standing up to his political opposition. Mike Murphy, Republican strategist, said during the panel that the President has broken the hearts of the left. That's a bit dramatic, but to the extent that the left have lost pretty much all faith in the President is correct.
Lastly, Senator McConnell called Julian Assange, Wikileaks founder, a high-tech terrorist and Senator Kerry said this latest document dump, 'hurts.' Well, Mr. Assange is not a high-tech terrorist. That doesn't mean we think what he's doing is right, but he is really just a publisher of leaked information. As that publisher, he has put it all into focus - he did not commit the crime. However, we agree with Senator Kerry that it is counter productive to release such information because it doesn't uncover crimes like the Pentagon papers did. Ultimately, however, these leaked documents give us important perspective. Mr. Friedman, during the panel, illustrated that they show us that the United States is in a vicious cycle of addiction to oil and credit. We get the cash from China and then give it to the Saudis for their oil. They in turn take the money and fund terrorism against us. We borrow more money from China to combat the terrorism. Ms. Kay summed it up by saying that it made a superpower's power look not so super.
This leads us back to the larger point. America's greatness, and now we have to say re-emergence, is dependent on our ability to determine our own future. But if you look at Mr. Friedman's example, we're denying ourselves that ability. Senator Kerry said that we can not cut our way to greatness, but we do need to cut those respective controlling influence over us. What Senator Kerry was referring to were tax cuts and weakening government.
As a frame of reference, Katty Kay, from the BBC, pointed out that in Europe people have taken to the streets to demand more from their governments whereas in the United States the call is for government to stay out of the way. Mr. Friedman mentioned that we need a hybird approach, but what he really meant was a balance of philosophies. As Senator McConnell said, we have to figure out a way to work together. As this limbo lingers, no one benefits.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
11.28.10: Walk and Chew Gum
The only potential positive with regard to the political, possibly military, stand-off with North Korea is that it gives the United States the opportunity to speak with one unified voice. And that one unified voice needs to stand with South Korea. If Richard Engel, who was interviewed at the top of the program, is correct that this situation is to solidify Kim Jung Il's son's (Kim Jung Un) position as North Korea's military leader of strength, which will also sure up the dictatorial succession, then it is imperative that the United States continue the high road using dialogue with China to keep this situation under control.
It essential, in the mind of Kim Jung Il that his son take full control before the dictator passes, because one can conclude that if he passes before his son takes power, his son will not take power - the generals would challenge for power possibly in a coup. So as preposterous as Mr. Engel may sound that this is all for a 27 year-old, it is the warped reality that exists in North Korea. No in-fighting on our side in terms of communicating on this issue is essential.
Speaking of foreign policy and a unified voice, one of today's first guests was Jon Kyl (R-AZ) who said there is not enough time to ratify the S.T.A.R.T. Treaty because the Democrats, singling out Harry Reid, have an agenda for the lame duck session that doesn't allow time for S.T.A.R.T.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Mr. Kyl's foil for the interview, said that Congress has three weeks to address 3 or 4 key issues and questioned Mr. Kyl why Congress couldn't get those few things done in that time. We know why - because Congress can not walk and chew gum at the same time.
This always baffled us here at The Opinion - Congress's inability to tackle issues in a timely manner. Just the fact that one Senator is holding up the treaty ratification sends a bad message and in the end is bad politics. Among Mr. Kyl's concerns is the modernization of our nuclear facilities, to which Mr. Obama has promised more money to renovate than was originally set aside. This is something that Republicans can join in on but refuse not to. And according to Mr. Kyl, the United States Congress can not address the Bush tax cuts, the S.T.A.R.T. treaty, and unemployment benefits at the same time during the lame duck session. When the productivity of the American worker is at an all time high while that individual's wages haven't budged, it's inexcusable that Congress can't get even a few things done. The only way to put is that is total bullshit. Everyone would agree. In a world where multi-tasking is required because of not enough time in the day, Mr. Kyl is conceding that Congress can't do that.
From today's interview, if there was any doubt before there is none now that Mr. Kyl is purely a smug political animal who doesn't seriously consider what the effects of his actions have on the American people. Case in point, the Bush taxes, which he said that they are not cuts. Current tax rates are now the standard structure,in place for ten years, and would hence just be an increase. Each one of his positions is compartmental political posturing, not caring how one position effects another.
For example, the most critical point that Mr. Durbin made, to keep Mr. Kyl in check, is that if the Congress enacted everyone of the recommended spending cuts but keep the Bush tax cuts for the richest one percent, there would be no reduction in the debt or the deficit - a zero-sum change. Mr. Kyl knows this and it's offensive that he doesn't acknowledge this. Mr. Kyl, as all Republicans do, mentioned small business feeling the burden of a tax increase. Again, good politics, but simply not true. President Obama has given many tax breaks to small businesses, so much so that going back to previous tax levels would not hurt them like the Republicans would have you believe. Within that position, Mr. Kyl wants to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, but doesn't want to extend benefits to the unemployed. You be the judge of that.
So when Mr. Kyl says that there isn't time to tackle some critical issues, don't believe him. It's simply that he and other Republicans don't have the political inclination to cooperate on any legislation. [Rome ruined by the Senators.]
________
The Panel: The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Republican Strategist Ed Gillespie, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.
The panel discussions have become increasingly frustrating, but for a few moments/statements because more and more whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative it's about staking out turf and dictating a political unreality. Peggy Noonan, talking as the President, says, "I've heard your [American electorate] and I'm going to make a lot of concessions." Not going to happen. Mr. Ed Gillespie, one individual we think we'd be better as a country if he were not in politics - in other words he's part of the problem, said, "The Democrats have their finger on the pulse of the country, I just don't know which one," a conversation stopper. Mr. Dionne stated that the President has already made too many premature concessions in regard to taxes. So who do we listen to, Mr. Dionne or Ms. Noonan? Managing expectations - Nutter.
Finally, Mayor Nutter, at one point citing his Philadelphia as an example, said that people feel that things are getting better. Our general sense is that he is right to an extent. Things are getting slightly better, but new realities are also taking shape at the same time, namely a continual 9% unemployment rate and a shrinking middle class.
The 'economy' is one subject that has many moving parts (taxes, benefits, incentives) that require many different, specific conversations and solutions. The new reality, if we are to listen to Mr. Kyl, is that Congress can not even multi-task within a single issue. Congress continues to refuse of themselves what they demand from the American people - to get more than one thing done at a time.
It essential, in the mind of Kim Jung Il that his son take full control before the dictator passes, because one can conclude that if he passes before his son takes power, his son will not take power - the generals would challenge for power possibly in a coup. So as preposterous as Mr. Engel may sound that this is all for a 27 year-old, it is the warped reality that exists in North Korea. No in-fighting on our side in terms of communicating on this issue is essential.
Speaking of foreign policy and a unified voice, one of today's first guests was Jon Kyl (R-AZ) who said there is not enough time to ratify the S.T.A.R.T. Treaty because the Democrats, singling out Harry Reid, have an agenda for the lame duck session that doesn't allow time for S.T.A.R.T.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Mr. Kyl's foil for the interview, said that Congress has three weeks to address 3 or 4 key issues and questioned Mr. Kyl why Congress couldn't get those few things done in that time. We know why - because Congress can not walk and chew gum at the same time.
This always baffled us here at The Opinion - Congress's inability to tackle issues in a timely manner. Just the fact that one Senator is holding up the treaty ratification sends a bad message and in the end is bad politics. Among Mr. Kyl's concerns is the modernization of our nuclear facilities, to which Mr. Obama has promised more money to renovate than was originally set aside. This is something that Republicans can join in on but refuse not to. And according to Mr. Kyl, the United States Congress can not address the Bush tax cuts, the S.T.A.R.T. treaty, and unemployment benefits at the same time during the lame duck session. When the productivity of the American worker is at an all time high while that individual's wages haven't budged, it's inexcusable that Congress can't get even a few things done. The only way to put is that is total bullshit. Everyone would agree. In a world where multi-tasking is required because of not enough time in the day, Mr. Kyl is conceding that Congress can't do that.
From today's interview, if there was any doubt before there is none now that Mr. Kyl is purely a smug political animal who doesn't seriously consider what the effects of his actions have on the American people. Case in point, the Bush taxes, which he said that they are not cuts. Current tax rates are now the standard structure,in place for ten years, and would hence just be an increase. Each one of his positions is compartmental political posturing, not caring how one position effects another.
For example, the most critical point that Mr. Durbin made, to keep Mr. Kyl in check, is that if the Congress enacted everyone of the recommended spending cuts but keep the Bush tax cuts for the richest one percent, there would be no reduction in the debt or the deficit - a zero-sum change. Mr. Kyl knows this and it's offensive that he doesn't acknowledge this. Mr. Kyl, as all Republicans do, mentioned small business feeling the burden of a tax increase. Again, good politics, but simply not true. President Obama has given many tax breaks to small businesses, so much so that going back to previous tax levels would not hurt them like the Republicans would have you believe. Within that position, Mr. Kyl wants to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, but doesn't want to extend benefits to the unemployed. You be the judge of that.
So when Mr. Kyl says that there isn't time to tackle some critical issues, don't believe him. It's simply that he and other Republicans don't have the political inclination to cooperate on any legislation. [Rome ruined by the Senators.]
________
The Panel: The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Republican Strategist Ed Gillespie, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.
The panel discussions have become increasingly frustrating, but for a few moments/statements because more and more whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative it's about staking out turf and dictating a political unreality. Peggy Noonan, talking as the President, says, "I've heard your [American electorate] and I'm going to make a lot of concessions." Not going to happen. Mr. Ed Gillespie, one individual we think we'd be better as a country if he were not in politics - in other words he's part of the problem, said, "The Democrats have their finger on the pulse of the country, I just don't know which one," a conversation stopper. Mr. Dionne stated that the President has already made too many premature concessions in regard to taxes. So who do we listen to, Mr. Dionne or Ms. Noonan? Managing expectations - Nutter.
Finally, Mayor Nutter, at one point citing his Philadelphia as an example, said that people feel that things are getting better. Our general sense is that he is right to an extent. Things are getting slightly better, but new realities are also taking shape at the same time, namely a continual 9% unemployment rate and a shrinking middle class.
The 'economy' is one subject that has many moving parts (taxes, benefits, incentives) that require many different, specific conversations and solutions. The new reality, if we are to listen to Mr. Kyl, is that Congress can not even multi-task within a single issue. Congress continues to refuse of themselves what they demand from the American people - to get more than one thing done at a time.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
11.21.10: Defer and Declare
One thing is for sure, Hillary Clinton sounds incredibly relieved to be the Secretary of State where the Clinton reputation is solid because she has the capability to stay beyond the fray of what has really become trivial politics. One can only imagine what political opponents of Mrs. Clinton would throw at her if she had won the Presidency. Both in tone and in content, you could sense during today interview that the Madam Secretary has had enough of the finger-pointing politik. When Mr. Gregory asked the sophomoric question as to how she felt about the mid-term election, the Secretary could laughingly decline to answer.
She stated, in response to Mr. Gregory's inquiry about Republicans lead by Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) blocking that ratification of the S.T.A.R.T. Treaty, that their questions deserved to be answered and that everyone in the Administration is ready to answer them. She went on to say that once those questions are answered that she feels there will be the two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify the treaty.
Mr. Gregory mentioned the possibility of simply political posturing by the Republicans, to which Mrs. Clinton reminded us of the famous Ronald Reagan quote, "Trust but verify." She obviously concluded that there is no verification without the treaty.
We agree with all that she said in as much as if there are questions, they should be answered, but again what is disappointing is that whether it was the Republicans themselves or the Press, the connotation is that it is a stall tactic to make political points. We sincerely hope this is not the case. There used to be a mentality in this country particularly in the Reagan era that no matter what the problems and differences were at home, we spoke with a unified voice on the international stage. We can't even get that together now, and you would think that since all the American people want is some compromise to get things done, international relations would be a good place start. We believe that ultimately we will and the treaty will be ratified by the Senate.
Conscientiously, Mr. Gregory discussed Afghanistan with Secretary Clinton and she said that 'hopefully' we'll be able to transition to Afghan lead security by 2014. What that says to us is that we're there in some capacity until at least 2020, and that's being hopeful, but we have no illusions that our involvement in Afghanistan is nothing but long term. Mrs. Clinton also said that permanent bases haven't even been considered yet, so let's do a little considering.
Having a permanent base there means a sustained military presence after all the major combat operations have left the country, so 2,000 troops...less? The military would advise to have such a base and it's understandable. From their point of view, the Taliban orchestrated by Al Qaeda is a grave threat to security in Afghanistan. It's the closest continually touch point that the Pentagon and the C.I.A. would have to this lawless region.
However, unlike any other base we have, even the ones we have in Iraq, permanent bases in Afghanistan should also be considered a continual streaming of the fighting there. Those bases will be under constant torment from the Taliban and assorted others. So what to do?
Well, we first have to concede that we're going to be there long term in a significant capacity, but by 2030 we should have no permanent base there at all. By that time, either Kabul has pulled the country up and there are signs of progress to enter the world community or it will remain destitute and corrupt. Either way, this is one place we should not stay permanently, like South Korea. No way.
But what's funny is that as silly as it seems, if we were able to kill or capture the Al Qaeda leadership, that would give The United States the political cover to get the hell out of there sooner, but it's not a priority.
Speaking of priorities, we're still trying to figure out where Governor Bobby Jindal's reside. What really bothered us about today's interview is that Governor Jindal (R-LA) came off as though he studied for it. It goes back to that disastrous Republican rebuttal to President Obama's first State of the Union address. He didn't articulate any point or message. By contrast, his answers we clearer and more concise. Believable or reassuring is another story. Mr. Jindal because of that one stumble is on the outside looking in when it comes to political relevance in the Republican party hierarchy.
However, it's not for lack of trying. Where Secretary Clinton deferred, Governor Jindal declared. Are the airport security measures excessive? Yes. Administration incompetent during the BP oil spill disaster? Absolutely. But let's wait one second...
Among these more-than-sure-of-himself statements, he said that this Administration has been lucky we haven't been hit with a major terrorist act from overseas, as if lucky has been the sole factor. Also, when he says that the Administration is more concerned about the Miranda rights of terrorists than American citizens' rights, who's he talking to? There is a limited amount of time during the interview, why waste our time with statements like that? Also, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Jindal sparred about whether sand berms worked, who did or didn't do what, but they never got to talking about what the current state of affairs is with the damage and the clean-up.
Lastly, Mr. Jindal reiterated the current Republican mantra, that they've learned from their mistakes and they deserve to be the majority party again... Really?
She stated, in response to Mr. Gregory's inquiry about Republicans lead by Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) blocking that ratification of the S.T.A.R.T. Treaty, that their questions deserved to be answered and that everyone in the Administration is ready to answer them. She went on to say that once those questions are answered that she feels there will be the two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify the treaty.
Mr. Gregory mentioned the possibility of simply political posturing by the Republicans, to which Mrs. Clinton reminded us of the famous Ronald Reagan quote, "Trust but verify." She obviously concluded that there is no verification without the treaty.
We agree with all that she said in as much as if there are questions, they should be answered, but again what is disappointing is that whether it was the Republicans themselves or the Press, the connotation is that it is a stall tactic to make political points. We sincerely hope this is not the case. There used to be a mentality in this country particularly in the Reagan era that no matter what the problems and differences were at home, we spoke with a unified voice on the international stage. We can't even get that together now, and you would think that since all the American people want is some compromise to get things done, international relations would be a good place start. We believe that ultimately we will and the treaty will be ratified by the Senate.
Conscientiously, Mr. Gregory discussed Afghanistan with Secretary Clinton and she said that 'hopefully' we'll be able to transition to Afghan lead security by 2014. What that says to us is that we're there in some capacity until at least 2020, and that's being hopeful, but we have no illusions that our involvement in Afghanistan is nothing but long term. Mrs. Clinton also said that permanent bases haven't even been considered yet, so let's do a little considering.
Having a permanent base there means a sustained military presence after all the major combat operations have left the country, so 2,000 troops...less? The military would advise to have such a base and it's understandable. From their point of view, the Taliban orchestrated by Al Qaeda is a grave threat to security in Afghanistan. It's the closest continually touch point that the Pentagon and the C.I.A. would have to this lawless region.
However, unlike any other base we have, even the ones we have in Iraq, permanent bases in Afghanistan should also be considered a continual streaming of the fighting there. Those bases will be under constant torment from the Taliban and assorted others. So what to do?
Well, we first have to concede that we're going to be there long term in a significant capacity, but by 2030 we should have no permanent base there at all. By that time, either Kabul has pulled the country up and there are signs of progress to enter the world community or it will remain destitute and corrupt. Either way, this is one place we should not stay permanently, like South Korea. No way.
But what's funny is that as silly as it seems, if we were able to kill or capture the Al Qaeda leadership, that would give The United States the political cover to get the hell out of there sooner, but it's not a priority.
Speaking of priorities, we're still trying to figure out where Governor Bobby Jindal's reside. What really bothered us about today's interview is that Governor Jindal (R-LA) came off as though he studied for it. It goes back to that disastrous Republican rebuttal to President Obama's first State of the Union address. He didn't articulate any point or message. By contrast, his answers we clearer and more concise. Believable or reassuring is another story. Mr. Jindal because of that one stumble is on the outside looking in when it comes to political relevance in the Republican party hierarchy.
However, it's not for lack of trying. Where Secretary Clinton deferred, Governor Jindal declared. Are the airport security measures excessive? Yes. Administration incompetent during the BP oil spill disaster? Absolutely. But let's wait one second...
Among these more-than-sure-of-himself statements, he said that this Administration has been lucky we haven't been hit with a major terrorist act from overseas, as if lucky has been the sole factor. Also, when he says that the Administration is more concerned about the Miranda rights of terrorists than American citizens' rights, who's he talking to? There is a limited amount of time during the interview, why waste our time with statements like that? Also, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Jindal sparred about whether sand berms worked, who did or didn't do what, but they never got to talking about what the current state of affairs is with the damage and the clean-up.
Lastly, Mr. Jindal reiterated the current Republican mantra, that they've learned from their mistakes and they deserve to be the majority party again... Really?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
11.14.10: It's a Gut Thing
We have to start with today's column with this question: Is David Axelrod, The President's Senior Adviser, part of the problem? Because today, like every previous visit to Meet The Press, he comes off as defensive instead of being sure of himself and the Administration, in which he works.
At the top of the interview, Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Axelrod about the challenges and rejections the President faced at this past week's G20 summit. He immediately called Mr. Gregory on highlighting the negative instead of the positive, which was The President's India Trip, securing $10 Billion in Trade in turn creating 50,000 jobs. Looking at this on the face of it, one would say, "Well, that's what he should do when asked a question like that." Well, many in the press and on cable agree that a big part of the problem for the Democratic loses this election season were due in part to The Administration not communicating its achievements effectively to the electorate. If you continually answer questions from the press in a defensive posture, like Mr. Axelrod does, no wonder people have doubts.
It's a gut thing. Americans like people who sound sure of themselves, and if the individual who's speaking doesn't, it earns skepticism from the people... it's a feeling in the gut. Now, it's too the point where sometimes the American people don't even realize the content of what's being said by politicians, as long as it comes out confidently.
With regard to the Bush-era tax cuts, Mr. Axelrod said there was no bending on the President's stance that they should not be extended for the wealthy. But this finally came after haggling over of the question. He initially said that he wasn't going to debate it with Mr. Gregory on today's program. He is the President's senior adviser. State the President's position, he knows what it is, and move on.
Lastly, Mr. Gregory asked about the 'draconian document' (Mr. Gregory's term) that it the Debt Commission's co-chair analysis that came out this week. Mr. Axelrod wouldn't even say if everything was on the table, probably afraid of future questions about whether that includes social security, which would then be spun as the Administration wants to cut your Social Security, afraid of being attacked.
We simply don't feel that Alan Simpson is a credible voice for the debt commission, though he was appointed by President Obama. Erskin Bowles is also suspect because the appointment of both these men automatically sets the agenda on a pro-corporate stance. If every is, in fact, on the table then it can not just be about one aspect.
Now, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel could attack and upset people with the best of them, but the problem was not that he pissed off Republicans, but he also didn't have a lot of Democrats on board along the way. But like Republicans, he wasn't afraid to piss people off and to answer Mr. Gregory's question for Mr. Axelrod, the answer is 'no,' The President should not campaign for him, just focus on the bigger picture. The Democrats should take some of Mr. Emanuel's example.
Speaking of tempers, Senator John McCain is just getting plain weird. The farther to the center that his wife and daughter go, the more right he goes. Something is going on there, no matter what document you put in front of him, he wants 'THE' comprehensive study of D.A.D.T. and then hearings, despite what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to. Basically, Mr. McCain is doing everything he can to block or delay the end of this policy. This runs directly counter to what his wife and daughter advocate. We're not going to speculate as to why, several theories could be put forth, but what we do know if that Mr. McCain has backtracked on the progressive thinking that he was once known for and that's the disappointment. Even with that in mind, he stills holds credibility in the press when it concerns the reality on the ground of Afghanistan and Iraq.
One key point that he did make on today's program was that India, Pakistan, and of course Afghanistan are all in a state of uncertainty as to whether the U.S. is going to stay the course in the region. It's a vital notion to consider because uncertainty breeds instability... just think about our economy. If anything needs to be achieved in Afghanistan and the border region with Pakistan, it's some sort of stability. Unfortunately, as Mr. McCain also pointed out, the Afghanistan government is incredibly corrupt, which makes it doomed to fail. And yes, we agree that it is prudent to have a withdrawal timetable based solely on conditions on the ground. The one big problem with that is we only have an idea of what the conditions on the ground are, so it's difficult to have an idea of where they should be.
Mr. Gregory also asked Mr. McCain about the economy... why? Most of America is in consensus on the idea that if Mr. McCain were President, we'd be a lot worse off than we are now.
This brings us to today's panel: Fmr. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) and Co-Author of "All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis”, Bethany McLean of Vanity Fair.
Dr. Greenspan, as Mr. Gregory addressed him, said that the high uncertainty in the business community is like he has never seen it before. Whether you agreed with his decisions as Fed Chair or not, he's been around and is an accurate judge. That is very worrisome but that statement should also not be interpreted as that President Obama is anti-business, something Mr. Gingrich contradicted in his first statement during the panel.
In his opinion, President Obama's view on the economy is fundamentally wrong. Mr. Gingrich is one of those people we referred at the top of the column, one who sounds sure of himself that people will listen to despite the content.
But you know who was worse? The man sitting to his right, Harold Ford. Mr. Ford, in our opinion should continue to be denied access to regaining a position in Congress simply for the fact that he stands for so little. He runs as a Democrat but his business stance is Republican-right. One may site the Clinton model, but remember that Clinton went 'right' for business when he was already in office, his second term, in the name of expediency, but he didn't run on that initially to become President. He commended Mr. Gingrich's effort for a new American majority. Didn't we ultimately reject the Contract with America. What does Harold Ford stand for?
He continually agreed with Mr. Gingrich on several points, namely loosening regulations on business and cutting corporate tax. Voters don't know what to get from him going in as he portrays himself as the calm, middle voice, which in some circumstances is ok, but in his case it is a bit of pandering.
But let's get back to Mr. Gingrich and his content, just on today's program. He said that one way in which the government can cut costs without asking any sacrifice from the American people is Medicare fraud, which he said was to the tune of "$70 to $120 billion dollars a year." Yet, he would endorse a candidate like the now Governor-elect Republican Rick Scott who before political life was the C.E.O. of Columbia HCA, which was charged with Medicare fraud and had to pay the largest fine in history, $1.7 billion dollars. And then to top it off, Mr. Gregory gave him the last word and he said that he thought we would see the economy marginally improve over the next year.
However, the star of today's program was author, Ms. Bethany McLean who spelled out the hard reality, to which no one at the table could answer. First she challenged that in the face of the government being 90% of the housing market, she didn't know of anyone who had the guts to end government involvement without sending the economy into another tailspin.
Telling like it is, no matter who is at the table goes a long way, don't you think?
See clip:
At the top of the interview, Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Axelrod about the challenges and rejections the President faced at this past week's G20 summit. He immediately called Mr. Gregory on highlighting the negative instead of the positive, which was The President's India Trip, securing $10 Billion in Trade in turn creating 50,000 jobs. Looking at this on the face of it, one would say, "Well, that's what he should do when asked a question like that." Well, many in the press and on cable agree that a big part of the problem for the Democratic loses this election season were due in part to The Administration not communicating its achievements effectively to the electorate. If you continually answer questions from the press in a defensive posture, like Mr. Axelrod does, no wonder people have doubts.
It's a gut thing. Americans like people who sound sure of themselves, and if the individual who's speaking doesn't, it earns skepticism from the people... it's a feeling in the gut. Now, it's too the point where sometimes the American people don't even realize the content of what's being said by politicians, as long as it comes out confidently.
With regard to the Bush-era tax cuts, Mr. Axelrod said there was no bending on the President's stance that they should not be extended for the wealthy. But this finally came after haggling over of the question. He initially said that he wasn't going to debate it with Mr. Gregory on today's program. He is the President's senior adviser. State the President's position, he knows what it is, and move on.
Lastly, Mr. Gregory asked about the 'draconian document' (Mr. Gregory's term) that it the Debt Commission's co-chair analysis that came out this week. Mr. Axelrod wouldn't even say if everything was on the table, probably afraid of future questions about whether that includes social security, which would then be spun as the Administration wants to cut your Social Security, afraid of being attacked.
We simply don't feel that Alan Simpson is a credible voice for the debt commission, though he was appointed by President Obama. Erskin Bowles is also suspect because the appointment of both these men automatically sets the agenda on a pro-corporate stance. If every is, in fact, on the table then it can not just be about one aspect.
Now, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel could attack and upset people with the best of them, but the problem was not that he pissed off Republicans, but he also didn't have a lot of Democrats on board along the way. But like Republicans, he wasn't afraid to piss people off and to answer Mr. Gregory's question for Mr. Axelrod, the answer is 'no,' The President should not campaign for him, just focus on the bigger picture. The Democrats should take some of Mr. Emanuel's example.
Speaking of tempers, Senator John McCain is just getting plain weird. The farther to the center that his wife and daughter go, the more right he goes. Something is going on there, no matter what document you put in front of him, he wants 'THE' comprehensive study of D.A.D.T. and then hearings, despite what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to. Basically, Mr. McCain is doing everything he can to block or delay the end of this policy. This runs directly counter to what his wife and daughter advocate. We're not going to speculate as to why, several theories could be put forth, but what we do know if that Mr. McCain has backtracked on the progressive thinking that he was once known for and that's the disappointment. Even with that in mind, he stills holds credibility in the press when it concerns the reality on the ground of Afghanistan and Iraq.
One key point that he did make on today's program was that India, Pakistan, and of course Afghanistan are all in a state of uncertainty as to whether the U.S. is going to stay the course in the region. It's a vital notion to consider because uncertainty breeds instability... just think about our economy. If anything needs to be achieved in Afghanistan and the border region with Pakistan, it's some sort of stability. Unfortunately, as Mr. McCain also pointed out, the Afghanistan government is incredibly corrupt, which makes it doomed to fail. And yes, we agree that it is prudent to have a withdrawal timetable based solely on conditions on the ground. The one big problem with that is we only have an idea of what the conditions on the ground are, so it's difficult to have an idea of where they should be.
Mr. Gregory also asked Mr. McCain about the economy... why? Most of America is in consensus on the idea that if Mr. McCain were President, we'd be a lot worse off than we are now.
This brings us to today's panel: Fmr. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) and Co-Author of "All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis”, Bethany McLean of Vanity Fair.
Dr. Greenspan, as Mr. Gregory addressed him, said that the high uncertainty in the business community is like he has never seen it before. Whether you agreed with his decisions as Fed Chair or not, he's been around and is an accurate judge. That is very worrisome but that statement should also not be interpreted as that President Obama is anti-business, something Mr. Gingrich contradicted in his first statement during the panel.
In his opinion, President Obama's view on the economy is fundamentally wrong. Mr. Gingrich is one of those people we referred at the top of the column, one who sounds sure of himself that people will listen to despite the content.
But you know who was worse? The man sitting to his right, Harold Ford. Mr. Ford, in our opinion should continue to be denied access to regaining a position in Congress simply for the fact that he stands for so little. He runs as a Democrat but his business stance is Republican-right. One may site the Clinton model, but remember that Clinton went 'right' for business when he was already in office, his second term, in the name of expediency, but he didn't run on that initially to become President. He commended Mr. Gingrich's effort for a new American majority. Didn't we ultimately reject the Contract with America. What does Harold Ford stand for?
He continually agreed with Mr. Gingrich on several points, namely loosening regulations on business and cutting corporate tax. Voters don't know what to get from him going in as he portrays himself as the calm, middle voice, which in some circumstances is ok, but in his case it is a bit of pandering.
But let's get back to Mr. Gingrich and his content, just on today's program. He said that one way in which the government can cut costs without asking any sacrifice from the American people is Medicare fraud, which he said was to the tune of "$70 to $120 billion dollars a year." Yet, he would endorse a candidate like the now Governor-elect Republican Rick Scott who before political life was the C.E.O. of Columbia HCA, which was charged with Medicare fraud and had to pay the largest fine in history, $1.7 billion dollars. And then to top it off, Mr. Gregory gave him the last word and he said that he thought we would see the economy marginally improve over the next year.
However, the star of today's program was author, Ms. Bethany McLean who spelled out the hard reality, to which no one at the table could answer. First she challenged that in the face of the government being 90% of the housing market, she didn't know of anyone who had the guts to end government involvement without sending the economy into another tailspin.
Telling like it is, no matter who is at the table goes a long way, don't you think?
See clip:
Sunday, November 07, 2010
11.7.10: Wait and See
Jim DeMint says he's not the leader of the Tea Party, and he may be telling the truth. On today's program, he explained that he doesn't think Americans want to change the health care system we have now. He means the one that consumes 17% of our total GDP and is steadily increasing. The one that keeps the insurance and the pharmaceutical companies on their current obscene profit trajectory; he sounds like a regular Republican to us.
However, he does say that he would vote against increasing debt ceiling, which is very much a consideration of the Tea Party. They could filibuster the increase in the Senate, to which some pundits say would complete crash the economy. Thank you very much for another doomsday scenario.
And let's face, Jim DeMint didn't have to answer any of the 'lay up' questions that Mr. Gregory posed to him today, and he has every right to be smug. The Democrats got 'schlacked,' in the President's words. Where we all need to wait and see is where the Republicans intend to make cuts to the budget.
Given what Governor Chris Christie said in the following interview that he cut New Jersey's state spending 9% across the board in every program. The Republicans will probably look to that, but Jim DeMint also mentioned Paul Ryan's (R-WI) plan for the 'way forward,' which does in fact call for the privatizing of the Social Security system, which wonder in fact render it no longer 'social' nor 'secure.' It should be interesting.
Mr. DeMint also said that he also wants to 'defund' the new Healthcare legislation, try to repeal it, but in the meantime slow the implementation of it. Fundamentally, this is not the correct thing to do. Granted when Democrats do in fact do something, they do it messy, but in the end Americans seem to look back at those initiatives and think, how could we have done without this, like Medicare for example. However, Republicans are corporatists so it stands to reason why they would want to completely scrap the new law.
And the other cuts, Senator DeMint talked about earmarks, which could be a deal-breaker between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans as Mr. Gregory proposed. Actually, that should be their official moniker - Tea Party Republicans, there aren't any Tea Party Democrats in office.
The Republicans won the day last week and now they feel like they have a mandate despite anyone saying anything to the contrary. The President, last Wednesday, gave a concession press conference, almost literally confirming that he's not in touch with the American people. He better get his act together or frankly, the President is going to get his ass handed to him in the next two years.
Where Senator DeMint truly does represent the far-right of the Republican party, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) comes off as a moderate Republican, to which of course, Mr. Gregory asked him about the Presidency. Ugh, enough already with the asking everyone if they are running for President on Meet The Press. Mr. Christie, as we said above, is slashing spending across all municipalities for the most part, which includes things like teacher pensions, hence taking money out of retirees' pockets. [And as these are just words on a page and you can say to yourself, "well, that's not me," it's becoming more and more likely that it is or will be you.
So it all sounds and in some case is all sensible, but make no mistake that it makes life for the individual much more difficult. And speaking of sensible, we agree with Governor Christie with regard to the tunnel project in as much as that it can't be a blank check of overruns in costs. He also mentioned that New York City nor state is contributing to the project, which we believe they should. Let's wait and see.
The Panel: Former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn; Former Adviser to Pres. George W. Bush Karen Hughes; President of the National Urban League, Marc Morial and Republican Strategist Mike Murphy.
With regard to the panel, it breaks down like this: Anita Dunn, please... she's one of the reasons why the message didn't get out. She confessed to assume some responsibility for that. You think? Her lack of responsibility translates directly into a lack of credibility so she had nothing to offer.
Karen Hughes, former adviser to President Bush, said the election was a complete repudiation of President Obama's agenda. "Turn that baby around," she repeated. Do the American people dislike the direction the country is going and did their vote confirm that. All yes, but it should not be characterized in the way Ms. Hughes did it. You know that person who is always convinced he or she is always right, but no matter what the person says it's always wrong? That's Karen Hughes. Marc Morial, the only valid voice on today's panel, was correct in refuting that on air.
As for Mike Murphy's opinion today. He admitted that he ran Meg Whitman's campaign in California. He's so DQ'ed from the conversation.
So where does this all leave us? Well, President Obama has great words and he needs to lead with great actions, which he hasn't done. The Republicans don't say anything and that's what's scary, so you have no idea what they're really going to do. We're in a holding pattern. We really need to land this plane as we're running out of fuel so we can't just keep circling like this.
However, he does say that he would vote against increasing debt ceiling, which is very much a consideration of the Tea Party. They could filibuster the increase in the Senate, to which some pundits say would complete crash the economy. Thank you very much for another doomsday scenario.
And let's face, Jim DeMint didn't have to answer any of the 'lay up' questions that Mr. Gregory posed to him today, and he has every right to be smug. The Democrats got 'schlacked,' in the President's words. Where we all need to wait and see is where the Republicans intend to make cuts to the budget.
Given what Governor Chris Christie said in the following interview that he cut New Jersey's state spending 9% across the board in every program. The Republicans will probably look to that, but Jim DeMint also mentioned Paul Ryan's (R-WI) plan for the 'way forward,' which does in fact call for the privatizing of the Social Security system, which wonder in fact render it no longer 'social' nor 'secure.' It should be interesting.
Mr. DeMint also said that he also wants to 'defund' the new Healthcare legislation, try to repeal it, but in the meantime slow the implementation of it. Fundamentally, this is not the correct thing to do. Granted when Democrats do in fact do something, they do it messy, but in the end Americans seem to look back at those initiatives and think, how could we have done without this, like Medicare for example. However, Republicans are corporatists so it stands to reason why they would want to completely scrap the new law.
And the other cuts, Senator DeMint talked about earmarks, which could be a deal-breaker between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans as Mr. Gregory proposed. Actually, that should be their official moniker - Tea Party Republicans, there aren't any Tea Party Democrats in office.
The Republicans won the day last week and now they feel like they have a mandate despite anyone saying anything to the contrary. The President, last Wednesday, gave a concession press conference, almost literally confirming that he's not in touch with the American people. He better get his act together or frankly, the President is going to get his ass handed to him in the next two years.
Where Senator DeMint truly does represent the far-right of the Republican party, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) comes off as a moderate Republican, to which of course, Mr. Gregory asked him about the Presidency. Ugh, enough already with the asking everyone if they are running for President on Meet The Press. Mr. Christie, as we said above, is slashing spending across all municipalities for the most part, which includes things like teacher pensions, hence taking money out of retirees' pockets. [And as these are just words on a page and you can say to yourself, "well, that's not me," it's becoming more and more likely that it is or will be you.
So it all sounds and in some case is all sensible, but make no mistake that it makes life for the individual much more difficult. And speaking of sensible, we agree with Governor Christie with regard to the tunnel project in as much as that it can't be a blank check of overruns in costs. He also mentioned that New York City nor state is contributing to the project, which we believe they should. Let's wait and see.
The Panel: Former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn; Former Adviser to Pres. George W. Bush Karen Hughes; President of the National Urban League, Marc Morial and Republican Strategist Mike Murphy.
With regard to the panel, it breaks down like this: Anita Dunn, please... she's one of the reasons why the message didn't get out. She confessed to assume some responsibility for that. You think? Her lack of responsibility translates directly into a lack of credibility so she had nothing to offer.
Karen Hughes, former adviser to President Bush, said the election was a complete repudiation of President Obama's agenda. "Turn that baby around," she repeated. Do the American people dislike the direction the country is going and did their vote confirm that. All yes, but it should not be characterized in the way Ms. Hughes did it. You know that person who is always convinced he or she is always right, but no matter what the person says it's always wrong? That's Karen Hughes. Marc Morial, the only valid voice on today's panel, was correct in refuting that on air.
As for Mike Murphy's opinion today. He admitted that he ran Meg Whitman's campaign in California. He's so DQ'ed from the conversation.
So where does this all leave us? Well, President Obama has great words and he needs to lead with great actions, which he hasn't done. The Republicans don't say anything and that's what's scary, so you have no idea what they're really going to do. We're in a holding pattern. We really need to land this plane as we're running out of fuel so we can't just keep circling like this.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
10.31.10: The Bad, The Ugly, and The Fun
With only forty-eight hours before the midterm elections, it was a prudent decision to open today's Meet The Press with the Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan. As he stated, "They [Al Qaeda in Yeman] are at war with us, and we're very much at war with them." The point being, let's not forget what is going on around us as we focus on our little of bubble in the world.
What we found interesting about the conversation is that Mr. Brennan kept speaking about Yemen and Al Qaeda in Yeman, but never mentioned Anwar al-Awlaki by name, the head of this faction on the Arabian pennisula. Al-Awlaki is a U.S. Citizen targeted for assassination by the Obama Administration. So you can say what you will about President Obama's domestic policies, but he is continuing and enhancing the aggressive stance of the United States started by the Bush Administration when it concerns our "war on terrorism."
Some have argued that the United States can not target one of it's own citizens for execution without any charges or trial, and technically that is true, but Al-Awlaki stopped being a U.S. Citizen a long time ago. We're not usually given to cavalier opinions in this column, but in regard to this one individual, we'll make an exception. There is no other figure in Al Qaeda right now more dangerous. And at this stage, we'll not see a situation like we did with Al-Zarqawi in Iraq.
He was thrown to the wolves for becoming too powerful and too much the focus of Al Qaeda in general. Al-Awlaki could potentially be elevated to the top spot, succeeding Osama Bin Laden. The myth created that an American Muslim comes to lead the one Muslim organization willing to fight against the United States is a powerful message for the disenfranchised Muslim masses.
Now we understand that Mr. Brennan did not mention to specifically not put a face on this Yemeni faction, but it's vital to know the background to understand the why. For Al-Awlaki, who was once a moderate Iman in American denouncing the September 11th attacks, but obviously not so now. The biggest fatal flaw that the United States military and intelligence operations should exploit with these people is their respective egos. Al-Awlaki figured it was better to live as a famous radical than an anonymous moderate. They are trying every possible angle to break through our security systems and we can certainly expect more of these kinds of smaller-scale attempts.
This week's bomb-package plots aboard cargo planes wasn't the top story but for one day and it reminds us that this is a time for serious people, people we're not going to get anew as these midterms come about.
Mr. Brennan's short interview gave way to a longer segment with Governor Haily Barbour of Mississippi and DNC Chair (former Governor of VA) Tim Kaine, which typically was less informative because of all the spin with every answer.
Mr. Kaine, for his trouble, said that he thinks the Democrats will hold both houses of Congress. We get it, he's the DNC chair, but in the real world, his optimism truly rings hollow and come to think of it, he had no conviction in the statement. However, it is absolutely correct that the Republicans under President Bush created a lost decade. Where he's wrong is that we think he's mis-identifying which decade. This decade starting in 2010 is the one that's lost! It will take us to at least 2018 to resolve the deep crisis that this country is in - directly caused by the Bush Administration's policies.
And only a Republican of the ilk of a Haley Barbour could raise our cynicism about politicians' intentions higher than hearing false optimism. He said that this midterm election is a repudiation of "Obama's policies." [Reason we put that in quotes is that Mr. Barbour doesn't have the inclination to address the man by his proper title.] Republicans will take the House of Representatives, but not the Senate though they'll get close. Our politicians are just that, not leaders. Governor Barbour said that Republicans will cut $100 billion in spending from the budget. Great, but they never say how they are going to do it. Lowering taxes is not the answer. No one likes to pay higher taxes, but the reality is that something has to give. Do we get rid of Social Security like the Tea Party candidates want, or do we raise taxes to pay for it? Do we repeal the Healthcare Reform Bill and eliminate Medicare for future generations? Governor Barbour said that if Healthcare isn't fully repealed that it will be changed so much that it won't look anything like it does now. But how can we keep the current system, one the Republicans want to bring back, afloat? Republicans don't talk about sacrifices because their prism is through a corporate one, and the Democrats are politically scared to outline the reality.
Serious people stick by their convictions and the Democrats haven't done that. Republicans are exceptional at stoking fear and blame and winning elections, but they can not seriously govern for all the people.
"Americans are angry," NPR's Michelle Norris said, to which Mark Halperin concurred during today's round table. However, on the right at least, it is a manipulated anger - citizens advocating against their own interest - it's sad to watch. We keep thinking that this is no where more illustrated than in the race for Senate in Nevada. Sure, Senator Harry Reid is terrible majority leader, but who will benefit from the election of Sharon Angle? Remember Nevada, this is for 6 years, and if you think some of her views are radical (We'd describe it more accurately as Draconian), imagine her in the Senate actually pushing her anti-American agenda. Yes, 'anti-American' is completely accurate. When ever you invoke that God and religion should play a role in the policies of the United States, that is in direct contrast to our Constitution.
Tom Brokaw cited some useful history for the discussion. He recalled that at Reagan's first midterm election, unemployment was higher than it is now and his approval rating was lower than President Obama's at this time. What he didn't have time to include in his answer is what Reagan then did. He lowered corporate taxes significantly and increase our national debt by trillions so as corporate America boomed in the 80's, most still struggled to keep it all together. Mr. Brokaw also said that some are nervous about how the Republicans will get it together and lead this country. This column's concern is deep and real.... think Sharon Angle as one of our leaders. Just thinking of her winning feels like a punch in the gut and is singularly emblematic of how America's reputation as a country of innovative thinkers is tarnished.... crumbled.
With that said, here's how we'll officially weigh in on some of the races - the bad, the ugly, and the fun:
Nevada
Harry Reid (D) and Sharon Angle (R)
Winner: Sharon Angle. She has the benefit of the anonymous corporate dollar throwing millions toward the race to defeat Mr. Reid. In these last days, Mr. Reid is out of the stump and Mrs. Angle is staying out of sight to avoid any late gaffs with the press, who she has literally run away from for the entire campaign... This is a real leader? All of America losses on this one.
Delaware
Chris Coons (D) and Christine O'Donnell (R)
Winner: Chis Coons. Please... even Americans can draw this line. Let's face it, Republicans have given up on the Delaware race because they know that Mr. Coons, even though he's a Democrat, he's better for the Senate than Ms. O'Donnell.
California
Barbara Boxer (D) and Carli Fiorina
Winner: Barbara Boxer. The only good thing that Ms. Fiorina has brought to this race is that hopefully she woke Senator Boxer who seems to have been resting on the privilege of her position for too long. With that said, she still represents the best interests of her state, whereas Ms. Fiorina would simply be a 'yes' for Republican corporatists at ever turn. Laying off 30,000 at HP in the United States will never ever get our vote.
Pennsylvania
Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Sestak (D)
Winner: Pat Toomey. And this one is devastating on a number of levels - many you may not realize. One, Mr. Toomey is one of the 'fathers' of the Tea Party philosophy... doing away with Social Security and privatizing the VA... real conservative backward stuff. On another level, the administration played this one as badly as you can play it. They backed Arlen Spector, an individual who should have been voted out of office years ago , and go with a great Democratic candidate in Joe Sestak, a retired Navy Admiral. Because of this, he's had to do it all on his own with no support of substance from the Administration. And Mr. Sestak supports the President's policies, and he's still in the race but it looks bleak.
Alaska
Joe Miller (R) and Scott McAdams (D) and Lisa Murkowski (I)
Winner: Lisa Murkowski... as a write-in. Ms. Murkowski will make history and even though she's a Republican it's something that we can all take some kind of pride in. Mr. McAdams is the best representative that Alaska could have. With an Alaska Democrat in the Senate, the utterly stupid 'Mama Grizzly' will have to go into hibernation, the state will be the better for it - more money will roll into the state. However, the two conservative candidates have the cash with the distinct difference being the Joe Miller through any political capital he had down the toilet while his security was handcuffing a journalist. Hence, Murkowski squeezes in.
One last thing: Go and Vote on Tuesday!
What we found interesting about the conversation is that Mr. Brennan kept speaking about Yemen and Al Qaeda in Yeman, but never mentioned Anwar al-Awlaki by name, the head of this faction on the Arabian pennisula. Al-Awlaki is a U.S. Citizen targeted for assassination by the Obama Administration. So you can say what you will about President Obama's domestic policies, but he is continuing and enhancing the aggressive stance of the United States started by the Bush Administration when it concerns our "war on terrorism."
Some have argued that the United States can not target one of it's own citizens for execution without any charges or trial, and technically that is true, but Al-Awlaki stopped being a U.S. Citizen a long time ago. We're not usually given to cavalier opinions in this column, but in regard to this one individual, we'll make an exception. There is no other figure in Al Qaeda right now more dangerous. And at this stage, we'll not see a situation like we did with Al-Zarqawi in Iraq.
He was thrown to the wolves for becoming too powerful and too much the focus of Al Qaeda in general. Al-Awlaki could potentially be elevated to the top spot, succeeding Osama Bin Laden. The myth created that an American Muslim comes to lead the one Muslim organization willing to fight against the United States is a powerful message for the disenfranchised Muslim masses.
Now we understand that Mr. Brennan did not mention to specifically not put a face on this Yemeni faction, but it's vital to know the background to understand the why. For Al-Awlaki, who was once a moderate Iman in American denouncing the September 11th attacks, but obviously not so now. The biggest fatal flaw that the United States military and intelligence operations should exploit with these people is their respective egos. Al-Awlaki figured it was better to live as a famous radical than an anonymous moderate. They are trying every possible angle to break through our security systems and we can certainly expect more of these kinds of smaller-scale attempts.
This week's bomb-package plots aboard cargo planes wasn't the top story but for one day and it reminds us that this is a time for serious people, people we're not going to get anew as these midterms come about.
Mr. Brennan's short interview gave way to a longer segment with Governor Haily Barbour of Mississippi and DNC Chair (former Governor of VA) Tim Kaine, which typically was less informative because of all the spin with every answer.
Mr. Kaine, for his trouble, said that he thinks the Democrats will hold both houses of Congress. We get it, he's the DNC chair, but in the real world, his optimism truly rings hollow and come to think of it, he had no conviction in the statement. However, it is absolutely correct that the Republicans under President Bush created a lost decade. Where he's wrong is that we think he's mis-identifying which decade. This decade starting in 2010 is the one that's lost! It will take us to at least 2018 to resolve the deep crisis that this country is in - directly caused by the Bush Administration's policies.
And only a Republican of the ilk of a Haley Barbour could raise our cynicism about politicians' intentions higher than hearing false optimism. He said that this midterm election is a repudiation of "Obama's policies." [Reason we put that in quotes is that Mr. Barbour doesn't have the inclination to address the man by his proper title.] Republicans will take the House of Representatives, but not the Senate though they'll get close. Our politicians are just that, not leaders. Governor Barbour said that Republicans will cut $100 billion in spending from the budget. Great, but they never say how they are going to do it. Lowering taxes is not the answer. No one likes to pay higher taxes, but the reality is that something has to give. Do we get rid of Social Security like the Tea Party candidates want, or do we raise taxes to pay for it? Do we repeal the Healthcare Reform Bill and eliminate Medicare for future generations? Governor Barbour said that if Healthcare isn't fully repealed that it will be changed so much that it won't look anything like it does now. But how can we keep the current system, one the Republicans want to bring back, afloat? Republicans don't talk about sacrifices because their prism is through a corporate one, and the Democrats are politically scared to outline the reality.
Serious people stick by their convictions and the Democrats haven't done that. Republicans are exceptional at stoking fear and blame and winning elections, but they can not seriously govern for all the people.
"Americans are angry," NPR's Michelle Norris said, to which Mark Halperin concurred during today's round table. However, on the right at least, it is a manipulated anger - citizens advocating against their own interest - it's sad to watch. We keep thinking that this is no where more illustrated than in the race for Senate in Nevada. Sure, Senator Harry Reid is terrible majority leader, but who will benefit from the election of Sharon Angle? Remember Nevada, this is for 6 years, and if you think some of her views are radical (We'd describe it more accurately as Draconian), imagine her in the Senate actually pushing her anti-American agenda. Yes, 'anti-American' is completely accurate. When ever you invoke that God and religion should play a role in the policies of the United States, that is in direct contrast to our Constitution.
Tom Brokaw cited some useful history for the discussion. He recalled that at Reagan's first midterm election, unemployment was higher than it is now and his approval rating was lower than President Obama's at this time. What he didn't have time to include in his answer is what Reagan then did. He lowered corporate taxes significantly and increase our national debt by trillions so as corporate America boomed in the 80's, most still struggled to keep it all together. Mr. Brokaw also said that some are nervous about how the Republicans will get it together and lead this country. This column's concern is deep and real.... think Sharon Angle as one of our leaders. Just thinking of her winning feels like a punch in the gut and is singularly emblematic of how America's reputation as a country of innovative thinkers is tarnished.... crumbled.
With that said, here's how we'll officially weigh in on some of the races - the bad, the ugly, and the fun:
Nevada
Harry Reid (D) and Sharon Angle (R)
Winner: Sharon Angle. She has the benefit of the anonymous corporate dollar throwing millions toward the race to defeat Mr. Reid. In these last days, Mr. Reid is out of the stump and Mrs. Angle is staying out of sight to avoid any late gaffs with the press, who she has literally run away from for the entire campaign... This is a real leader? All of America losses on this one.
Delaware
Chris Coons (D) and Christine O'Donnell (R)
Winner: Chis Coons. Please... even Americans can draw this line. Let's face it, Republicans have given up on the Delaware race because they know that Mr. Coons, even though he's a Democrat, he's better for the Senate than Ms. O'Donnell.
California
Barbara Boxer (D) and Carli Fiorina
Winner: Barbara Boxer. The only good thing that Ms. Fiorina has brought to this race is that hopefully she woke Senator Boxer who seems to have been resting on the privilege of her position for too long. With that said, she still represents the best interests of her state, whereas Ms. Fiorina would simply be a 'yes' for Republican corporatists at ever turn. Laying off 30,000 at HP in the United States will never ever get our vote.
Pennsylvania
Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Sestak (D)
Winner: Pat Toomey. And this one is devastating on a number of levels - many you may not realize. One, Mr. Toomey is one of the 'fathers' of the Tea Party philosophy... doing away with Social Security and privatizing the VA... real conservative backward stuff. On another level, the administration played this one as badly as you can play it. They backed Arlen Spector, an individual who should have been voted out of office years ago , and go with a great Democratic candidate in Joe Sestak, a retired Navy Admiral. Because of this, he's had to do it all on his own with no support of substance from the Administration. And Mr. Sestak supports the President's policies, and he's still in the race but it looks bleak.
Alaska
Joe Miller (R) and Scott McAdams (D) and Lisa Murkowski (I)
Winner: Lisa Murkowski... as a write-in. Ms. Murkowski will make history and even though she's a Republican it's something that we can all take some kind of pride in. Mr. McAdams is the best representative that Alaska could have. With an Alaska Democrat in the Senate, the utterly stupid 'Mama Grizzly' will have to go into hibernation, the state will be the better for it - more money will roll into the state. However, the two conservative candidates have the cash with the distinct difference being the Joe Miller through any political capital he had down the toilet while his security was handcuffing a journalist. Hence, Murkowski squeezes in.
One last thing: Go and Vote on Tuesday!
Sunday, September 19, 2010
9.19.10: General Colin Powell/ President Bill Clinton
Mr. Gregory uttered the phrase, "ride the tiger," with regard to established Republican politicians attaching themselves to the Tea Party movement. For certain, Tea Party candidates are collectively ferocious, but we all know the end result of being on the back of a tiger too long - bitten and mauled.
The declarative statement that was today's Meet The Press will hopefully become a news-site endless clip reel. General Powell put it directly to the Tea Party movement, "you have to have an agenda, not just slogans." However, he does feel that this movement is healthy for the country because they have tapped into an anxiety about debt, spending, and taxes, he explained. He went further and opined that it would be good for the President if one of the houses were under control of Republicans. This way, Republicans would be forced to govern and make the hard choices.
However, if Tea Party Republicans have not given any indication that they can make these hard choices, becoming too wrapped up in their own bluster of rhetoric. In theory, the General is probably correct, but his theoretical Republican Party is vastly different than the one vying for control of Congress.
Colin Powell is a voice of reason and an essential leader for America. His position on immigration, outlining the Dream Act [an undocumented/illegal resident can work his/her way to citizenship through going to college or into the military] is sensible and realistic given his arguument with regard to the eligible working-age population, but his position undoubtedly disqualifies him from today's Republican party, they simply don't want to tolerate such a moderate voice. General Powell in fact described himself as a moderate Republican, but is there such a thing anymore. The ones who view themselves like that are not shunned from the overall political discourse, just from the party machinery. That's now run by Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina. Regardless of whether you agree with all or some of his positions, he conducts himself and his discourse in a manner of which people should listen. This above statement does in no way let us forget General Powell's sad performance in front of the U.N. Assembly making the case for Iraq's weapons program, but in a country that facilitates, encourages redemption for so many of the wrong people, perhaps the redemption of Colin Powell is coming. Especially since his strategic position with regard to Iran is most responsible one we've heard from any politician right now. Use steep sanctions if Iran doesn't comply with international inspections of their nuclear facilities, get Russia and China involved, and use diplomacy. Very sound, but again, where was this exact strategy when the conversation was about Iraq?
What we really appreciated most was the following:
He pretty much sums it up right at the end there, it's the base from which the international community should work.
As for the second half interview with President Bill Clinton on this notably episode, we must first say that now we know who is rebuilding Haiti. Bill Clinton is rebuilding Haiti. In just the few minutes in which he spoke about the rebuilding, you just know that it doesn't happen without his effort to bring forth donors to meet with the Haitian government to see it through. His detailed description of the realities on the ground briefly exhausted David Gregory and he has to move on.
We didn't particularly like the fact that President Clinton laughed off the incendiary comments of Former Speaker Newt Gingrich ['anti-colonial, kenyan mentality,' et al]. It is comments such as those that General Powell implored against in the front half of the program. And it is this coded rhetoric that fuel a movement, of which both guests questioned specifics of its agenda.
We wish the Obama Administration would take some lessons from the former President on how to frame their ideas and accomplishments. It's the one thing that Bill Clinton does better than any politician. He has the ability to take distill a topic so that the everyday American can understand how it would effect him.
The obvious example from today's interview is the subject of healthcare. Within this, the President outlined out in 2009, insurance company profits were up 26% and that our government pays one trillion dollars more per year on healthcare than any other country. How does this relate to the ordinary citizen? Under the new healthcare bill, 85% of a person's premium payments will not go to actual care instead of most to the industry's buracracy and profit margins from dropping coverage. And when he said that there were some things to fix in the healthcare bill, that was his code for saying that the amendments/concessions that the Democrats let slide need to be repaired.
Today's program has lead us, actually reminds us of this axiom: In the United States, there are too many politicians and a dearth of statesmen.
The declarative statement that was today's Meet The Press will hopefully become a news-site endless clip reel. General Powell put it directly to the Tea Party movement, "you have to have an agenda, not just slogans." However, he does feel that this movement is healthy for the country because they have tapped into an anxiety about debt, spending, and taxes, he explained. He went further and opined that it would be good for the President if one of the houses were under control of Republicans. This way, Republicans would be forced to govern and make the hard choices.
However, if Tea Party Republicans have not given any indication that they can make these hard choices, becoming too wrapped up in their own bluster of rhetoric. In theory, the General is probably correct, but his theoretical Republican Party is vastly different than the one vying for control of Congress.
Colin Powell is a voice of reason and an essential leader for America. His position on immigration, outlining the Dream Act [an undocumented/illegal resident can work his/her way to citizenship through going to college or into the military] is sensible and realistic given his arguument with regard to the eligible working-age population, but his position undoubtedly disqualifies him from today's Republican party, they simply don't want to tolerate such a moderate voice. General Powell in fact described himself as a moderate Republican, but is there such a thing anymore. The ones who view themselves like that are not shunned from the overall political discourse, just from the party machinery. That's now run by Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina. Regardless of whether you agree with all or some of his positions, he conducts himself and his discourse in a manner of which people should listen. This above statement does in no way let us forget General Powell's sad performance in front of the U.N. Assembly making the case for Iraq's weapons program, but in a country that facilitates, encourages redemption for so many of the wrong people, perhaps the redemption of Colin Powell is coming. Especially since his strategic position with regard to Iran is most responsible one we've heard from any politician right now. Use steep sanctions if Iran doesn't comply with international inspections of their nuclear facilities, get Russia and China involved, and use diplomacy. Very sound, but again, where was this exact strategy when the conversation was about Iraq?
What we really appreciated most was the following:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
He pretty much sums it up right at the end there, it's the base from which the international community should work.
As for the second half interview with President Bill Clinton on this notably episode, we must first say that now we know who is rebuilding Haiti. Bill Clinton is rebuilding Haiti. In just the few minutes in which he spoke about the rebuilding, you just know that it doesn't happen without his effort to bring forth donors to meet with the Haitian government to see it through. His detailed description of the realities on the ground briefly exhausted David Gregory and he has to move on.
We didn't particularly like the fact that President Clinton laughed off the incendiary comments of Former Speaker Newt Gingrich ['anti-colonial, kenyan mentality,' et al]. It is comments such as those that General Powell implored against in the front half of the program. And it is this coded rhetoric that fuel a movement, of which both guests questioned specifics of its agenda.
We wish the Obama Administration would take some lessons from the former President on how to frame their ideas and accomplishments. It's the one thing that Bill Clinton does better than any politician. He has the ability to take distill a topic so that the everyday American can understand how it would effect him.
The obvious example from today's interview is the subject of healthcare. Within this, the President outlined out in 2009, insurance company profits were up 26% and that our government pays one trillion dollars more per year on healthcare than any other country. How does this relate to the ordinary citizen? Under the new healthcare bill, 85% of a person's premium payments will not go to actual care instead of most to the industry's buracracy and profit margins from dropping coverage. And when he said that there were some things to fix in the healthcare bill, that was his code for saying that the amendments/concessions that the Democrats let slide need to be repaired.
Today's program has lead us, actually reminds us of this axiom: In the United States, there are too many politicians and a dearth of statesmen.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
9.12.10: Speaking of Quotes
We've probably referenced this quote some time in the past before, but we haven't heard anything more concise than Lewis Black's. "The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans suck and Democrats blow."
And it is the latter that we more concerned with today because really, Democrats hold all the cards. They're just not playing them well. How lame is it that Democrats pass historic healthcare reform and none of them campaign on it, but David Axelrod, today's first guest, stated concise bullet points as to why they should and they still won't do it. In the roundtable discussion, Ron Brownstein said that there is a disconnect between performance and results for the Democrats, but additionally it's not seeming to have confidence in their convictions. We not talking about President Obama and his administration, we're talking about Congress people.
1. Seniors paying less for prescription drugs
2. Not being denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition
3. Not being dropped by your insurance company if you get sick
Those three right there are more than enough to win people over. Explain to people that they have more control over their healthcare than an insurance company.
The explanations have not been clearly put forward by the two most important messengers after the President and those are Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Harry Reid. This is another much longer conversation but as readers of this column you should have a good concept of why we're making that statement.
Mr. Axelrod issued a warning today that with Republicans in power, they will repeat the policies that put the country in the financial hole we're still in now. When Mr. Gregory asked him about a timeframe for when people would see the results of the policies they've put in place, he skirted around it... wisely and we rarely condone a non-aswer. In this case, if Mr. Axelrod said any number, the clip would be everywhere and if it were not to come to fruition it would obviously become a shot in ones own foot. Additionally, Mr. Axelrod, as well as everyone else, knows that we can not afford to extend the tax cuts for the top 2%, and we do not expect the Administration to flinch on their position, Congress on the other hand, again, we're not so sure. Conversely, and sadly, we find out today courtesy of The New York Times that more and more families are moving into homeless shelters.
Also noteworthy is that Mr. Axelrod was looking much thinner today. His suit and shirt were too big. Other Democrats [read: Congress] could really stand to lose some weight and sweat it out legislating and talking to the people... and do it on television... make that news.
Speaking of quotes, Vice President Joe Biden said it best simplifying Mayor Giuliani to "Noun, verb, and 9/11." The former Mayor is a cartoon character at this point, you can not trust what he says anymore it seems. Not to mention that we find it a bit of a shame that with every anniversary of this tragedy, it's necessary to have Mr. Giuliani's perspective every time... as if only seeing that event through his prism. Lastly, Author Reza Azlan, at the top of the roundtable made a good point that anti-muslim sentiment is becoming mainstream due to people, like Mr. Giuliani painting all muslims, moderate and radical alike, with the same brush. It is bigotry, as Mr. Azlan put forthworth, but what he didn't qualify is the case of Mr. Giuliani is that it is now at an unconcious level.
And it is the latter that we more concerned with today because really, Democrats hold all the cards. They're just not playing them well. How lame is it that Democrats pass historic healthcare reform and none of them campaign on it, but David Axelrod, today's first guest, stated concise bullet points as to why they should and they still won't do it. In the roundtable discussion, Ron Brownstein said that there is a disconnect between performance and results for the Democrats, but additionally it's not seeming to have confidence in their convictions. We not talking about President Obama and his administration, we're talking about Congress people.
1. Seniors paying less for prescription drugs
2. Not being denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition
3. Not being dropped by your insurance company if you get sick
Those three right there are more than enough to win people over. Explain to people that they have more control over their healthcare than an insurance company.
The explanations have not been clearly put forward by the two most important messengers after the President and those are Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Harry Reid. This is another much longer conversation but as readers of this column you should have a good concept of why we're making that statement.
Mr. Axelrod issued a warning today that with Republicans in power, they will repeat the policies that put the country in the financial hole we're still in now. When Mr. Gregory asked him about a timeframe for when people would see the results of the policies they've put in place, he skirted around it... wisely and we rarely condone a non-aswer. In this case, if Mr. Axelrod said any number, the clip would be everywhere and if it were not to come to fruition it would obviously become a shot in ones own foot. Additionally, Mr. Axelrod, as well as everyone else, knows that we can not afford to extend the tax cuts for the top 2%, and we do not expect the Administration to flinch on their position, Congress on the other hand, again, we're not so sure. Conversely, and sadly, we find out today courtesy of The New York Times that more and more families are moving into homeless shelters.
Also noteworthy is that Mr. Axelrod was looking much thinner today. His suit and shirt were too big. Other Democrats [read: Congress] could really stand to lose some weight and sweat it out legislating and talking to the people... and do it on television... make that news.
Speaking of quotes, Vice President Joe Biden said it best simplifying Mayor Giuliani to "Noun, verb, and 9/11." The former Mayor is a cartoon character at this point, you can not trust what he says anymore it seems. Not to mention that we find it a bit of a shame that with every anniversary of this tragedy, it's necessary to have Mr. Giuliani's perspective every time... as if only seeing that event through his prism. Lastly, Author Reza Azlan, at the top of the roundtable made a good point that anti-muslim sentiment is becoming mainstream due to people, like Mr. Giuliani painting all muslims, moderate and radical alike, with the same brush. It is bigotry, as Mr. Azlan put forthworth, but what he didn't qualify is the case of Mr. Giuliani is that it is now at an unconcious level.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
9.5.10: Pavlov and The Republicans
If you think our cultural climate has been grossly, politically charged this year so far, get ready because after this Labor Day weekend, the pols are going to be strapping on the battery booster packs for the run up to Nov. 2nd, and let's face it, President Obama is getting hammered from every side and the key overarching questions for today's program were, Is the President an asset or liability for Democrats leading up to that date and is what his administration doing right for this country. With regard to the latter, for the Republicans the answer will always be no so we have to try and give some perspective.
Every Republican politician you see on television these days has to practically stop him/herself from salivating on camera when discussing the November midterms. Collectively, they are supremely confident that they will take control and the Congress. The mainstream Republicans are embracing the Tea Party Republicans to capture that majority and according to every pundit, it is a certainty. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), today's first guest, was no exception in his confidence.
The Senator's tactical logic for both topics of discussion, Iraq and the economy, was that it didn't matter at this point what initial actions were responsible for the state of both, but now that we're here, it is President Obama that bares the burden of history for both.
We, at The Opinion, are not at all excited by this Administration's messaging since the election, where they had done so well with communication, and in the town of spin the Administration is dizzy and confused. They are unable to make people understand the chain of events and they aren't being honest about timing.
Usually, any Administration's policy choices are felt by the people years down the line, and when we say years we mean if something is passed in the months after a President's first term, you will not see the effect until perhaps half way through his second term. Maybe even after he's out of office. This is the exact dynamic you had with the Bush Administration, but he was no exception and neither willl be Obama. The point is, that the United States is a huge ship that takes years to turn just 90 degrees (forget about 180 degrees), and people simply don't have the patience to wait for the full turn.
So when Lindsey Graham says on today's Meet The Press, that right now the government taxes and spends too much you have to wonder about his judgement. By extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans, in terms of wealth, as he advocated today, the debit will rise even more, hence we're spending more money we don't have.
With regard to the Healthcare Bill, he saying that we headed for government run healthcare and the we should replace the just-passed bill with something the puts control into the private sector. This is just another way of saying that the insurance companies should continue to dictate the terms of coverage. The result: everyone's premiums will continue to climb and the government will continue to put even more money adding, again, to the debt and spending more money we don't have. He also said that the Democrats used every parliamentary trick to pass the bill, which is simply political posturing and not true. The bill ended up being compromised to the point where the base of the Democratic Party was dissatisfied, and no Republican was voting for it any way.
MSNBC's Erin Burnett, pointed out twice (during the today's roundtable) that from her reporting and researching she has found that the recovery from this particular recession is the fastest of any in the past 25 years, hence turning the ship faster than normal.
The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne advised to pick a fight over the Bush tax cuts but that could be a losing proposition because tax cuts are an easy sell, the wrong thing to do, but an easy sell. Additionally, when asked if the President was an asset or a liability, he said 'both.' Well, if the President can get his message across to the people, you'll definitely see a vote of no confidence.
Every Republican politician you see on television these days has to practically stop him/herself from salivating on camera when discussing the November midterms. Collectively, they are supremely confident that they will take control and the Congress. The mainstream Republicans are embracing the Tea Party Republicans to capture that majority and according to every pundit, it is a certainty. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), today's first guest, was no exception in his confidence.
The Senator's tactical logic for both topics of discussion, Iraq and the economy, was that it didn't matter at this point what initial actions were responsible for the state of both, but now that we're here, it is President Obama that bares the burden of history for both.
We, at The Opinion, are not at all excited by this Administration's messaging since the election, where they had done so well with communication, and in the town of spin the Administration is dizzy and confused. They are unable to make people understand the chain of events and they aren't being honest about timing.
Usually, any Administration's policy choices are felt by the people years down the line, and when we say years we mean if something is passed in the months after a President's first term, you will not see the effect until perhaps half way through his second term. Maybe even after he's out of office. This is the exact dynamic you had with the Bush Administration, but he was no exception and neither willl be Obama. The point is, that the United States is a huge ship that takes years to turn just 90 degrees (forget about 180 degrees), and people simply don't have the patience to wait for the full turn.
So when Lindsey Graham says on today's Meet The Press, that right now the government taxes and spends too much you have to wonder about his judgement. By extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans, in terms of wealth, as he advocated today, the debit will rise even more, hence we're spending more money we don't have.
With regard to the Healthcare Bill, he saying that we headed for government run healthcare and the we should replace the just-passed bill with something the puts control into the private sector. This is just another way of saying that the insurance companies should continue to dictate the terms of coverage. The result: everyone's premiums will continue to climb and the government will continue to put even more money adding, again, to the debt and spending more money we don't have. He also said that the Democrats used every parliamentary trick to pass the bill, which is simply political posturing and not true. The bill ended up being compromised to the point where the base of the Democratic Party was dissatisfied, and no Republican was voting for it any way.
MSNBC's Erin Burnett, pointed out twice (during the today's roundtable) that from her reporting and researching she has found that the recovery from this particular recession is the fastest of any in the past 25 years, hence turning the ship faster than normal.
The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne advised to pick a fight over the Bush tax cuts but that could be a losing proposition because tax cuts are an easy sell, the wrong thing to do, but an easy sell. Additionally, when asked if the President was an asset or a liability, he said 'both.' Well, if the President can get his message across to the people, you'll definitely see a vote of no confidence.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
8.22.2010: Football Season Begins... But It Never Really Ended
Well, it's football season again, but in reality it is always football season when it comes to politicians using political footballs and intellectual dishonesty toward issues for their own political gain. One of the worst culprits of this appeared on today's Meet The Press, Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. With regard to the essential two topics discussion, the building of the Islamic Community Center in lower Manhattan and the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% in this country.
Senator McConnell said that we are to take the President 'on his word' that he is a Christian and not a Muslim, he can't explain why one in four republicans think the President is NOT a Christian. This is the worst kind of political shiftiness, knowing that people who represent Republican interests are out there spreading this kind of false information to further their own agenda and then turning around and saying, "I don't know where this comes from."
Senator McConnell additional stated that the President is ignoring public opinion of this 'issue' in not condemning the construction of this facility at this particular location. Then later in the interview, the senator quips that the President shouldn't be weighing in on a local zoning decision. This basically says that no matter what the President had said or didn't say would be used against him.
Mr. Gregory, to his credit, called out Mr. McConnell on this, pointing out that up until this very moment, it was a much bigger topic (not an issue really) than a zoning decision. And with regard to the extension of the Bush tax cuts, we finally got answer!
The answer is that Mr. McConnell is either being intellectually dishonest with regard to these taxes to serve his own political agenda or he that he simply doesn't understand how the finances of the government works. We're beginning to believe the latter because of his answer.
When asked how the tax cuts extension would be paid for, Senator McConnell said that they are existing tax cuts and there is no paying for them. It's a matter of reeling in spending, but in typical style, he never bothers to explain what cuts Republicans would be inclined to make. He seems to not understand that by giving these tax breaks there is a loss in governmental revenue and then hence, the government needs to borrow more money to compensate for the shortfall.
Again, what's sad is that he doesn't understand this, that he can be totally oblivious to the statements by Alan Greenspan from August 1st's program, and then sit and blame the President and his policies for what is happening in the country right now.
Politically, it is pretty obvious what the Republicans will do if they score some luck and come out ahead in the midterm election. What's dangerous is they are not saying what they would do, and in the meantime, only contributing negatively to the general political discourse - assigning blame.
What is out there is Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) platform for economic reforms, a bill which only has 13 co-sponsors at the moment. Mr. McConnell, when asked, didn't really answer why there were so few. We suspect it is because contained within Mr. Ryan's roadmap are radical cuts to Social Security and Medicare, practically to the point of eliminating those programs as we know them.
These cuts are politically unpopular, but they are in line with the Republican agenda to dismantle all social safety nets. So the question is: If the Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate, will there then be more sponsors of Mr. Ryan's ideas.
Dick Armey appeared on today's Meet The Press alongside Jennifer Granholm, the Governor of Michigan, to discuss the economy, and the former Republican Congressman from Texas said that Mr. Ryan is the most creative thinker in Washington right now. He also emphatically stated that standing alongside of Mr. Ryan and his platform is determined by courage.
Mr. Armey is no longer a politician, but in reality he is far worse. He is the example of politics beholden to corporate interest. With a new book out, Give Us Liberty (A Tea Party Manifesto), Mr. Armey uses proxies to further his corporatist agenda and enjoy wide influence over the political landscape without ever being beholden to the public. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are feeling quite empowered from being private politicians, but it is Mr. Armey who rallied the corporate donors to fund his organization, Freedomworks, that spawned the Tea Party movement. Hence, now we have his, excuse us - 'their' manifesto, which calls for limited government in matters of social safety nets. Mr. Armey uses the example of the Christian Scientist...
"Let, let me ask you a simple question. If you happen to be a Christian Scientist and have never seen a doctor in your life and never intend to go to a doctor in your life and never bought insurance in your life, is it right to, to be told at the age of 65 if you don't buy--sign up for Medicare, we'll take away your Social Security? That's not in the law. "
Hmmm... then one could ask... if there is a shaman in the deepest rainforests of Borneo who had never heard of Christianity, the Bible, of Jesus, and he is approached one day by a Christian preacher and told of Jesus, but still doesn't believe in Christianity, is the shaman now condemned to hell? The Christian preacher would say yes. This is simply presenting contrarian logic.
However, here's the real rub with Mr. Armey's example. He said that he agrees with Congressman Ryan that Medicare should be optional, and that you can elect to pay into it at 65 instead of mandating. However, at 65, if you have never paid into the system. Can that individual afford to them buy into Medicare. The answer is most likely no, and then at the time when an individual most needs health care and has no income to pay for a doctor's visit, they end up with nothing. It's all a ruse to funnel more money into private corporate hands.
As Governor Granholm pointed out, 85% percent of Americans do not want Social Security drastically cut to reduce the deficit. Mr. Armey rebutted that politicians who don't cut it drastically lack courage. Also, we like the fact that Governor Granholm accidentally called Mr. Armey "Mitch," but she may as well have been talking to the Senate Minority leader and the views of the two men fall in line with one another.
Lastly, with regard to the proposed community center/mosque in lower Manhattan, it really comes down to this: In The United States of America we have religious freedom and that freedom gives the right to a group to build a religious facility on private property.
Now, if we uphold this right, even if it's tough to swallow, and we understand that point of view completely, the light of this country's ideals still glows brilliantly. When we start selectively employing our Constitution, that is when our institution is broken.
Senator McConnell said that we are to take the President 'on his word' that he is a Christian and not a Muslim, he can't explain why one in four republicans think the President is NOT a Christian. This is the worst kind of political shiftiness, knowing that people who represent Republican interests are out there spreading this kind of false information to further their own agenda and then turning around and saying, "I don't know where this comes from."
Senator McConnell additional stated that the President is ignoring public opinion of this 'issue' in not condemning the construction of this facility at this particular location. Then later in the interview, the senator quips that the President shouldn't be weighing in on a local zoning decision. This basically says that no matter what the President had said or didn't say would be used against him.
Mr. Gregory, to his credit, called out Mr. McConnell on this, pointing out that up until this very moment, it was a much bigger topic (not an issue really) than a zoning decision. And with regard to the extension of the Bush tax cuts, we finally got answer!
The answer is that Mr. McConnell is either being intellectually dishonest with regard to these taxes to serve his own political agenda or he that he simply doesn't understand how the finances of the government works. We're beginning to believe the latter because of his answer.
When asked how the tax cuts extension would be paid for, Senator McConnell said that they are existing tax cuts and there is no paying for them. It's a matter of reeling in spending, but in typical style, he never bothers to explain what cuts Republicans would be inclined to make. He seems to not understand that by giving these tax breaks there is a loss in governmental revenue and then hence, the government needs to borrow more money to compensate for the shortfall.
Again, what's sad is that he doesn't understand this, that he can be totally oblivious to the statements by Alan Greenspan from August 1st's program, and then sit and blame the President and his policies for what is happening in the country right now.
Politically, it is pretty obvious what the Republicans will do if they score some luck and come out ahead in the midterm election. What's dangerous is they are not saying what they would do, and in the meantime, only contributing negatively to the general political discourse - assigning blame.
What is out there is Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) platform for economic reforms, a bill which only has 13 co-sponsors at the moment. Mr. McConnell, when asked, didn't really answer why there were so few. We suspect it is because contained within Mr. Ryan's roadmap are radical cuts to Social Security and Medicare, practically to the point of eliminating those programs as we know them.
These cuts are politically unpopular, but they are in line with the Republican agenda to dismantle all social safety nets. So the question is: If the Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate, will there then be more sponsors of Mr. Ryan's ideas.
Dick Armey appeared on today's Meet The Press alongside Jennifer Granholm, the Governor of Michigan, to discuss the economy, and the former Republican Congressman from Texas said that Mr. Ryan is the most creative thinker in Washington right now. He also emphatically stated that standing alongside of Mr. Ryan and his platform is determined by courage.
Mr. Armey is no longer a politician, but in reality he is far worse. He is the example of politics beholden to corporate interest. With a new book out, Give Us Liberty (A Tea Party Manifesto), Mr. Armey uses proxies to further his corporatist agenda and enjoy wide influence over the political landscape without ever being beholden to the public. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are feeling quite empowered from being private politicians, but it is Mr. Armey who rallied the corporate donors to fund his organization, Freedomworks, that spawned the Tea Party movement. Hence, now we have his, excuse us - 'their' manifesto, which calls for limited government in matters of social safety nets. Mr. Armey uses the example of the Christian Scientist...
"Let, let me ask you a simple question. If you happen to be a Christian Scientist and have never seen a doctor in your life and never intend to go to a doctor in your life and never bought insurance in your life, is it right to, to be told at the age of 65 if you don't buy--sign up for Medicare, we'll take away your Social Security? That's not in the law. "
Hmmm... then one could ask... if there is a shaman in the deepest rainforests of Borneo who had never heard of Christianity, the Bible, of Jesus, and he is approached one day by a Christian preacher and told of Jesus, but still doesn't believe in Christianity, is the shaman now condemned to hell? The Christian preacher would say yes. This is simply presenting contrarian logic.
However, here's the real rub with Mr. Armey's example. He said that he agrees with Congressman Ryan that Medicare should be optional, and that you can elect to pay into it at 65 instead of mandating. However, at 65, if you have never paid into the system. Can that individual afford to them buy into Medicare. The answer is most likely no, and then at the time when an individual most needs health care and has no income to pay for a doctor's visit, they end up with nothing. It's all a ruse to funnel more money into private corporate hands.
As Governor Granholm pointed out, 85% percent of Americans do not want Social Security drastically cut to reduce the deficit. Mr. Armey rebutted that politicians who don't cut it drastically lack courage. Also, we like the fact that Governor Granholm accidentally called Mr. Armey "Mitch," but she may as well have been talking to the Senate Minority leader and the views of the two men fall in line with one another.
Lastly, with regard to the proposed community center/mosque in lower Manhattan, it really comes down to this: In The United States of America we have religious freedom and that freedom gives the right to a group to build a religious facility on private property.
Now, if we uphold this right, even if it's tough to swallow, and we understand that point of view completely, the light of this country's ideals still glows brilliantly. When we start selectively employing our Constitution, that is when our institution is broken.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
8.15.2010: Gerneral David Petraeus
We'd prefer that today's program didn't start as if it were an episode of 60 Minutes and we'd like to think that viewers of Meet The Press would not need the contextual primer before the actual interview, but at least Mr. Gregory didn't over do it. Throughout the program, we gleaned a few important statements from General Petraeus, but most of the program kept repeatedly reiterating one big fact: The success of the U.S. mission there is in complete doubt and no one seems to know how this, the longest war in our history, will turn out.
Politically, troops are scheduled to start rotating back home in July of next year, but the general made it clear that that would depend on the situation on the ground, in which he is seeing 'small pockets of progress.' For a war going into its tenth year, small pockets of progress mean almost nothing. General Petraeus consistently tried to keep the context within a timeframe of the last 18 months, which is interesting because though he says that his decisions have nothing to do with politics, he focuses on from when the new Administration came into office.
Conditions on the ground will dictate the timetable for a responsible drawn... well, that's at least the idea. Then again General Petraeus said that it will take a substantial, enduring commitment. The beginning of a troop withdrawal by next July seems unlikely, but the general did say that approximately 2,000 troops would be going home. 2,000? There are 100,000 in country so that 2% number is simply a token.
From where we sit, the one somewhat positive conclusion we can glean is that Al Qaeda and the Taliban elements supporting them are being disrupted in a major way in the region. Whether the Pakistani government is doing enough is anyone's guess, but the conflict has been pretty much regionalized. Al Qaeda is pretty much gone and has taken off for the mountains of Yemen - the next front and a conversation for a different time.
The other significant topic during the program today is the state of the Karzai Government in Afghanistan. We've heard tales of corruption in the press and to confirm it, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry said it's running rampant. Ironically, General Petraeus has to take the more diplomatic route saying that the U.S. and President Karzai have a strong relationship in that the two parties can have a frank discussion and don't necesssarily always agree. calling him a 'strong partner.' Despite disagreements, the dialogue remains open. We believe that President Karzai, who says that Afghanistan could be the new silk road with all it's mineral deposits, is playing the same waiting game that the Taliban are but for different reasons. Without an American presence, the Karzai Government would not be a democratic one, this much is for certain. They would leverage the mineral wealth to control the country, and would probably be content not controlling all of it, just the land masses that matter money-wise.
One thing is for sure, at the end of the hour we still simply know one thing: we don't know how long the longest campaign will be in the long war.
Politically, troops are scheduled to start rotating back home in July of next year, but the general made it clear that that would depend on the situation on the ground, in which he is seeing 'small pockets of progress.' For a war going into its tenth year, small pockets of progress mean almost nothing. General Petraeus consistently tried to keep the context within a timeframe of the last 18 months, which is interesting because though he says that his decisions have nothing to do with politics, he focuses on from when the new Administration came into office.
Conditions on the ground will dictate the timetable for a responsible drawn... well, that's at least the idea. Then again General Petraeus said that it will take a substantial, enduring commitment. The beginning of a troop withdrawal by next July seems unlikely, but the general did say that approximately 2,000 troops would be going home. 2,000? There are 100,000 in country so that 2% number is simply a token.
From where we sit, the one somewhat positive conclusion we can glean is that Al Qaeda and the Taliban elements supporting them are being disrupted in a major way in the region. Whether the Pakistani government is doing enough is anyone's guess, but the conflict has been pretty much regionalized. Al Qaeda is pretty much gone and has taken off for the mountains of Yemen - the next front and a conversation for a different time.
The other significant topic during the program today is the state of the Karzai Government in Afghanistan. We've heard tales of corruption in the press and to confirm it, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry said it's running rampant. Ironically, General Petraeus has to take the more diplomatic route saying that the U.S. and President Karzai have a strong relationship in that the two parties can have a frank discussion and don't necesssarily always agree. calling him a 'strong partner.' Despite disagreements, the dialogue remains open. We believe that President Karzai, who says that Afghanistan could be the new silk road with all it's mineral deposits, is playing the same waiting game that the Taliban are but for different reasons. Without an American presence, the Karzai Government would not be a democratic one, this much is for certain. They would leverage the mineral wealth to control the country, and would probably be content not controlling all of it, just the land masses that matter money-wise.
One thing is for sure, at the end of the hour we still simply know one thing: we don't know how long the longest campaign will be in the long war.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
8.8.10: No End Game
We just have a brief word about today's first guest, President Obama's Energy Adviser, Carol Browner, and the discussion about the Gulf oil crisis. And it continues to be a crisis even though the static kill (pouring tons of mud down the well) has seemed to have stopped most all the oil spouting from the well. That's the good news. The not so great news is that it's obvious that the administration has as much information as the rest of us, seeming to be observers as well. At this point, we're all getting the same information and our fear is that we'll never get the full story from BP. As a matter of fact, we'll never get the full story.
Where the government needs to step in big is to restore the Gulf Coast, environmentally and economically because BP sure as hell isn't going to do it. Why the big news outlets don't have teams of scientists and scientific reports down there getting the full story is irresponsible at the least. The story's that BP are blocking access should be made into huge front page story, simply for the fact that a corporation is now dictating the terms of what we're, the American people, are to know about their own country? This is a travesty on a 206 million gallon scale. Ms. Browner did make a very good point on the moratorium on drilling during the crisis, which was the moratorium on drilling during the crisis was the right thing to do because if there had been another accident while this was going on, we wouldn't have had the resources to combat both. Logical. What's not logical is that Republicans got the concessions they wanted on a clean energy bill, most notably the removal of cap-and-trade, and they still voted against it.
This brings us to today's second guest, House Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH), who said that the moratorium should be lifted because "a mistake was made with this well." He also said that BP has stepped up and should return the Gulf Coast to where it was before the spill. It is the right thing to say, but there is no utter way that BP has the will, the wear-with-all, or the inclination to do any such thing. And it was a 'mistake' as Mr. Boehner put it, it was negligence on the part of BP, plain and simply. They bypassed safety concerns on the rig for the sake of profit, and unfortunately it bit us all in the ass. Not them.
What kind of leader can not give a straight answer? You can quite clearly see the impatience on Mr. Gregory's face, and for good reason. Mr. Boehner could not answer the key question of the interview, which was if he agreed with Alan Greenspan (from last week's Meet The Press) that an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts would pay for themselves. All Mr. Boehner can utter is the mantra of how the Obama Administration wants more mandates, higher taxes, which lead to higher costs.
What Mr. Boehner and other Republicans don't realize is that simply cutting taxes will not levee our economic troubles. What's the end game with this play? Is it that we'll eliminate taxes all together? In some cases we actually have, with corporations like G.E. and Exxon Mobil not paying any taxes due to off-shore tax loopholes. And these companies who don't pay their fair share of taxes aren't creating more jobs for Americans. Yet, we can not raise taxes in this economy, not even selectively according to Mr. Boehner.
Something's got to give, there has to be another answer out there beside 'tax cuts.' Contrary to what Republicans would tell you, those two words are not a panacea. They're actually two words that keep our spending addiction going... keeping the withdrawal chills away.
Where the government needs to step in big is to restore the Gulf Coast, environmentally and economically because BP sure as hell isn't going to do it. Why the big news outlets don't have teams of scientists and scientific reports down there getting the full story is irresponsible at the least. The story's that BP are blocking access should be made into huge front page story, simply for the fact that a corporation is now dictating the terms of what we're, the American people, are to know about their own country? This is a travesty on a 206 million gallon scale. Ms. Browner did make a very good point on the moratorium on drilling during the crisis, which was the moratorium on drilling during the crisis was the right thing to do because if there had been another accident while this was going on, we wouldn't have had the resources to combat both. Logical. What's not logical is that Republicans got the concessions they wanted on a clean energy bill, most notably the removal of cap-and-trade, and they still voted against it.
This brings us to today's second guest, House Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH), who said that the moratorium should be lifted because "a mistake was made with this well." He also said that BP has stepped up and should return the Gulf Coast to where it was before the spill. It is the right thing to say, but there is no utter way that BP has the will, the wear-with-all, or the inclination to do any such thing. And it was a 'mistake' as Mr. Boehner put it, it was negligence on the part of BP, plain and simply. They bypassed safety concerns on the rig for the sake of profit, and unfortunately it bit us all in the ass. Not them.
What kind of leader can not give a straight answer? You can quite clearly see the impatience on Mr. Gregory's face, and for good reason. Mr. Boehner could not answer the key question of the interview, which was if he agreed with Alan Greenspan (from last week's Meet The Press) that an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts would pay for themselves. All Mr. Boehner can utter is the mantra of how the Obama Administration wants more mandates, higher taxes, which lead to higher costs.
What Mr. Boehner and other Republicans don't realize is that simply cutting taxes will not levee our economic troubles. What's the end game with this play? Is it that we'll eliminate taxes all together? In some cases we actually have, with corporations like G.E. and Exxon Mobil not paying any taxes due to off-shore tax loopholes. And these companies who don't pay their fair share of taxes aren't creating more jobs for Americans. Yet, we can not raise taxes in this economy, not even selectively according to Mr. Boehner.
Something's got to give, there has to be another answer out there beside 'tax cuts.' Contrary to what Republicans would tell you, those two words are not a panacea. They're actually two words that keep our spending addiction going... keeping the withdrawal chills away.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
8.1.2010: Agreeing with Greenspan
The case of Wikileaks disclosing some 92,000 pages of classified documents with regard to the Afghan War will lead to some positive developments and some negative ones, but we feel that the positives will outweigh the negatives. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen addressed the leaks on today's MTP and he did explain that the Taliban and our adversaries would know what our tactics are and the kinds of things that the Allied Forces are doing. What he failed to mention are the uglier instances reported in the paper that can only motivate the Taliban and cause even more feelings of long-term animosity toward the United States.
However, Mr. Gregory asked about the larger point being is the strategy in Afghanistan working? Is the war a lost cause, keeping in mind that the Taliban is at its strongest right now. Admiral Mullen did point out that we're sending more troops in despite July being the deadliest month in Afghanistan since the war started - 66 soldiers died. His answer indicates that he does not feel the war is a lost cause. This is where we feel the leaks can be more of a positive. First, it keeps people's collective attention on the war, which has the massive ripple effect of the government putting it in the fore with the media and then hence the people. Secondly, it's important that war atrocities are vetted out into the open. These acts are committed in the name of the American people and we do have a right to know. Again, this will lead to a change in tactics by our military.
Still, we continue to ask - What is the goal at this point in Afghanistan? To crush the Taliban? It's not going to happen. To secure the government and the people so that Taliban elements are marginalized to the point where they can not be a threat? Highly unlikely.
And then there is Pakistan, the place where our troubles most solidly reside. Admiral Mullen explained that our relationship with Pakistan is continually evolving. There's an understatement for you. The statistic from today's program that bears importance - 59% of the Pakistani people feel the U.S. is an enemy. Did Admiral Mullen say 'evolving' or 'dissolving?'
The bottom line there is that the U.S. is going to be in Afghanistan for a very long time if we plan to seriously achieve these goals.
From there, Mr. Gregory turned the conversation to Iran and their nuclear capabilities, but what he should have asked about is, in fact, Iraq. When will we see our final withdrawal from there. The Obama Administration should get on this message a little bit. It would say that we're, as a whole, trying to draw down the fighting an our troops abroad. Also, given that the public is tired of hearing about two wars, it's more appropriate for Admiral Mullen to comment on Iraq rather than Iran, which is more of a political challenge right now.
Lastly, they talked about the rate of suicide among U.S. servicemen. It's up in all the services and the Admiral admitted that they don't have the answers. Again, the two wars, the atrocities, the lack of public support in both countries (having to reason with the public after Blackwater mercenaries shoot up the place), and of course the multi-deployments. It's truly sad what were doing to these elite Americans, asking so much from them and giving back so little.
___
[New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I); the man who served as Chairman on the Federal Reserve for 19 years, Alan Greenspan; and the Governor of the state with the 6th largest economy in the U.S., Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA).]
It's completely insane what is happening right now in American business, that corporations are totally flush with cash but aren't hiring. Alan Greenspan said he has never in his life seen this level of animosity between government and business. Actually, it was Mr. Greenspan who made today's most provocative statements, starting first with letting the Bush Tax Cuts lapse. Mr. Greenspan, by saying so, is once again embracing the economics of the Clinton era, and at this point, who wouldn't... except Republicans? The other side of the coin is that Mr. Greenspan opined that he sees nothing in the near future that will effect the jobless rate in this country. And given the mindset of the corporations, maximizing profits and continuing to lower respective workforces, we can see his point. Usually we don't. Mr. Bloomberg, typically, feels that we should extend the tax cuts a couple more years, lowering this said animosity. This is ridiculous because someone has to pay to increase the government's revenue. It's key to turning around confidence by lowering the deficit and hence the debt.
"Tax cuts do not pay for themselves," Mr. Greenspan stated today. And Governor Rendell, also on this panel, stated the hard fact that there have to be some tax increases and given all the tax shelters corporations take advantage of, the Bush tax cuts have to lapse for the top 2% of the population. He also pointed out, what we all know, is that the gridlock being caused by Republicans is stifling relief for the unemployed and impeding recovery.
President Obama this week was in Detroit touting a new auto plant with re-hired workers, and that for the first time since 2004, the big three automakers are turning a profit. This is the soapbox in which he should stand.
Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin gave him the best advice possible: Use the bully pulpit! We say, yes, use it and throw it at people who stand in your way to get things done. The last administration never hesitated.
However, Mr. Gregory asked about the larger point being is the strategy in Afghanistan working? Is the war a lost cause, keeping in mind that the Taliban is at its strongest right now. Admiral Mullen did point out that we're sending more troops in despite July being the deadliest month in Afghanistan since the war started - 66 soldiers died. His answer indicates that he does not feel the war is a lost cause. This is where we feel the leaks can be more of a positive. First, it keeps people's collective attention on the war, which has the massive ripple effect of the government putting it in the fore with the media and then hence the people. Secondly, it's important that war atrocities are vetted out into the open. These acts are committed in the name of the American people and we do have a right to know. Again, this will lead to a change in tactics by our military.
Still, we continue to ask - What is the goal at this point in Afghanistan? To crush the Taliban? It's not going to happen. To secure the government and the people so that Taliban elements are marginalized to the point where they can not be a threat? Highly unlikely.
And then there is Pakistan, the place where our troubles most solidly reside. Admiral Mullen explained that our relationship with Pakistan is continually evolving. There's an understatement for you. The statistic from today's program that bears importance - 59% of the Pakistani people feel the U.S. is an enemy. Did Admiral Mullen say 'evolving' or 'dissolving?'
The bottom line there is that the U.S. is going to be in Afghanistan for a very long time if we plan to seriously achieve these goals.
From there, Mr. Gregory turned the conversation to Iran and their nuclear capabilities, but what he should have asked about is, in fact, Iraq. When will we see our final withdrawal from there. The Obama Administration should get on this message a little bit. It would say that we're, as a whole, trying to draw down the fighting an our troops abroad. Also, given that the public is tired of hearing about two wars, it's more appropriate for Admiral Mullen to comment on Iraq rather than Iran, which is more of a political challenge right now.
Lastly, they talked about the rate of suicide among U.S. servicemen. It's up in all the services and the Admiral admitted that they don't have the answers. Again, the two wars, the atrocities, the lack of public support in both countries (having to reason with the public after Blackwater mercenaries shoot up the place), and of course the multi-deployments. It's truly sad what were doing to these elite Americans, asking so much from them and giving back so little.
___
[New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I); the man who served as Chairman on the Federal Reserve for 19 years, Alan Greenspan; and the Governor of the state with the 6th largest economy in the U.S., Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA).]
It's completely insane what is happening right now in American business, that corporations are totally flush with cash but aren't hiring. Alan Greenspan said he has never in his life seen this level of animosity between government and business. Actually, it was Mr. Greenspan who made today's most provocative statements, starting first with letting the Bush Tax Cuts lapse. Mr. Greenspan, by saying so, is once again embracing the economics of the Clinton era, and at this point, who wouldn't... except Republicans? The other side of the coin is that Mr. Greenspan opined that he sees nothing in the near future that will effect the jobless rate in this country. And given the mindset of the corporations, maximizing profits and continuing to lower respective workforces, we can see his point. Usually we don't. Mr. Bloomberg, typically, feels that we should extend the tax cuts a couple more years, lowering this said animosity. This is ridiculous because someone has to pay to increase the government's revenue. It's key to turning around confidence by lowering the deficit and hence the debt.
"Tax cuts do not pay for themselves," Mr. Greenspan stated today. And Governor Rendell, also on this panel, stated the hard fact that there have to be some tax increases and given all the tax shelters corporations take advantage of, the Bush tax cuts have to lapse for the top 2% of the population. He also pointed out, what we all know, is that the gridlock being caused by Republicans is stifling relief for the unemployed and impeding recovery.
President Obama this week was in Detroit touting a new auto plant with re-hired workers, and that for the first time since 2004, the big three automakers are turning a profit. This is the soapbox in which he should stand.
Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin gave him the best advice possible: Use the bully pulpit! We say, yes, use it and throw it at people who stand in your way to get things done. The last administration never hesitated.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
7.25.10: Shirley Sherrod is Correct (It's Actually About the Poor)
The first topic posed to today's round table, as expected, concerned this week's episode of the misrepresented video of Ms. Shirley Sherrod by Breitbart and the fall out of the media and, stupidly, the Administration's knee-jerk reactions.
But with regard to today's Meet The Press - it's first guest, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and the panel, Ms. Sherrod had it absolutely correct, if you watched the entire video of the story she told. It's not about black and white, it's about the poor, the haves and have-nots.
Sec. Geithner most important message is that the Administration feels it is good policy to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire for the top two economic percent of the population. As part of these tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year, middle class Americans also enjoy some relief, but it is nothing in comparison to what the wealth reap in relief. As we've stated before in this column, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest of this nation is at its highest level in over 80 years. If that disparity doesn't shrink, it will eventually lead to the destruction of the American capitalist society. We say this thinking about the myth of the former Soviet Union, where before its end, it appeared powerful and in tact, but in reality it was just a fresh coat of paint over a rusted out infrastructure.
We digress, but the point is that what Geithner is saying is that someone has to pay for something, it can no longer be put on the credit card. Capital needs to be self-generated and Mr. Gregory, who brought it up again today, asked what hard choices are going to be made so that for every dollar the government spends, it doesn't have to borrow forty-one cents of it (from China). Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire is a necessary step to generate tax revenue and understandably, it difficult to get people to go backward on their income, no matter how much they make. But politically, the Administration will again fail to communicate clearly that when the tax cuts expire, the result will not affect the middle class.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. A trite cliche, yes, but cliches are what they are because they are true. There's no confidence in the economic chain of this country, there are simply too many weak links and as Mr. Gregory rightfully reiterates, difficult choices need to be made.
Mr. Dionne distilled the Shirley Sherrod saga accurately, saying that it was using race for political gain. Mr. Santelli - the spark plug for the Tea Party movement - equates this usage of race to spending and it's ripple effect on entitlements. But his spending-based assessment implies that entitlements are synonymous with minorities. They are synonymous with the poor.
The meta-narrative, that Ms. Dunn referred to, is that it is in fact President Obama who is the cause of problematic race relations according to the right. But the question that posed was that shouldn't they be getting better with the election of the nation's first black president. Vindictiveness is a powerful motivation, and there is an element... of the Tea Party Movement... let's not pretend that are white and feel like they have been cheated somehow and are now going to have what they have taken away from them. It seems naive when you write it in the context of a piece, but it is spurred by fear. This, coupled with the economic uncertainty we face, and its not surprising that the side that is out of power would use the sharpest bone from our skeletal past to cut the other anew. What makes this episode of Ms. Sherrod's misfortune particularly unseemly is Mr. Breitbart's statements after the full story was reveled. He said the NAACP was racist for essentially denouncing certain elements of the Tea Party - subtly burrowing deeper into the reverse-racist argument And what he didn't offer was an apology, and no recognition of the ripple effect his actions will have down the road.
Roundtable
The New York Times' David Brooks; The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne; Former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn; National Urban League President Marc Morial and a man often credited with helping to spark the tea party movement, CNBC's Rick Santelli.
But with regard to today's Meet The Press - it's first guest, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and the panel, Ms. Sherrod had it absolutely correct, if you watched the entire video of the story she told. It's not about black and white, it's about the poor, the haves and have-nots.
Sec. Geithner most important message is that the Administration feels it is good policy to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire for the top two economic percent of the population. As part of these tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year, middle class Americans also enjoy some relief, but it is nothing in comparison to what the wealth reap in relief. As we've stated before in this column, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest of this nation is at its highest level in over 80 years. If that disparity doesn't shrink, it will eventually lead to the destruction of the American capitalist society. We say this thinking about the myth of the former Soviet Union, where before its end, it appeared powerful and in tact, but in reality it was just a fresh coat of paint over a rusted out infrastructure.
We digress, but the point is that what Geithner is saying is that someone has to pay for something, it can no longer be put on the credit card. Capital needs to be self-generated and Mr. Gregory, who brought it up again today, asked what hard choices are going to be made so that for every dollar the government spends, it doesn't have to borrow forty-one cents of it (from China). Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire is a necessary step to generate tax revenue and understandably, it difficult to get people to go backward on their income, no matter how much they make. But politically, the Administration will again fail to communicate clearly that when the tax cuts expire, the result will not affect the middle class.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. A trite cliche, yes, but cliches are what they are because they are true. There's no confidence in the economic chain of this country, there are simply too many weak links and as Mr. Gregory rightfully reiterates, difficult choices need to be made.
Mr. Dionne distilled the Shirley Sherrod saga accurately, saying that it was using race for political gain. Mr. Santelli - the spark plug for the Tea Party movement - equates this usage of race to spending and it's ripple effect on entitlements. But his spending-based assessment implies that entitlements are synonymous with minorities. They are synonymous with the poor.
The meta-narrative, that Ms. Dunn referred to, is that it is in fact President Obama who is the cause of problematic race relations according to the right. But the question that posed was that shouldn't they be getting better with the election of the nation's first black president. Vindictiveness is a powerful motivation, and there is an element... of the Tea Party Movement... let's not pretend that are white and feel like they have been cheated somehow and are now going to have what they have taken away from them. It seems naive when you write it in the context of a piece, but it is spurred by fear. This, coupled with the economic uncertainty we face, and its not surprising that the side that is out of power would use the sharpest bone from our skeletal past to cut the other anew. What makes this episode of Ms. Sherrod's misfortune particularly unseemly is Mr. Breitbart's statements after the full story was reveled. He said the NAACP was racist for essentially denouncing certain elements of the Tea Party - subtly burrowing deeper into the reverse-racist argument And what he didn't offer was an apology, and no recognition of the ripple effect his actions will have down the road.
Roundtable
The New York Times' David Brooks; The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne; Former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn; National Urban League President Marc Morial and a man often credited with helping to spark the tea party movement, CNBC's Rick Santelli.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)