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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)