As we write this column, Egypt's military is taking provisional control of the country and as we heard from Richard Engel of NBC News, the following immediate changes are taking place: the constitution will be reformed so it is suspended for now, parliament is suspended, and the head of the military is making the de facto decisions of the Egyptian presidency. On the face of it, all of that doesn't sound good, but in this time, it was declared that Egypt will honor all of its international agreements, which is prudent as they get their internal house in order. With regard to military control, the Egyptians have a deep respect for their military, unlike other Arab countries where the military is the primary control apparatus of the population. That job in Egypt goes to the secret police.
The Egyptian military turned its guns away from protesters as they advance on a Presidential palace and has show that they will not fired on the its own population so at this moment we should, again, stay cautiously optimistic about what's happening there. Because of the mutual respect between the military and the citizenry, we believe that the transition to a civilian government will happen and it will be accomplished peacefully. And before any one accuses this column of being naive or anything of the sort, we'll also say this. Cynically, if the military doesn't give up power, they were in league with Mr. Mubarak so their foreign policy stance as it relates to the concerns of the United States wouldn't presumably change.
Also, the transition, frankly, over the next few months will go more smoothly as other protests in the region come to a boil, essentially taken the attention away from Egypt. Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk seemed to think that what happened in Egypt will spread across the region, a 'ripple effect' he called it. And if these protests actually manifest themselves it will also signal to Egypt that they have gone too far in a set direction to turn back and only enact reform half way.
When asked by Mr. Gregory, today's guest House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that the President has handled it as well as can be expected and then followed with something which we believe everyone can agree and that is that we don't want a radical government in Egypt. But Mr. Boehner backed up President Barack Obama.... of like now they need the guy who so many in their party think is a secret Muslim. Those scary Arab people in Egypt can relate to our 'Muslim' leader so we'll let him handle it. Is that what the Republican party is really thinking? Some wayward souls in the party are probably thinking that, but we were being facetious of course, but it is telling that Mr. Boehner would say that given that immediately prior, Mr. Gregory played a clip from this weekend's CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee), in which Rick Santorum spouted that while we shouldn't have been against the protesters, but... implying that we should have stuck with Hosni Mubarak?
From the Santorum clip and what Mr. Boehner actually said immediately after, what we can glean is that with regard to foreign policy, Republicans don't do nuance all that well. This is what we've come to expect that Republican platforms are communicated in more absolute terms while Democrats always try to explain that it's 'complicated.' Mr. Boehner even refused to levy any criticism of the Central Intelligence Agency for not being 'in the know' of the revolution before it happened. On domestic issues, Americans like decisiveness so they appreciate the Republican tact more, but in foreign policy, especially with these events in Egypt, nuance is required because it really is a complicated situation.
But speaking of declaratives, with regard to the U.S. government's spending, Mr. Boehner declared that, "We're [The United States] broke." He went on to explain that we need to cut spending and do it now, and stick with the Republicans "Pledge to America" that that sum will be approximately $100 billion.
They haven't gotten there yet and Mr. Boehner defended the fact that it is a start and entitlement reform (Social Security and Medicare reform) will come. On the panel, David Brooks reasserted his statement from his earlier New York Times column that anyone who doesn't support entitlement cuts is an enabler of big government spending - a challenge to his own Republican party. Mr. Boehner also mentioned a letter he sent to the President with the signatures of 150 economists says that cutting government spending will create jobs. He didn't go into how, and that's what we want to know. He also said that the American people don't truly know the problem with Social Security.
What we do know is this column doesn't support an increase in the retirement age, but doesn't support a 3.5% tax increase on individuals making over $1 million dollars a year, which would bring their tax level to Clinton-era rates with a .5% increase. Yes, we're communists here... give us a break. This is just one of the sacrifices that needs to be made, just being realistic. Why do it on the backs of Americans who've worked hard for over 40 years to make ends meet? Nothing wrong with a little idealism. We also believe that government spending can be cut by consolidating government agencies, which would eliminate huge amounts of wasteful spending and make the government truly smaller. Why don't the Republicans really get behind that, which would in turn be... should we say it?... bipartisan, characteristics that Mr. Boehner himself described.
What is also working against Mr. Boehner from taking a stance is the Tea Party Republican caucus represented on today's program by newly elected Congressman Bobby Schilling (R-IL). Mr. Schilling did say that the leadership is giving the Tea Party caucus of the Republican a voice and that's simply because right now the leadership isn't getting their votes. However, that voice really isn't saying much. When someone in the Republican Tea Party caucus says that everything is on the table, as Mr. Schilling did today, it doesn't instill any confidence whatsoever. Granted President Obama's budget comes out tomorrow, but if you're paying attention even a little you know where some cuts should be made like in defense.
And as Mr. Boehner said, the housing market, Fannie and Freddie in particular. Now, this is one thing that we have to honestly admit we're not experts in here at The Opinion - housing, but here's an axiom to think about. The more one entity controls something, the longer the transition time will be to change that control dynamic away from that entity. So when Mr. Boehner says that the U.S. government has to get out of the housing market, you would on the face of it agree. However, Fannie and Freddie paved the way for huge home sales, which Republicans advocate, but now this one entity supports 90% of the housing market. This is, by the way, just a symptom of the problem that middle class Americans don't have enough liquid equity because the tax code so overwhelmingly favors corporations, which don't necessarily do what's right for the country.
But doing back to Fannie and Freddie and phasing it out, you would have to think that the phasing out time would be as long as a thirty-year mortgage, any time less would probably be a shockwave to the system because of all the derivatives attached to Fannie and Freddie backed mortgages.
So pardon the unusual number of digressions today and just know that despite what Speaker Boehner says, we're not broke, we just need to manage our money a lot better. We need Charles Grodin's character from the movie Dave to come in and give us to us straight like Alanta Mayor Kasim Reed said, "Just tell us the truth, and let us get on with our business."
Today's Full Panel: The mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed (D); freshman member of congress supported by the Tea Party, Rep. Bobby Schilling (R-IL); former Clinton White House press secretary, Dee Dee Myers; columnist for the New York Times, David Brooks; and Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin.
No comments:
Post a Comment