The hype for today's program definitely centered around the joint interview with Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) with regard to the budget plan, but at the top of the program Mr. Gregory spoke with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who was in Cairo, but had recently visited the rebel-controlled Libyan city of Benghazi. The conflict in Libya does have an effect on our economy and budget considerations, while also bringing a larger point to bear, which is overall defense spending.
For the status, Senator McCain said that the fight has the earmarks of a stalemate, but was glad to see that The United States is engaging the Predator drone into the fight. He also stated that The U.S. should step up its air power presence in the conflict. On the heels of that statement, he unequivocally said that ground troops are out of the question.
Basically what Mr. McCain outlined is the type of strategy/involvement as we had in the Balkans in the mid 1990's. Basically bombing Qaddafi into submission until the rebel can organize enough to overrun the regime. The obvious problem is that we don't know how many of these air attacks it will take for that to happen and how long this conflict will go on.
Additionally, the Senator advised that we help the rebels, giving them the frozen Qaddafi assets so that they have the ability to further arm themselves and relieve the strain on the civilian population, significantly adding that we need to 'take this guy out.' But again, how long and to what full extent will the U.S. be involved?
Another question of how long had to do with Iraq, which Mr. Gregory thoughtfully about which he asked Senator McCain. His answer to this and his suggestions about Libya should induce concern about our military policy and ultimately spending. He said that it is very important that we DO NOT leave Iraq completely. He continued on to say that the American people aren't very concerned about a long-term presence there, but would be if we were taking casualties.
This is the exact kind of thinking that we need to reverse. The United States can no longer establish a 50-year/long-term type of presence in Iraq as we have done in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Saudi Arabia, The Philippines, Italy, Spain, and Turkey to name a few. One could argue that we need these bases so that we can strategically be in place for any potential conflict or threat that involves The United States, but why do we need bases in Spain, Italy, and Germany? In this example, closing out the U.S. Military presence in two of these three countries would not significantly alter our strategic positioning and save us billions of dollars. Stay in South Korea because of a potential threat from the North, but pull out of Japan (if they want us to) or The Philippines. Why aren't these hard choices being made. The American public, as Mr. McCain said, wouldn't be overly concerned if we were not militarily in The Philippines. Our military spending is about $500 billion per year.
Instead, the hard choice remain here at home as to what to do with Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, which Senator Tom Coburn said have to be on the table for long-term fiscal responsibility. He also said that the 'gang of six' (6 Senators from both sides of the isle working on a budgetary compromise) hasn't even talked taxes increases.
However, Senator Kent Conrad said that they need to work both sides of the budgetary equation, cutting spending and increasing revenue through taxes, but that they shouldn't be raised on the middle class. Mr. Conrad did state that the gang of six will have their proposal out soon, lest they become irrelevant to the debate.
If the United States increased the tax rate for the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans - basically letting the Bush Tax Cut expire and go back to Clinton-era levels at 39%, the revenue would be increased by approximately $700 billion. Couple that with say $100 billion in lowering military costs and you have close to $1 trillion in decreased spending. Or if we do as Senator Conrad said in that we should close the tax loopholes for companies off-shoring for tax purposes instead of having the tax rates expire, you'd get at least the same amount of savings, perhaps more. We could do those things first and then see where we are and go from there. Too practical, too rational, too.. (gulp) naive.
The Ryan plan, which David Brooks again said today, on the program, he liked because it asks the big questions like 'how much government do people want' is not a fair economic plan. This week, Mr. Ryan's own constituents questioned his plan in a town hall meeting that he called. Putting in place a voucher system for Medicare will change it fundamentally and will put a large burden (a burden that will keep growing) of the cost on the senior citizen. In the same budget plan, Mr. Ryan proposes a further cut in taxes for the top 2% of the wealthy.
So when Senator Coburn says that entitlement spending has to be on the table, so does defense spending and taxation. And significantly, Mr. Coburn disagreed with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that not raising the debt limit will not be catastrophic for the United States, because we will still be able to pay the interest on our bonds, is worrisome, but the one thing we can say about Senator Coburn, though we don't agree with him often, is that he is principled, unlike Congressman Paul Ryan. Senator Coburn has rebuffed his pledge (to not ever raise any type of taxes - corporate subsidies and all) to Grover Norquist - Chairman of the organization Americans for Tax Reform. However, on this instance of raising the debt limit, we strongly disagree with him. We have to ask ourselves, do we want to default on our debt for the first time in our history? No.
Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos said that both parties lose in this debate - Republicans for cutting popular programs and Democrats on their spending. He also noted that President Obama has been nothing but divisive in singling out the richest in this country. The latter is simply partisan as 72% of Americans favor raising taxes for the top 2%. As Ms. Dunn pointed out, the last election was about the American people wanting the Congress to work together, but that is not the Republican plan. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, which Republicans is so far to the right that if the Democrats don't answer sensibly, clearly, and decisively, the compromise line will be that American will see Medicare and Social Security changed significantly, when it doesn't really have to be. And lost in all this as was pointed out through the Tweet Deck, where is the discussion about jobs. Congress hasn't done anything on jobs. Forget about gas prices, for the moment because if you don't have a job, you can't pay for gasoline no matter how low the cost.
Round Table: Columnist for the New York Times and author of the new book "The Social Animal," David Brooks; columnist for the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson; Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos; and former communications director for President Obama, Anita Dunn.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
4.23.11: Taking a Stand
In anticipation of hosting a few members of the budget committee, Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), let's briefly catch up on last week's Meet The Press, the Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner interview.
No matter what the first question from David Gregory, Mr. Geithner was going to say the first and most important thing (25 seconds into the interview). "Congress is going to have to raise the debt limit." The context of which is that even if the Congress hasn't come to a deal on long-term spending and deficit reduction that they would still have to raise the debt limit or the United States for the first time in its history will default on its loans.
Mr. Gregory referred to a comment by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) that Mr. Geithner's assertions were overblown. Geithner responded succinctly that that was not the case. We simply of the mind that anything this large and financially uncertain should not be tested for the first time. We've seen this happen to other countries - Ireland, Greece, Portugal so why The United States, no one is going to bail us out.
Mr. Geithner does believe that Democrats and Republicans will work together on a long-term plan to attack spending but if that deal is not worked out in time for the debt ceiling vote, he also feels that the Congress will raise the limit. It is worth pointing out that for the last debt ceiling vote to raise, then Senator Obama voted against it, something he later called a mistake. It's a little disconcerning when politicians make ideological votes instead of ones based in the reality of the situation, which Mr. Obama did in that case. But even given his prior vote, voting against the raising of the debt ceiling, hence putting the country into default and in a position of weakness. Again, why would we want that?
In terms of gas prices, they are the most frustrating numbers imaginable. The forces that cause the prices are varied but the President takes the hit for them being high. First, it's speculators playing on the uncertainty of a Middle East region in the throes of change, and this is driving the price up. Additionally, we say 'frustrating' because as the price goes up, people ask themselves, "Why don't we have more efficient cars, where are the electrics?" Or they're asking, "when will the alternative fuels come?" All questions of this nature, but you have to understand that until Republicans can wrestle away from the oil company influence, the above questions will never be answered. And let's look at it from that perspective for a moment, though it is slightly naive, that if you're a Republican politician, you're beholden to big corporate interests, and in the case specifically the oil and gas industry. But why would you want to have to play lap dog like that? And at this point, most people know that that is the score so it's almost that they're embarrassing themselves when the blindly defend these industries.
Then Mr. Geithner said that the United States is capable of balancing the budget without hurting seniors. This follows the President saying earlier in the week that he is not going to back a plan that jeopardizes the guaranteed care that seniors have earned. However, the only way to do this is by increasing taxes in some way, whether that be increasing taxes on the wealthiest 2% or ending subsidies for corporate farmers or the oil industry. There's no other way besides Mr. Geithner's facetious suggestion of going back to China and borrowing another 4 trillion dollars. Alan Greenspan, during the round table, asked why we even have a debt limit, and we understand why he would ask this because we're still going to borrow the money. However, we should have a debt limit because it serves as a check on the country's spending. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said it doesn't make sense to raise, but it makes less sense to default on loans. Mr. Lee is part of the naive, yes naive, Tea Party Republican crowd, sadly duped by the likes of Dick Armey and Freedomworks.
Like most times, the American people get to the real facts quite slowly, but when they get them straight, they don't bend. The perfect example is the Medicare debate, in which many people voted for Republicans to facilitate fiscal discipline but when they realized that corporations were going to get further tax breaks, and their Medicare was going to be cut, they weren't having any part of it. Is it hyperbole that the new Democratic National Committee Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz described the voucher system proposed by Republicans a death trap? It is, but when you take away something that people paid into for all of their working lives, and then alter it into a system where the out of pocket costs could be out of reach, then it's inevitable that general health is going to deteriorate.
And then there is the little off-script moment for President Obama took flak for when he spoke frankly to Republicans about the repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act. This is the type of posture that the President should take. Mr. Obama showed a firmness that had been lacking in his public pronouncements so we commend him on drawing the line:
Roundtable: Fmr. chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan; Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Fmr. Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI); author Jon Meacham; and author of the new book "Fail Up," PBS’s Tavis Smiley.
No matter what the first question from David Gregory, Mr. Geithner was going to say the first and most important thing (25 seconds into the interview). "Congress is going to have to raise the debt limit." The context of which is that even if the Congress hasn't come to a deal on long-term spending and deficit reduction that they would still have to raise the debt limit or the United States for the first time in its history will default on its loans.
Mr. Gregory referred to a comment by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) that Mr. Geithner's assertions were overblown. Geithner responded succinctly that that was not the case. We simply of the mind that anything this large and financially uncertain should not be tested for the first time. We've seen this happen to other countries - Ireland, Greece, Portugal so why The United States, no one is going to bail us out.
Mr. Geithner does believe that Democrats and Republicans will work together on a long-term plan to attack spending but if that deal is not worked out in time for the debt ceiling vote, he also feels that the Congress will raise the limit. It is worth pointing out that for the last debt ceiling vote to raise, then Senator Obama voted against it, something he later called a mistake. It's a little disconcerning when politicians make ideological votes instead of ones based in the reality of the situation, which Mr. Obama did in that case. But even given his prior vote, voting against the raising of the debt ceiling, hence putting the country into default and in a position of weakness. Again, why would we want that?
In terms of gas prices, they are the most frustrating numbers imaginable. The forces that cause the prices are varied but the President takes the hit for them being high. First, it's speculators playing on the uncertainty of a Middle East region in the throes of change, and this is driving the price up. Additionally, we say 'frustrating' because as the price goes up, people ask themselves, "Why don't we have more efficient cars, where are the electrics?" Or they're asking, "when will the alternative fuels come?" All questions of this nature, but you have to understand that until Republicans can wrestle away from the oil company influence, the above questions will never be answered. And let's look at it from that perspective for a moment, though it is slightly naive, that if you're a Republican politician, you're beholden to big corporate interests, and in the case specifically the oil and gas industry. But why would you want to have to play lap dog like that? And at this point, most people know that that is the score so it's almost that they're embarrassing themselves when the blindly defend these industries.
Then Mr. Geithner said that the United States is capable of balancing the budget without hurting seniors. This follows the President saying earlier in the week that he is not going to back a plan that jeopardizes the guaranteed care that seniors have earned. However, the only way to do this is by increasing taxes in some way, whether that be increasing taxes on the wealthiest 2% or ending subsidies for corporate farmers or the oil industry. There's no other way besides Mr. Geithner's facetious suggestion of going back to China and borrowing another 4 trillion dollars. Alan Greenspan, during the round table, asked why we even have a debt limit, and we understand why he would ask this because we're still going to borrow the money. However, we should have a debt limit because it serves as a check on the country's spending. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said it doesn't make sense to raise, but it makes less sense to default on loans. Mr. Lee is part of the naive, yes naive, Tea Party Republican crowd, sadly duped by the likes of Dick Armey and Freedomworks.
Like most times, the American people get to the real facts quite slowly, but when they get them straight, they don't bend. The perfect example is the Medicare debate, in which many people voted for Republicans to facilitate fiscal discipline but when they realized that corporations were going to get further tax breaks, and their Medicare was going to be cut, they weren't having any part of it. Is it hyperbole that the new Democratic National Committee Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz described the voucher system proposed by Republicans a death trap? It is, but when you take away something that people paid into for all of their working lives, and then alter it into a system where the out of pocket costs could be out of reach, then it's inevitable that general health is going to deteriorate.
And then there is the little off-script moment for President Obama took flak for when he spoke frankly to Republicans about the repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act. This is the type of posture that the President should take. Mr. Obama showed a firmness that had been lacking in his public pronouncements so we commend him on drawing the line:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Roundtable: Fmr. chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan; Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Fmr. Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI); author Jon Meacham; and author of the new book "Fail Up," PBS’s Tavis Smiley.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
4.10.11: The Safety Net Ain't Safe
The reason why it's so easy to become frustrated with the Administration is because when the President's senior advisor, David Plouffe, goes on Meet The Press and says that "trust was built between the Speaker (John Boehner) and the President" through this last budget process, you wonder what reality they are living in. Is Mr. Plouffe saying that to lower the heat between the two sides? To reassure the American people that the government works? Or is he just not being forthright and insulting our intelligence? One has to wonder.
However, as Mr. Gregory duly noted, news was made when Mr. Plouffe announced that the President will be presenting is outline for a debt reduction plan. Not a moment too soon because, as was the round table consensus, the Republicans have been driving the fiscal debate throughout this process and will continue to do so if the President and the Democrats don't get their own plan together.
But before we get into the full budget discussion, we just want to address something that Mr. Gregory and Mr. Plouffe discussed, and that is the Guantanamo Military Prison. For us, at The Opinion, this is a very frustrating subject because by Guantanamo remaining open speaks poorly of America on so many levels. Starting at the same point as they did on today's program with a clip/statement from the President that we will close Guantanamo and adhere to the Geneva Conventions of war. Whereas now, in reality, we are not closing the prison and we're going to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) through a military tribunal instead of in federal court.
First, as we all know, Guantanamo Bay is a great recruiting tool for Islamic extremists around the world. "Look what Americans do to Muslims," kind of thing. It's not even like The Hague where there will be a trial, however weighted for the desired outcome notwithstanding, at least it's a court. At Guantanamo, it's indefinitely detention without any charges. This reflects poorly on us throughout the entire rest of the world. Secondly, the President comes off as a hypocrite for first saying that we're going to close it, and then don't - his credibility is shot on the issue.
Not to mention that the prison existing costs a lot of money to operate and does nothing to make us safer here at home. And this is what really gets us: The reason we're not closing it is because politicians are unwilling to have these prisoners moved to the United States and tried here, and that speaks of weakness of character. That we keep these prisoners in Cuba, it keeps things out of sight, out of mind for the American collective instead of us owning this situation, bringing these people here and trying them. What also plays into this is the fact that we don't want to bring them here because there may be terrorist attacks as a result. This is America giving into fear - we're too scared of what might happen. For all of our tough talk sometimes, it really is just false bravado sometimes.
We say own the situation, close the prison, try the prisoners starting with KSM here, and take all the precautions necessary to prevent any repercussions (terror attacks) for doing so. Also, we're not against a military court, but why can't the military trial be here? That Guantanamo still exists is an illustration of the lack of collective courage among our politicians.
However, 'courage' has been the word used in the press to describe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) for putting forth a budget plan. We've really lowered the bar as to what qualifies as courage in this country, that's for sure. Whenever Mr. Ryan says that he wants to save Medicare and Medicaid, he means saving it in name only because under his plan, these two programs will cease to exist as we know them. Mr. Ryan wants to give seniors medicare vouchers and then they can use those vouchers to get whatever private insurance they want, competition will lower costs being the logic, and also seniors will get more choice.
The problem is putting control in the hands of private insurances, which is the prime cause of why health care in this country is so expensive. To play it out for a moment, a senior has his/her vouchers and goes to a private insurer. The insurance company says you have this much money, you can get this plan and you do. Then six months later, the private insurance company raises its rates, and then you can no longer afford the plan you originally signed on for through the voucher system so you start supplementing the increase with your social security check. Or you just take less coverage, but if you're sick, you can't afford to do that. Will the government then, up the amount of the voucher? The answer is no, they are controlling government costs. If you want that kind of system then Mr. Ryan's plan is to your liking. But it ain't safe.
And that's why there are so many critics on all sides and that's why David Plouffe said that it may pass the House (it will), but it won't become law. He said that the cost increase for seniors will be about $6,000 per year. That number may be a bit high, but there is no doubt that costs for seniors will go up and there will be less care for the amount of that dollar.
Tim Shriver said of the Tea Party Republicans that they are cutting cutting cutting but what are they building? The same should be asked of Mr. Ryan's budget plan. It eliminates the Affordable Health Care Act, but does nothing to get affordable health care to the uninsured. It eliminates financial security for future generations of people, which is another point that Mr. Shriver touched on where Americans right now don't feel they have the chance for a better life. Mr. Ryan's budget plan which also gives more tax breaks to the richest Americans doesn't help in the slightest in that regard.
Mr. Plouffe's talking point was that we can not balance the budget on the backs of seniors, to which Republicans would say that it does not do that at all. So does it? Yes and no. It doesn't do anything to seniors right now (short-term election gain), but for seniors to be - his plan is devastating.
And because Mr. Ryan's budget doesn't increase revenue for the government, the national debt, according the the Congressional Budget Office, would grow to $67 trillion dollars by 2035, an unspeakable number in any year. Additionally, there are no defense spending cuts in his budget. So when you take a cumulative look at Mr. Ryan's budget, it becomes the Republican wish list for corporatism. When Mr. Ryan says that his plan will create a debt-free nation, it's just not accurate. For twenty-five years we've seen how tax cuts for the wealthiest have not created new jobs, but his plan is more of the same so in that way, it's neither courageous nor ambitious.
Not to mention, as Chuck Todd pointed out, that this last budget fight was, in the end, not about the money but about cultural issues that the Republicans have been trying unilaterally shape for the past thirty years, which has caused deep distrust between the parties. More accurately, the Democrats have no reason to trust the Republican agenda because they have shown that they have ulterior motives when it comes to balancing the budget. Mr. Ryan called for an honest discussion when it comes to the budget. Beside the obvious problem of a politician calling for an honest discussion, he has to be honest about who really benefits from his plan. It's most certainly not seniors or, even more sadly, the middle class.
Roundtable: Chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics, Tim Shriver; host of CNBC's "Mad Money" Jim Cramer; the New York Times White House Corresopndent Helene Cooper; and NBC News Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director, Chuck Todd.
However, as Mr. Gregory duly noted, news was made when Mr. Plouffe announced that the President will be presenting is outline for a debt reduction plan. Not a moment too soon because, as was the round table consensus, the Republicans have been driving the fiscal debate throughout this process and will continue to do so if the President and the Democrats don't get their own plan together.
But before we get into the full budget discussion, we just want to address something that Mr. Gregory and Mr. Plouffe discussed, and that is the Guantanamo Military Prison. For us, at The Opinion, this is a very frustrating subject because by Guantanamo remaining open speaks poorly of America on so many levels. Starting at the same point as they did on today's program with a clip/statement from the President that we will close Guantanamo and adhere to the Geneva Conventions of war. Whereas now, in reality, we are not closing the prison and we're going to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) through a military tribunal instead of in federal court.
First, as we all know, Guantanamo Bay is a great recruiting tool for Islamic extremists around the world. "Look what Americans do to Muslims," kind of thing. It's not even like The Hague where there will be a trial, however weighted for the desired outcome notwithstanding, at least it's a court. At Guantanamo, it's indefinitely detention without any charges. This reflects poorly on us throughout the entire rest of the world. Secondly, the President comes off as a hypocrite for first saying that we're going to close it, and then don't - his credibility is shot on the issue.
Not to mention that the prison existing costs a lot of money to operate and does nothing to make us safer here at home. And this is what really gets us: The reason we're not closing it is because politicians are unwilling to have these prisoners moved to the United States and tried here, and that speaks of weakness of character. That we keep these prisoners in Cuba, it keeps things out of sight, out of mind for the American collective instead of us owning this situation, bringing these people here and trying them. What also plays into this is the fact that we don't want to bring them here because there may be terrorist attacks as a result. This is America giving into fear - we're too scared of what might happen. For all of our tough talk sometimes, it really is just false bravado sometimes.
We say own the situation, close the prison, try the prisoners starting with KSM here, and take all the precautions necessary to prevent any repercussions (terror attacks) for doing so. Also, we're not against a military court, but why can't the military trial be here? That Guantanamo still exists is an illustration of the lack of collective courage among our politicians.
However, 'courage' has been the word used in the press to describe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) for putting forth a budget plan. We've really lowered the bar as to what qualifies as courage in this country, that's for sure. Whenever Mr. Ryan says that he wants to save Medicare and Medicaid, he means saving it in name only because under his plan, these two programs will cease to exist as we know them. Mr. Ryan wants to give seniors medicare vouchers and then they can use those vouchers to get whatever private insurance they want, competition will lower costs being the logic, and also seniors will get more choice.
The problem is putting control in the hands of private insurances, which is the prime cause of why health care in this country is so expensive. To play it out for a moment, a senior has his/her vouchers and goes to a private insurer. The insurance company says you have this much money, you can get this plan and you do. Then six months later, the private insurance company raises its rates, and then you can no longer afford the plan you originally signed on for through the voucher system so you start supplementing the increase with your social security check. Or you just take less coverage, but if you're sick, you can't afford to do that. Will the government then, up the amount of the voucher? The answer is no, they are controlling government costs. If you want that kind of system then Mr. Ryan's plan is to your liking. But it ain't safe.
And that's why there are so many critics on all sides and that's why David Plouffe said that it may pass the House (it will), but it won't become law. He said that the cost increase for seniors will be about $6,000 per year. That number may be a bit high, but there is no doubt that costs for seniors will go up and there will be less care for the amount of that dollar.
Tim Shriver said of the Tea Party Republicans that they are cutting cutting cutting but what are they building? The same should be asked of Mr. Ryan's budget plan. It eliminates the Affordable Health Care Act, but does nothing to get affordable health care to the uninsured. It eliminates financial security for future generations of people, which is another point that Mr. Shriver touched on where Americans right now don't feel they have the chance for a better life. Mr. Ryan's budget plan which also gives more tax breaks to the richest Americans doesn't help in the slightest in that regard.
Mr. Plouffe's talking point was that we can not balance the budget on the backs of seniors, to which Republicans would say that it does not do that at all. So does it? Yes and no. It doesn't do anything to seniors right now (short-term election gain), but for seniors to be - his plan is devastating.
And because Mr. Ryan's budget doesn't increase revenue for the government, the national debt, according the the Congressional Budget Office, would grow to $67 trillion dollars by 2035, an unspeakable number in any year. Additionally, there are no defense spending cuts in his budget. So when you take a cumulative look at Mr. Ryan's budget, it becomes the Republican wish list for corporatism. When Mr. Ryan says that his plan will create a debt-free nation, it's just not accurate. For twenty-five years we've seen how tax cuts for the wealthiest have not created new jobs, but his plan is more of the same so in that way, it's neither courageous nor ambitious.
Not to mention, as Chuck Todd pointed out, that this last budget fight was, in the end, not about the money but about cultural issues that the Republicans have been trying unilaterally shape for the past thirty years, which has caused deep distrust between the parties. More accurately, the Democrats have no reason to trust the Republican agenda because they have shown that they have ulterior motives when it comes to balancing the budget. Mr. Ryan called for an honest discussion when it comes to the budget. Beside the obvious problem of a politician calling for an honest discussion, he has to be honest about who really benefits from his plan. It's most certainly not seniors or, even more sadly, the middle class.
Roundtable: Chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics, Tim Shriver; host of CNBC's "Mad Money" Jim Cramer; the New York Times White House Corresopndent Helene Cooper; and NBC News Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director, Chuck Todd.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
4.3.11: Actions and Their Consequences
Why can't we be counted on to do the responsible thing? Fundamentalists in this country are acting irresponsibly and this week's violence in Afghanistan, the killing of 7 foreign workers, due to the Koran burning by the Christian Pastor Terry Jones in Florida is the latest example. Some months ago, when this was being debated in the press and Mr. Jones received international notoriety, we all knew the consequences of such actions. Then he went and did it anyway. Mr. Jones knew what the right thing to do was, but decided against it. What's inexplicable is how a man of God could act without empathy, without tolerance, and without compassion for other people.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), today's first guest, understated these actions calling them 'irresponsible conduct.' However, where he put his emphasis was on the other irresponsible actions going on in Congress with the budget negotiations. Mr. Durbin, as most of us do, understands the difficult position that House Speaker Boehner is in with the Tea Party Republican caucus. He has to placate them while trying to get some deal done so the government doesn't shutdown, which would be like sticking a sharp needle in the collective arm of the American people. If the government shuts down, checks don't go out, which is bad politically - a serious understatement. But the fact is while we agree that the government needs to cut spending, we find it disingenuous that the individuals calling for this most loudly are also advocating reducing the taxes for the richest Americans.
We agree with Senator Durbin when he explained that House Republicans loss all credibility in the budget talks when on insisting on political riders in a budget bill. That's the politics of politics we guess, but some of what House Republicans actually want to cut is irresponsible. No matter where you are on the spectrum of opinion on climate change, you would have to agree that the Environmental Protection Agency, which Mr. Durbin specifically mentioned along with Planned Parenthood, is essential of us to have. The agency that makes sure our water is clean to drink and that the air doesn't become too toxic. Cutting out the EPA and/or Planned Parenthood and/or NPR does in fact go beyond the mandate of last November's election. And if because of these riders, the government shuts down, the blame would have to squarely be put on Republican House members.
Republican strategist Mike Murphy, on today's panel, described it as a big game of chicken, but it doesn't have to be. Republicans should take the compromise of $33 billion in cuts because as pointed out, it is for this year's budget. They haven't even begun to discuss next year's. Ugh. And as E.J. Dionne pointed out, the pressure is on John Boehner. This is the first real test of his leadership of the House Republican caucus. Can he bring them all together? We'll see soon enough.
The key statistic to keep in mind that such cuts would eliminate over 700,000 jobs, which goes against what the mandate was supposed to be for in the first place, nullifying the last 8 months of job gains. Mr. Gregory asked the panel about 'morning in America,' referring to the recovering economy, but how will that morning look with unemployment among the black community at a steady 15.5%? It's easy to gloss over when you focus on the national percentage, but what is the number where people, nationally, will take notice?
***
What we found every encouraging was the reasoned answers from the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI). You may not agree on everything we're doing in Libya but at least it seems like the most engaged individuals like Senator Durbin and Congressman Rogers are on the same page both saying that the United States should continue to maintain the no-fly zone over the country and that continued pressure on the Qadhafi regime is in the interest of the United States.
Congressman Rogers clearly stated that Democrats and Republicans should stand with the President on our actions taken in Libya. It's just refreshing to hear a politician call for unified support on an issue. And it is true that at this point, Qadhafi staying in power is not an option and though the rebel forces are weak and ill-equipped, the pressure on the regime has been effective as evidenced by all the high-office defections, namely of Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa.
Throughout this Libyan crisis, President Obama's measured have been as appropriate as they can be. As Mr. Durbin said, the United States acted on the issuance of an international coalition consisting of the Arab League, the United Nations, and the European Community. And as explained by Congressman Rogers, in addition to dropping bombs, we've seized [frozen] over $60 billion of the regimes money. But no matter of intention of the actions, the consequences have to be accepted, and that's why you heard the President give a speech on energy this week.
Chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Daniel Yergin, said that $100 per barrel for oil is absorbable for the economy, but long term, it could be destructive. Destructive for whom is the question? Mike Murphy seemed to think that high oil prices in the long-term could be good in that it would force us to utilize other forms of energy to supplant the crude. Thinking off the cuff, we can only really think that it would be destructive for the speculators who drive the prices.
With that said, Mr. Yergin was right that this worry extends far beyond Libya. He mentioned that even though Yemen is a small oil producer, it shares a large border with Saudi Arabia, which could become destabilized at worst, or just an easy thruway the terrorists and jihadists at best. Without a doubt there will be attacks on the Saudi regime cast from Yemen, and it will be the consequences the Saudis will face for their actions in Bahrain.
One hundred per barrel of oil officially gets penciled into the 'new normals' column.
Panel: The president of the National Urban League, Marc Morial; Republican strategist and columnist for TIME Magazine, Mike Murphy; columnist for the Washington Post, EJ Dionne; presidential historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin; and the chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Daniel Yergin.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), today's first guest, understated these actions calling them 'irresponsible conduct.' However, where he put his emphasis was on the other irresponsible actions going on in Congress with the budget negotiations. Mr. Durbin, as most of us do, understands the difficult position that House Speaker Boehner is in with the Tea Party Republican caucus. He has to placate them while trying to get some deal done so the government doesn't shutdown, which would be like sticking a sharp needle in the collective arm of the American people. If the government shuts down, checks don't go out, which is bad politically - a serious understatement. But the fact is while we agree that the government needs to cut spending, we find it disingenuous that the individuals calling for this most loudly are also advocating reducing the taxes for the richest Americans.
We agree with Senator Durbin when he explained that House Republicans loss all credibility in the budget talks when on insisting on political riders in a budget bill. That's the politics of politics we guess, but some of what House Republicans actually want to cut is irresponsible. No matter where you are on the spectrum of opinion on climate change, you would have to agree that the Environmental Protection Agency, which Mr. Durbin specifically mentioned along with Planned Parenthood, is essential of us to have. The agency that makes sure our water is clean to drink and that the air doesn't become too toxic. Cutting out the EPA and/or Planned Parenthood and/or NPR does in fact go beyond the mandate of last November's election. And if because of these riders, the government shuts down, the blame would have to squarely be put on Republican House members.
Republican strategist Mike Murphy, on today's panel, described it as a big game of chicken, but it doesn't have to be. Republicans should take the compromise of $33 billion in cuts because as pointed out, it is for this year's budget. They haven't even begun to discuss next year's. Ugh. And as E.J. Dionne pointed out, the pressure is on John Boehner. This is the first real test of his leadership of the House Republican caucus. Can he bring them all together? We'll see soon enough.
The key statistic to keep in mind that such cuts would eliminate over 700,000 jobs, which goes against what the mandate was supposed to be for in the first place, nullifying the last 8 months of job gains. Mr. Gregory asked the panel about 'morning in America,' referring to the recovering economy, but how will that morning look with unemployment among the black community at a steady 15.5%? It's easy to gloss over when you focus on the national percentage, but what is the number where people, nationally, will take notice?
***
What we found every encouraging was the reasoned answers from the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI). You may not agree on everything we're doing in Libya but at least it seems like the most engaged individuals like Senator Durbin and Congressman Rogers are on the same page both saying that the United States should continue to maintain the no-fly zone over the country and that continued pressure on the Qadhafi regime is in the interest of the United States.
Congressman Rogers clearly stated that Democrats and Republicans should stand with the President on our actions taken in Libya. It's just refreshing to hear a politician call for unified support on an issue. And it is true that at this point, Qadhafi staying in power is not an option and though the rebel forces are weak and ill-equipped, the pressure on the regime has been effective as evidenced by all the high-office defections, namely of Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa.
Throughout this Libyan crisis, President Obama's measured have been as appropriate as they can be. As Mr. Durbin said, the United States acted on the issuance of an international coalition consisting of the Arab League, the United Nations, and the European Community. And as explained by Congressman Rogers, in addition to dropping bombs, we've seized [frozen] over $60 billion of the regimes money. But no matter of intention of the actions, the consequences have to be accepted, and that's why you heard the President give a speech on energy this week.
Chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Daniel Yergin, said that $100 per barrel for oil is absorbable for the economy, but long term, it could be destructive. Destructive for whom is the question? Mike Murphy seemed to think that high oil prices in the long-term could be good in that it would force us to utilize other forms of energy to supplant the crude. Thinking off the cuff, we can only really think that it would be destructive for the speculators who drive the prices.
With that said, Mr. Yergin was right that this worry extends far beyond Libya. He mentioned that even though Yemen is a small oil producer, it shares a large border with Saudi Arabia, which could become destabilized at worst, or just an easy thruway the terrorists and jihadists at best. Without a doubt there will be attacks on the Saudi regime cast from Yemen, and it will be the consequences the Saudis will face for their actions in Bahrain.
One hundred per barrel of oil officially gets penciled into the 'new normals' column.
Panel: The president of the National Urban League, Marc Morial; Republican strategist and columnist for TIME Magazine, Mike Murphy; columnist for the Washington Post, EJ Dionne; presidential historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin; and the chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Daniel Yergin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)