Secretary Clinton said that Iraq is taking care of it's own security and that President Obama is following a withdrawal timetable that was set by the Bush administration. That timetable for withdrawal concludes at the end of this year. She also said that President Obama has passed the '3 am phone call test' with flying colors, but Republicans are not convinced and have criticized the administration saying that security in country and Iranian influence still pose a great threat.
The reality is that there is still the prospect of sectarian violence in Iraq and as any laymen knows, Iran's influence in Iraq is real in history, the present, and will be in the future. Neighboring countries have relationships and it will always be that way, whether the United States government approves of those relationships or not. It's denying a reality that will be present whether the United States military is in country for the next two months or the next two decades. It's also silly to think that the United States will ultimately determine the relationship between the different sects inside Iraq or the relationship between the Shia of Iraq and their religious brethren in Iran.
The Republican candidates throughout the debates and their respective campaign stops have advocated that government should get out of the way in people's lives - let people help themselves and to determine their own success. Why shouldn't that apply to the rest of the world? There's a large amount of naivete in that question, and you could dismiss it because there remains the grave threat to the security of the United States. However, as Secretary Clinton pointed out, the United States still maintains a significant presence in the region, and at some point we must the United States must move beyond Iraq and perpetual war.
Cynically, our military industrial complex will remain in tact as we are training and supporting the Iraqi military as they are buying our military equipment. Our role as the biggest arms dealer in the world remains in tact as we pull troops out of country. On the other hand, as the Madam Secretary pointed out, we've paid too high a price to not let Iraq go forward with democracy - their own democracy. And that price - 823 billion dollars and 4,500 American lives lost, over 35,000 injured.
You just can't have it both ways. Democracy on our terms isn't democracy and as Iraq decides its own fate, we have live with the consequences of our actions and their decisions. It's time to get out. Actually, the time to get out has passed as we should have been out sooner.
Mrs. Clinton said that she is out of politics, is not talking about it and doesn't want to look back. All of this was in response to Mr. Gregory's question as to whether or not she regretted her vote on the Iraq war. What is always painfully obvious, and this time was no exception, was that by avoiding the question, the answer was obviously yes. She does regret her vote and she can not admit that, which in essence makes it a political answer.
Mr. Gregory's more important question was if the Iraq war was worth it? Secretary Clinton stated that we'll have to wait a long time to find out. As nebulous as this answer is, it's correct, but the time that we have to wait can only begin when we leave the country.
Now according to Presidential candidate Ron Paul, who appeared on the program today, 15,000 troops at the U.S. embassy in Iraq, the largest embassy we've ever built, is not an exit, and he would be right. These days, unfortunately, leaving 15,000 troops in country constitutes a withdrawal. Dr. Paul's ideal of the role of the U.S. military is where most Americans would like to see the United States, not bogged down in perpetual troop presence in every corner of the world serving as the world's policeman.
However, where most would agree with Dr. Paul's assessment of government withdrawal from people's lives abroad, his views on the student loans, Fannie and Freddie, the Fed, and entitlement programs simply isn't realistic. The draconian cuts that got us out of the great depression that he mentioned is an inaccurate statement. The cuts that Republicans made after Roosevelt instituted the New Deal set the country back on a course of recession, not prosperity. He failed to mention the role of WWII that ultimately forced the United States government to employ the country which in turn lifted the country out of the depression. He went on to explain that taxation is immoral and that tax policy was amended in 1913 because the Founding Fathers didn't like taxation.
With this last statement, can you not see how problematic it is? First, the Founding Fathers did not dislike taxation, more accurately taxation without representation. The Founding Fathers understood that taxes were necessary. More over, we amended the law in 1913 because the Founding Fathers didn't like it? That's about 130 years after the fact. He statement absolutely made no sense. Dr. Paul said there aren't any real differences between the Republican candidates and President Obama when it comes to major policy issues, social issues yes, but not the things that would change the trajectory of the country. This may be true but Ron Paul refuses to recognize that his libertarian ideal would not only leave millions out in the cold, disenfranchised, but also without the means to help themselves.
In his assessments, he separates himself from the other Republican candidates, but as far as providing solutions for all of American, he's just one in the same.
Round Table
NYT’s David Brooks; former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr.; former Chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch; and Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent for NBC News, Andrea Mitchell.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
10.16.11: The Herman Cain Interview
The message is well constructed and it's simple, and the messenger stays on point with it, and that goes a long way. That's why Herman Cain is at the top of the polls for the Republican nomination for President. Many people are taking the line that at least Mr. Cain has a plan, more than can be said for Rick Perry, the governor of Texas.
In today's interview, Mr. Cain's simplistic '9-9-9' tax plan was front and center, and the news is that he admitted that in fact some people would pay more in taxes, while acknowledging that some would certainly pay less. This does go against the grain of what is now standard Republican doctrine in that it raises taxes on people. Grover Norquist is not an advocate for the plan, not because the raised taxes will be on the poor, but because the sales taxes on goods that are not taxed now would be raised.
The inequity of the 9-9-9 plan is easily evident. There are a few echoing complaints about how there are so many people do not pay federal taxes. These complaints remain echoes due to the reason, which is that many people do not make enough money to pay - the working poor. It's precisely this group of the electorate that is hit the hardest by Mr. Cain's plan while the wealthiest Americans will see another overall tax reduction. When the candidates speak of 'broadening the base' in terms of taxes, this is one of those approaches. Broadening the base means having the poorest Americans pay more in taxes.
Speaker John Boehner, quoted by Mr. Gregory, said that tax reform in this political climate would be difficult. To which, Mr. Cain countered that public support and simplicity would cut through the difficulties and his plan will go through. The unfortunate reality for Mr. Cain is that he will need powerful advocates within the beltway to champion his plan. Whether we like it or not, that's how our system works now, and there is just not that support. The Wall Street journal points out that the 9 percent federal sales tax combined with a state sales tax will in effect put a 17% levy on consumption. That number, no matter how you try to wring it out through explanation, becomes a simplistic 'no' in the minds of voters.
Finally, Mr. Cain's tax plan takes so much revenue out of the federal government, that it is a mathematical reality that cuts will have to be made in government programs. Mr. Cain has not outlined those cuts, which will not be in defense as Mr. Cain stated.
He stood by his statement that liberals in the United States have the objective of destroying this nation. It's a notion that he believes, which is certainly not a way to lead, automatically alienating a large part of the electorate. He explained that because of liberal economic policy, we need to cut defense, which is something he will not do as President.
When speaking about foreign policy, Mr. Cain invoked Ronald Reagan in as much as to achieve peace, we must do it through strength and clarity, strength through a robust military and clarity by clearly outlining who our friends and enemies are respectively. He went on to say that many positive things have come out of our war in Iraq and he would not reduce troops. However, that is as far as that answer went. Mr. Cain said that he would listen to the generals on the ground as to the best way to proceed in regard to military matters. This is distinct substance that Mr. Cain lacks in his approach to foreign policy. We are left to glean how he would act by the sources he looks to for his foreign policy philosophy, which include John Bolton and Henry Kissinger. Given these two references, we would have to conclude that Mr. Cain, as President, would be inclined to take preemptive military action. The type of action that Mr. Bolton advocated in Iraq and the kind that Mr. Kissinger proposed in Cambodia.
With regard to Afghanistan, Mr. Cain outlined victory as when the Afghan people can defend themselves. To extrapolate this out, we presume he means that the central government of Afghanistan under President Karzai has a military large enough to keep the peace in country with the ability to quash any resistance from the Taliban, for example. This definition is the conventional thinking, but if there is one aspect in which we need a difficult line of thought it is with regard to Afghanistan. Within that different line of thinking should be a way to get U.S. troops out of country as quickly as possible.
This column just finds it generally troublesome that prospective leaders in this country automatically defer to the 'generals on the ground' for their military advice. This notion assumes that we consistently have generals on the ground, which is an unsustainable approach to foreign policy, both in man power and money. When the generals aren't on the ground, what would you do as President?
Mr. Cain said he's a 'Main Street' executive as opposed to Mr. Romney being a 'Wall Street' executive, implying that he's more in tune with the American populace as a whole. He stated the President Obama is outside the mainstream in an experiential sense [read: no business experience]. Keeping these two views in mind, Mr. Cain will first have to explain what programs he is going to cut that will directly effect the middle class. And why would we ever want to discount state experience and the knowledge of foreign policy as Mr. Cain does? The market is so volatile right now because of what is happening in Europe and their euro debt crisis. It's the curiosity to understand something like this and make decisions accordingly that vets the best Presidential candidate.
Herman Cain is not that candidate.
Quick Note: The back third of the program featured Governor Bobby Jindal and former Governor and Presidential Candidate Tim Pawlenty advocating for their prospective nominees; Mr. Jindal for Rick Perry and Mr. Pawlenty for Mitt Romney.
Tim Pawlenty, when played the MTP clip of himself from July in which he said the Mr. Romney couldn't be the nominee because of the Massachusetts health care law, said that he believes Mr. Romney when he said that he would repeal 'Obamacare.' Mr. Pawlenty said he looked into Mr. Romney's eyes. Yeah, just like George Bush looked into Mr. Putin's soul and knew what kind of man he was. Mr. Pawlenty said, in reference to Mr. Romney's Mormon faith, that there should be no religious litmus test, it's prohibited by the constitution. This is a statement of expediency as religious attacks from the right have bombarded President Obama throughout his entire term in office. No a very good surrogate for Mr. Romney.
And as for Mr. Perry, he'll certainly need a more convincing advocate than Bobby Jindal. Hard stop.
In today's interview, Mr. Cain's simplistic '9-9-9' tax plan was front and center, and the news is that he admitted that in fact some people would pay more in taxes, while acknowledging that some would certainly pay less. This does go against the grain of what is now standard Republican doctrine in that it raises taxes on people. Grover Norquist is not an advocate for the plan, not because the raised taxes will be on the poor, but because the sales taxes on goods that are not taxed now would be raised.
The inequity of the 9-9-9 plan is easily evident. There are a few echoing complaints about how there are so many people do not pay federal taxes. These complaints remain echoes due to the reason, which is that many people do not make enough money to pay - the working poor. It's precisely this group of the electorate that is hit the hardest by Mr. Cain's plan while the wealthiest Americans will see another overall tax reduction. When the candidates speak of 'broadening the base' in terms of taxes, this is one of those approaches. Broadening the base means having the poorest Americans pay more in taxes.
Speaker John Boehner, quoted by Mr. Gregory, said that tax reform in this political climate would be difficult. To which, Mr. Cain countered that public support and simplicity would cut through the difficulties and his plan will go through. The unfortunate reality for Mr. Cain is that he will need powerful advocates within the beltway to champion his plan. Whether we like it or not, that's how our system works now, and there is just not that support. The Wall Street journal points out that the 9 percent federal sales tax combined with a state sales tax will in effect put a 17% levy on consumption. That number, no matter how you try to wring it out through explanation, becomes a simplistic 'no' in the minds of voters.
Finally, Mr. Cain's tax plan takes so much revenue out of the federal government, that it is a mathematical reality that cuts will have to be made in government programs. Mr. Cain has not outlined those cuts, which will not be in defense as Mr. Cain stated.
He stood by his statement that liberals in the United States have the objective of destroying this nation. It's a notion that he believes, which is certainly not a way to lead, automatically alienating a large part of the electorate. He explained that because of liberal economic policy, we need to cut defense, which is something he will not do as President.
When speaking about foreign policy, Mr. Cain invoked Ronald Reagan in as much as to achieve peace, we must do it through strength and clarity, strength through a robust military and clarity by clearly outlining who our friends and enemies are respectively. He went on to say that many positive things have come out of our war in Iraq and he would not reduce troops. However, that is as far as that answer went. Mr. Cain said that he would listen to the generals on the ground as to the best way to proceed in regard to military matters. This is distinct substance that Mr. Cain lacks in his approach to foreign policy. We are left to glean how he would act by the sources he looks to for his foreign policy philosophy, which include John Bolton and Henry Kissinger. Given these two references, we would have to conclude that Mr. Cain, as President, would be inclined to take preemptive military action. The type of action that Mr. Bolton advocated in Iraq and the kind that Mr. Kissinger proposed in Cambodia.
With regard to Afghanistan, Mr. Cain outlined victory as when the Afghan people can defend themselves. To extrapolate this out, we presume he means that the central government of Afghanistan under President Karzai has a military large enough to keep the peace in country with the ability to quash any resistance from the Taliban, for example. This definition is the conventional thinking, but if there is one aspect in which we need a difficult line of thought it is with regard to Afghanistan. Within that different line of thinking should be a way to get U.S. troops out of country as quickly as possible.
This column just finds it generally troublesome that prospective leaders in this country automatically defer to the 'generals on the ground' for their military advice. This notion assumes that we consistently have generals on the ground, which is an unsustainable approach to foreign policy, both in man power and money. When the generals aren't on the ground, what would you do as President?
Mr. Cain said he's a 'Main Street' executive as opposed to Mr. Romney being a 'Wall Street' executive, implying that he's more in tune with the American populace as a whole. He stated the President Obama is outside the mainstream in an experiential sense [read: no business experience]. Keeping these two views in mind, Mr. Cain will first have to explain what programs he is going to cut that will directly effect the middle class. And why would we ever want to discount state experience and the knowledge of foreign policy as Mr. Cain does? The market is so volatile right now because of what is happening in Europe and their euro debt crisis. It's the curiosity to understand something like this and make decisions accordingly that vets the best Presidential candidate.
Herman Cain is not that candidate.
Quick Note: The back third of the program featured Governor Bobby Jindal and former Governor and Presidential Candidate Tim Pawlenty advocating for their prospective nominees; Mr. Jindal for Rick Perry and Mr. Pawlenty for Mitt Romney.
Tim Pawlenty, when played the MTP clip of himself from July in which he said the Mr. Romney couldn't be the nominee because of the Massachusetts health care law, said that he believes Mr. Romney when he said that he would repeal 'Obamacare.' Mr. Pawlenty said he looked into Mr. Romney's eyes. Yeah, just like George Bush looked into Mr. Putin's soul and knew what kind of man he was. Mr. Pawlenty said, in reference to Mr. Romney's Mormon faith, that there should be no religious litmus test, it's prohibited by the constitution. This is a statement of expediency as religious attacks from the right have bombarded President Obama throughout his entire term in office. No a very good surrogate for Mr. Romney.
And as for Mr. Perry, he'll certainly need a more convincing advocate than Bobby Jindal. Hard stop.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
9.18.11: Conflict and Cooperation
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is a political operative, not a legislator. We'd like to be able to say differently, but when sifting through his statements, there's nothing we can find that's helpful to moving this country forward. President Clinton talked about cooperation and conflict, in which conflict makes for good politics, and that is Mr. McConnell's forte, creating conflict. It's unfortunate because Americans obviously need a lot more 'leadership' from their leaders right now and the creation of conflict is unhelpful. Mr. McConnell reminded us that the election is not this year, but next year and there are steps that legislators can take to help the economy before then.
To remove the 'wet blanket,' as the Senator termed it, over the economy, Mr. McConnell focused on tax and entitlement reform, but there's so much more that needs to be done to get the economy back on track. When you pair these two reforms together it is simply a money shuffle, eventually transferring from one group to another. The goal for tax reform, in Republican terms,
is to lower the tax rate, not necessarily make it more fair. As we've seen for the past thirty years, lowering the tax rate has not increased middle-America's earnings. Simply doing tax reform will not put people back to work. Entitlement reform is a euphemism for decreasing benefits. These aren't notions that people don't understand, they're quite banal, but for whatever reason the general public looks beyond these truths.
Mr. Gregory wanted to get the Senator's reaction to a clip from earlier this week in which John Boehner in a speech first said that the 'my way or the highway' approach to politics is not good for the country and then later said that tax increases were 'off the table,' talking 'out of two side of his mouth.' Mr. McConnell parried on the question and went back into tax reform. But later in the interview, Mr. McConnell said this,
"...I would simply go back to what the President said last December and signing a two-year extension of the current tax rates is a bad thing to do in the middle of an economic downturn. and of course the economy somewhat argues even worse now than it was when the President signed the extension of the current tax rates back in December."
That's a direct quote and it makes no sense, it's 'talking out of the two sides of your mouth.' The President said that signing this tax extension is bad for the economy, something that Republicans wanted. Then Mr. McConnell turns around then says that because of this tax extension, the indication from the economy, is that they made it worse and he blamed the President?
The Republicans will get these two reforms out of the President in negotiations. The other reality is that the President will not get the concessions that he is seeking from Republicans, and this is why the President's reelection is tenuous.
Even President Clinton, the answer man, couldn't really come up with any additional solutions, as per his usual, in terms of the other side of the equation - cooperation. He did endorse President Obama's job plan, but didn't seem convinced that the President could sell it. Mr. Clinton could sell it, because his presentation of the facts breathes authority. He explained that an economic downturn such as we had usually takes 5 years to recover from, but also that a broad range of economists say that we'll have growth of 1.4 to 2 percent if we enact the President's proposals. Sadly, Mr. Obama could say that same thing and no one would believe it.
Mr. Clinton also said that for the President to be reelected, he has to win the argument to the American people that his plan is sound, and that it is Republicans who have done nothing but obstruct. (This is given the 9.1% unemployment rate.) Cooperation was certainly not part of the answer on how Mr. President Obama could win.
New York Times White Correspondent Helene Cooper said that the voters will not tolerate doing nothing, and that falls squarely on the President. Even if he does successfully make the argument, as Mr. Clinton advised, the public will go with the person that they believe can get something done with regard to the economy. As it stands, they don't believe that that person is Barack Obama. Whom ever the Republican nominee given the current field, that individual instantly has the advantage over the President even if his or her 'do something' doesn't do anything. Just making the claim may be good enough.
Round Table: Former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, Senior political analyst for TIME Magazine, Mark Halperin and NY Times White House Correspondent Helene Cooper. The Buffett Rule
To remove the 'wet blanket,' as the Senator termed it, over the economy, Mr. McConnell focused on tax and entitlement reform, but there's so much more that needs to be done to get the economy back on track. When you pair these two reforms together it is simply a money shuffle, eventually transferring from one group to another. The goal for tax reform, in Republican terms,
is to lower the tax rate, not necessarily make it more fair. As we've seen for the past thirty years, lowering the tax rate has not increased middle-America's earnings. Simply doing tax reform will not put people back to work. Entitlement reform is a euphemism for decreasing benefits. These aren't notions that people don't understand, they're quite banal, but for whatever reason the general public looks beyond these truths.
Mr. Gregory wanted to get the Senator's reaction to a clip from earlier this week in which John Boehner in a speech first said that the 'my way or the highway' approach to politics is not good for the country and then later said that tax increases were 'off the table,' talking 'out of two side of his mouth.' Mr. McConnell parried on the question and went back into tax reform. But later in the interview, Mr. McConnell said this,
"...I would simply go back to what the President said last December and signing a two-year extension of the current tax rates is a bad thing to do in the middle of an economic downturn. and of course the economy somewhat argues even worse now than it was when the President signed the extension of the current tax rates back in December."
That's a direct quote and it makes no sense, it's 'talking out of the two sides of your mouth.' The President said that signing this tax extension is bad for the economy, something that Republicans wanted. Then Mr. McConnell turns around then says that because of this tax extension, the indication from the economy, is that they made it worse and he blamed the President?
The Republicans will get these two reforms out of the President in negotiations. The other reality is that the President will not get the concessions that he is seeking from Republicans, and this is why the President's reelection is tenuous.
Even President Clinton, the answer man, couldn't really come up with any additional solutions, as per his usual, in terms of the other side of the equation - cooperation. He did endorse President Obama's job plan, but didn't seem convinced that the President could sell it. Mr. Clinton could sell it, because his presentation of the facts breathes authority. He explained that an economic downturn such as we had usually takes 5 years to recover from, but also that a broad range of economists say that we'll have growth of 1.4 to 2 percent if we enact the President's proposals. Sadly, Mr. Obama could say that same thing and no one would believe it.
Mr. Clinton also said that for the President to be reelected, he has to win the argument to the American people that his plan is sound, and that it is Republicans who have done nothing but obstruct. (This is given the 9.1% unemployment rate.) Cooperation was certainly not part of the answer on how Mr. President Obama could win.
New York Times White Correspondent Helene Cooper said that the voters will not tolerate doing nothing, and that falls squarely on the President. Even if he does successfully make the argument, as Mr. Clinton advised, the public will go with the person that they believe can get something done with regard to the economy. As it stands, they don't believe that that person is Barack Obama. Whom ever the Republican nominee given the current field, that individual instantly has the advantage over the President even if his or her 'do something' doesn't do anything. Just making the claim may be good enough.
Round Table: Former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, Senior political analyst for TIME Magazine, Mark Halperin and NY Times White House Correspondent Helene Cooper. The Buffett Rule
Sunday, September 04, 2011
9.4.11: The Role of Government Discussion
On this last Sunday of the summer, today's discussion was big picture - where the country is going, how we're adapting to the ever-evolving global market and workplace, and the role of government in this country going forward.
To boil it down, here are the two competing philosophies. Democrats believe in a bottom up structure to achieve economic success, which means starting with the middle class and programs that are centered on that group to facilitate overall growth - this requires more government. Conversely, the Republicans approach it top down, by focuses on growth in the corporate sector first, which will in turn in theory filter down to the middle class and build it that way - this way advocates for less government.
So you have to choose, while considering what government means to you. It's easy to go cynical in both directions. The Democrats want socialism and the Republicans want corporatism, but regardless, there are some issues that transcend politics that are crucial to the future success of the United States and one in particular discussed today is education.
New York Times columnist Thom Friedman described high imagination countries and low imagination countries, and though this column agrees with his overall premise that the high imagination countries will win out, it's problematic to call the United States a low imagination country. As a country, yes, we are definitely low imagination, but as individuals, Americans perhaps the most imaginative in the world. Mr. Friedman mentioned Twitter, Facebook, Skype, apps (think Apple)... All of those are American innovations.
Education starts with how we set the priorities as a society and we've failed in stressing the importance of it. Then you think of South Korea, China, and India all being ahead of the United States in math and science. To innovatively educate of youth in this country, we have to invest so much more than we do now, with a necessity of having a robust and strong public education system. Frankly, a school system of this sort is what launched this country into the technology age, leading the world in the 50's and 60's. Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) said that many cities and states are going are cutting education to a four-day school week. This is exactly what we should not be doing, and in fact, we should have more schooling, more after-school programs everything from the chess club to the school newspaper to the debate team to football to field hockey. With a four-school week, kids will get part time jobs on the other three days, then probably putting the priority on working and making money instead of educating themselves to a high level. So what could be the result? A very large uneducated workforce earning minimum wage.
Investing tremendously in public education - that would be going big, politically fraught but big. Which brings us to the upcoming speech by President Obama on Thursday. [By the way, the Administration should not have requested to address Congress on the same day as the Republican debate. They knew what they were doing and it was not politically shrewd. Our two cents.] The talk is whether the President's job plan will be big or more modest, i.e. supposedly politically feasible.
Congresswoman Waters insisted the President be bold and call for a trillion-dollar jobs program. Conservative columnist Paul Gigot, understanding that the officials in the Administration are advocating for an FDR type approach, said that the President should go more into Republican territory, 'changing the debate,' and start with tax reform.
Politically, a trillion-dollar jobs investment won't fly. The Republicans would never go for it, called it more stimulus and you know the rest. From the Democratic point of view, we agree with the number, but Democrats should do like Republicans. When negotiating, start with a huge number that the other side would never go for but start from there. In a tug of war, you actually want to be on your heels. We do believe that there has to be some type of investment regardless.
Simply doing tax reform won't jump start job growth quickly enough not taking hold fast enough, would be a slow process in legislating, and wouldn't as beneficial to the middle class as it should be. Tax reform in necessary but is just a part of the answer, not the answer. Mr. Friedman also stated that we do, in fact, need a 'shock to the system.' What that shock would be is anyone's guess, but we're afraid it might not be one that has a positive result.
We can right ourselves economically if we could only right ourselves politically and the two political parties are fighting it out on the role of government. This is the core argument. However, if you think of government in terms of how Presidential historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin did, that government not only includes Washington but also our local teachers, policemen, and firemen, then government will always have a large role in our lives, it's unavoidable. So when Rick Perry says that he wants to make government as inconsequential as possible in the lives of Americans he just not being realistic. It sounds good on the stump but it's not at all practical. Ms. Goodwin also blurted out that it didn't make any sense to her why people who hate government are involved in government. It doesn't make sense to us either but if the motivation is money and individual power then it makes perfect sense.
The panel discussed five pillars for our success - education, infrastructure, the rules for capital investment, government funded research, and immigration. Also, it is the private sector-government partnership that can stabilize these five pillars. These require two things - compromise and regulations (otherwise known as rules) for the chance of successful implementation, but the two words have some badly been taboo'ed in Washington that we're set in a debilitating political paralysis. The debt ceiling debate's negative consequences are still rippling through people's minds, ensuring a no-confidence vote.
It's a big political week coming up, with both the Republican candidates, highlighted by Mr. Perry's first national appearance, getting their big stage on Wednesday followed by the President and his spotlight on Thursday. We hope that it will be an essential informative way for Americans to decide as to which path they want to take.
Tom Friedman; editorial page editor for the Wall Street Journal, Paul Gigot; congresswoman from California, Maxine Waters (D); co-founder of No Labels, Mark McKinnon; and Presidential Historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin.
To boil it down, here are the two competing philosophies. Democrats believe in a bottom up structure to achieve economic success, which means starting with the middle class and programs that are centered on that group to facilitate overall growth - this requires more government. Conversely, the Republicans approach it top down, by focuses on growth in the corporate sector first, which will in turn in theory filter down to the middle class and build it that way - this way advocates for less government.
So you have to choose, while considering what government means to you. It's easy to go cynical in both directions. The Democrats want socialism and the Republicans want corporatism, but regardless, there are some issues that transcend politics that are crucial to the future success of the United States and one in particular discussed today is education.
New York Times columnist Thom Friedman described high imagination countries and low imagination countries, and though this column agrees with his overall premise that the high imagination countries will win out, it's problematic to call the United States a low imagination country. As a country, yes, we are definitely low imagination, but as individuals, Americans perhaps the most imaginative in the world. Mr. Friedman mentioned Twitter, Facebook, Skype, apps (think Apple)... All of those are American innovations.
Education starts with how we set the priorities as a society and we've failed in stressing the importance of it. Then you think of South Korea, China, and India all being ahead of the United States in math and science. To innovatively educate of youth in this country, we have to invest so much more than we do now, with a necessity of having a robust and strong public education system. Frankly, a school system of this sort is what launched this country into the technology age, leading the world in the 50's and 60's. Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) said that many cities and states are going are cutting education to a four-day school week. This is exactly what we should not be doing, and in fact, we should have more schooling, more after-school programs everything from the chess club to the school newspaper to the debate team to football to field hockey. With a four-school week, kids will get part time jobs on the other three days, then probably putting the priority on working and making money instead of educating themselves to a high level. So what could be the result? A very large uneducated workforce earning minimum wage.
Investing tremendously in public education - that would be going big, politically fraught but big. Which brings us to the upcoming speech by President Obama on Thursday. [By the way, the Administration should not have requested to address Congress on the same day as the Republican debate. They knew what they were doing and it was not politically shrewd. Our two cents.] The talk is whether the President's job plan will be big or more modest, i.e. supposedly politically feasible.
Congresswoman Waters insisted the President be bold and call for a trillion-dollar jobs program. Conservative columnist Paul Gigot, understanding that the officials in the Administration are advocating for an FDR type approach, said that the President should go more into Republican territory, 'changing the debate,' and start with tax reform.
Politically, a trillion-dollar jobs investment won't fly. The Republicans would never go for it, called it more stimulus and you know the rest. From the Democratic point of view, we agree with the number, but Democrats should do like Republicans. When negotiating, start with a huge number that the other side would never go for but start from there. In a tug of war, you actually want to be on your heels. We do believe that there has to be some type of investment regardless.
Simply doing tax reform won't jump start job growth quickly enough not taking hold fast enough, would be a slow process in legislating, and wouldn't as beneficial to the middle class as it should be. Tax reform in necessary but is just a part of the answer, not the answer. Mr. Friedman also stated that we do, in fact, need a 'shock to the system.' What that shock would be is anyone's guess, but we're afraid it might not be one that has a positive result.
We can right ourselves economically if we could only right ourselves politically and the two political parties are fighting it out on the role of government. This is the core argument. However, if you think of government in terms of how Presidential historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin did, that government not only includes Washington but also our local teachers, policemen, and firemen, then government will always have a large role in our lives, it's unavoidable. So when Rick Perry says that he wants to make government as inconsequential as possible in the lives of Americans he just not being realistic. It sounds good on the stump but it's not at all practical. Ms. Goodwin also blurted out that it didn't make any sense to her why people who hate government are involved in government. It doesn't make sense to us either but if the motivation is money and individual power then it makes perfect sense.
The panel discussed five pillars for our success - education, infrastructure, the rules for capital investment, government funded research, and immigration. Also, it is the private sector-government partnership that can stabilize these five pillars. These require two things - compromise and regulations (otherwise known as rules) for the chance of successful implementation, but the two words have some badly been taboo'ed in Washington that we're set in a debilitating political paralysis. The debt ceiling debate's negative consequences are still rippling through people's minds, ensuring a no-confidence vote.
It's a big political week coming up, with both the Republican candidates, highlighted by Mr. Perry's first national appearance, getting their big stage on Wednesday followed by the President and his spotlight on Thursday. We hope that it will be an essential informative way for Americans to decide as to which path they want to take.
Tom Friedman; editorial page editor for the Wall Street Journal, Paul Gigot; congresswoman from California, Maxine Waters (D); co-founder of No Labels, Mark McKinnon; and Presidential Historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
8.28.11: Don't Get Katrina'ed
Most of today's coverage as should be the case was focused on the tracking of Hurricane Irene and Meet The Press appropriately checked in with the top state and city officials, getting governors and mayors on the line.
Natural disasters should be the one area in which we do not play politics, but when asking politicians it's unavoidable. Mr. Christie clearly, and sensibly we might add, stated that the number one task is saving human life and that everything else is secondary. When asked about the damage, he anticipated costs being in the billions, if not 10s of billions of dollars. Governor Martin O'Malley (D-MD) said that the Obama Administration has been great in their response and support. Governor O'Donnell in Virginia said that state officials have been working closely with FEMA and taking all the necessary precautions. So it's good to know that FEMA is on the case with a timely response. Lastly, mayor Cory Booker (D-Newark, NJ) stressed that it is these natural emergencies that make it all the more important to invest in our infrastructure to make it better and more prepared for such occurrences.
With regard to preparedness, David Brooks seems to think that the public will tune out if officials make too much of warnings in these cases. There may be a spec of truth to that, but when it comes to homes and lives, people heed hard warnings when it comes to natural disasters. Plus as Ms. Gangel said, which gave us this week's title, is that no politician wants to get Katrina'ed. And since then, politicians are on notice for these things as Michael Eric Dyson pointed out.
So where is the politics? Curiously, this was not mentioned or discussed on the program, but earlier this week House Majority leader Eric Cantor said that if there is federal money that has to serve disaster relief, there would have to be spending cuts someplace else. Mr. Cantor is the worst of what has become of the American politic.
In the aforementioned assessments from top officials, not one Democrat or Republican alike mentioned 'expense' in dealing with these problems. And yet, a Washington politician can make a callous statement like that with no consequence. One reason for this, and why it wasn't mentioned today, could be that people are beginning to take what Eric Cantor says not seriously. The statement was simply irresponsible because it doesn't even vaguely consider the human condition and potential hardship for people.
Slipping into Presidential politics, also earlier this week Congressman Ron Paul said that the Federal Government has no reason to be involve with relief efforts and that it should solely fall upon the states to deal with. Mr. Paul's dogmatic philosophy to the role of the Federal Government is distressing because it leaves people with the feeling that if something like a natural disaster happens, there would be serious limits to what can be done to help and leaves people with an empty feeling of insecurity. It's not a President would respond and that's why he'll only ever get a small percentage of the vote.
And to join the chorus and extend the metaphor, it was Mitt Romney who was hit with a hurricane in the form of Rick Perry's candidacy. Mr. Perry is now the Republican front-runner with 29% of the vote. So how would a President Romney respond in a time of crisis. Well, he was laying low on the campaign trail this summer and he saw a Rick Perry entrance into the race for weeks. Yet, he did nothing except for proclaiming that corporations are people too, and he's instantly been overtaken. David Brooks summarized that the Republican electorate has been waiting for Perry because of Romney's shaky stance on issues.
There was also mention of Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman's statement that he's a center-right candidate and that's where the country is, not to the extreme right like some of his primary opponents and not too far left like President Obama. Mr. Huntsman had also stated that he believes in climate change and the science that shows it as well as evolution. That the theory of evolution is now equaled in importance to intelligent design in Mr. Perry's book, let alone anyone's, is truly befuddling to the writer of this column. However, here is what's really scary.
David Brooks said that 15% of the Republican electorate is in line with the statements of Mr. Huntsman, leaving the other 85% to be far-right in the Perry, Bachmann, Santorum camp. The reason that it is scary is because for Mr. Perry and Ms. Bachmann it all comes down to one thing: money. In the case, for example, of Mr. Santorum, it is much more about the social issues and that's actually why he lost his Senate seat. He wants government out of people's lives but wants to dictate how women conduct their own personal health.
Look at it, Follow it, and take note of the consequences; it's the money, especially for Mr. Perry given his record in Texas where he'll say he's created a third of the new jobs in this country. However, Texas is 47th in the country in average wages earned, the biggest employer in the state is the Federal Government, and the education efficiency ranks in the bottom 5 of states as well. Those low wages and minimum wage paying jobs are the result of the leverage and influence that large corporations have with Mr. Perry to create conditions that do not improve our labor force and suppresses it. It's not so much of an indictment of Mr. Perry as it is common knowledge if you follow politics.
Lastly, there's the gift that keeps on giving, Dick Cheney. "Heads exploding all over Washington," is the only true takeaway quote, and from what was previewed on today's program, Mr. Cheney spares no one. Colin Powell's resignation was for the best; Condoleezza Rice was a train wreck; CIA Director George Tenet couldn't hack it. Who was the one correct in all cases - VP Dick Cheney. But remember that George Bush awarded George Tenet the Medal of Freedom, the highest award a civilian can receive. The Bush Administration (Mr. Cheney) sent Colin Powell to the United Nations General Assembly to make the case for a war that he didn't believe in and disagreed vehemently with Mr. Cheney on Iraq. And Ms. Rice was the foil to Mr. Cheney on advising the President, and was closer to the President than the Vice President. We look forward to reading about Mr. Cheney's own reality.
New York Times Columnist, David Brooks; Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson; Washington Correspondent for the BBC, Katty Kay; and National Correspondent for NBC'S TODAY, Jamie Gangel
Natural disasters should be the one area in which we do not play politics, but when asking politicians it's unavoidable. Mr. Christie clearly, and sensibly we might add, stated that the number one task is saving human life and that everything else is secondary. When asked about the damage, he anticipated costs being in the billions, if not 10s of billions of dollars. Governor Martin O'Malley (D-MD) said that the Obama Administration has been great in their response and support. Governor O'Donnell in Virginia said that state officials have been working closely with FEMA and taking all the necessary precautions. So it's good to know that FEMA is on the case with a timely response. Lastly, mayor Cory Booker (D-Newark, NJ) stressed that it is these natural emergencies that make it all the more important to invest in our infrastructure to make it better and more prepared for such occurrences.
With regard to preparedness, David Brooks seems to think that the public will tune out if officials make too much of warnings in these cases. There may be a spec of truth to that, but when it comes to homes and lives, people heed hard warnings when it comes to natural disasters. Plus as Ms. Gangel said, which gave us this week's title, is that no politician wants to get Katrina'ed. And since then, politicians are on notice for these things as Michael Eric Dyson pointed out.
So where is the politics? Curiously, this was not mentioned or discussed on the program, but earlier this week House Majority leader Eric Cantor said that if there is federal money that has to serve disaster relief, there would have to be spending cuts someplace else. Mr. Cantor is the worst of what has become of the American politic.
In the aforementioned assessments from top officials, not one Democrat or Republican alike mentioned 'expense' in dealing with these problems. And yet, a Washington politician can make a callous statement like that with no consequence. One reason for this, and why it wasn't mentioned today, could be that people are beginning to take what Eric Cantor says not seriously. The statement was simply irresponsible because it doesn't even vaguely consider the human condition and potential hardship for people.
Slipping into Presidential politics, also earlier this week Congressman Ron Paul said that the Federal Government has no reason to be involve with relief efforts and that it should solely fall upon the states to deal with. Mr. Paul's dogmatic philosophy to the role of the Federal Government is distressing because it leaves people with the feeling that if something like a natural disaster happens, there would be serious limits to what can be done to help and leaves people with an empty feeling of insecurity. It's not a President would respond and that's why he'll only ever get a small percentage of the vote.
And to join the chorus and extend the metaphor, it was Mitt Romney who was hit with a hurricane in the form of Rick Perry's candidacy. Mr. Perry is now the Republican front-runner with 29% of the vote. So how would a President Romney respond in a time of crisis. Well, he was laying low on the campaign trail this summer and he saw a Rick Perry entrance into the race for weeks. Yet, he did nothing except for proclaiming that corporations are people too, and he's instantly been overtaken. David Brooks summarized that the Republican electorate has been waiting for Perry because of Romney's shaky stance on issues.
There was also mention of Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman's statement that he's a center-right candidate and that's where the country is, not to the extreme right like some of his primary opponents and not too far left like President Obama. Mr. Huntsman had also stated that he believes in climate change and the science that shows it as well as evolution. That the theory of evolution is now equaled in importance to intelligent design in Mr. Perry's book, let alone anyone's, is truly befuddling to the writer of this column. However, here is what's really scary.
David Brooks said that 15% of the Republican electorate is in line with the statements of Mr. Huntsman, leaving the other 85% to be far-right in the Perry, Bachmann, Santorum camp. The reason that it is scary is because for Mr. Perry and Ms. Bachmann it all comes down to one thing: money. In the case, for example, of Mr. Santorum, it is much more about the social issues and that's actually why he lost his Senate seat. He wants government out of people's lives but wants to dictate how women conduct their own personal health.
Look at it, Follow it, and take note of the consequences; it's the money, especially for Mr. Perry given his record in Texas where he'll say he's created a third of the new jobs in this country. However, Texas is 47th in the country in average wages earned, the biggest employer in the state is the Federal Government, and the education efficiency ranks in the bottom 5 of states as well. Those low wages and minimum wage paying jobs are the result of the leverage and influence that large corporations have with Mr. Perry to create conditions that do not improve our labor force and suppresses it. It's not so much of an indictment of Mr. Perry as it is common knowledge if you follow politics.
Lastly, there's the gift that keeps on giving, Dick Cheney. "Heads exploding all over Washington," is the only true takeaway quote, and from what was previewed on today's program, Mr. Cheney spares no one. Colin Powell's resignation was for the best; Condoleezza Rice was a train wreck; CIA Director George Tenet couldn't hack it. Who was the one correct in all cases - VP Dick Cheney. But remember that George Bush awarded George Tenet the Medal of Freedom, the highest award a civilian can receive. The Bush Administration (Mr. Cheney) sent Colin Powell to the United Nations General Assembly to make the case for a war that he didn't believe in and disagreed vehemently with Mr. Cheney on Iraq. And Ms. Rice was the foil to Mr. Cheney on advising the President, and was closer to the President than the Vice President. We look forward to reading about Mr. Cheney's own reality.
New York Times Columnist, David Brooks; Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson; Washington Correspondent for the BBC, Katty Kay; and National Correspondent for NBC'S TODAY, Jamie Gangel
Sunday, August 14, 2011
8.14.11: Some Perspective Please / Meet The Candidate: Michele Bachmann
Oh boy, where to start?
Well, let's start with this. This column owes Congresswoman Bachmann an apology for in previous columns, we've most probably spelled her first name incorrectly, using two 'l's' instead of one. Sorry about that... but, that's as far as that goes.
And we'll say this for Mrs. Bachmann, which is that she is a disciplined candidate, but when a question comes her way that she can't handle, she directly faces it down and she's "I'm running for President of the United States." Today was no exception on today's program, and we just don't see how this will be successful in a general election or beneficial for the country if she's says one thing on a radio show and then won't own up to it when asked face to face. So we agree with Republican Strategist Mike Murphy when he confirmed his previous statement that Michele Bachmann has as much chance of landing on Jupiter as she does to become the Republican Presidential nominee.
With Texas Governor Rick Perry getting into the race and former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) getting out of the race, that's a net loss in the challenge quotient for the Congresswoman. Mr. Perry is a much harder challenge for her in terms of getting the conservative Tea Party vote. And as for Tim Pawlenty, by the way, who didn't see that coming that he was going to fold. Even we called that over a month ago. Mrs. Bachmann said that she would be calling Mr. Pawlenty and that she welcomes anyone into the race - strictly lip-service.
However, on more important points brought up by Mr. Gregory, the 3rd-term Congresswoman's answers were fraught with incorrect facts or hollow talking points or conflicting statements or non-answers.
On the debt ceiling vote, she is on the opposite side of conventional Republican opinion and outside expert opinion on advocating not to raise the debt ceiling. She would not have voted to raise it under any circumstances, saying that the American people didn't want it raised and I listened to the people of this country. However, if just looking at polls and asking a small sampling of like-minded people, framing the question in a particular way, isn't sound judgment for a serious Presidential candidate. How many of those people also understand that the debt ceiling has to be raised for money we've already spent. To which, people may say, yes, money that President Obama has already spent. But do those people know that it is because President Obama put the two wars we're in on the books along with Medicare Part D, both of which we're never factored into Bush Administration spending. The wars were done on emergency supplemental allocations. Mrs. Bachmann knows these things but chooses not to acknowledge these facts. Americans, unfortunately, are not fully informed (not implying that we are).
She began to say that the President said to the troops that he didn't know if they would be paid, to which Mr. Gregory immediately corrected her saying that it was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Either way, she called it irresponsible. And when confronted by Standard & Poor's statement as to why they downgraded U.S. credit, because of political brinksmanship on the part of the Republicans, she blamed the President on threatening our full faith and credit, imploring not to blame her. It seems like she hears something but is not listening just simply ignoring what is not agreeable to her. As President, you just can not ignore inconvenient reality, which is what the Congresswoman seems to be doing. And this goes toward her own statements.
"Did the Republicans use the debt ceiling vote as a bargaining chip?" Mr. Gregory asked. She never answered the question, which in political interviews means that the real answer is yes, in this case, but that's an unforgivable answer for a Republican. When asked about her religious beliefs, which influence her decisions and especially with regard to rights for gays and lesbians (though she denies this), she refused to even acknowledge her previous statements from a radio that gays are in bondage, have sexual dysfunction, and live a life of despair. Well, maybe we understand that she wouldn't acknowledge that statement, it's just weird, not to mention offensive.
David Gregory asked her if she would appoint an openly gay person to her cabinet, administration, et al., and she said that she wouldn't judge.
"You did judge," Mr. Gregory exclaimed. Then she just kept repeating "I'm not anyone's judge," until the question went away. It's obvious that she does by not even answering whether or not she thinks a gay couple with a child is a family.
Mrs. Bachmann has explained that God spoke to her through her husband to become a tax attorney (for the IRS - Thanks Mr. Eugene Robinson for the reminder), which you have to judge for yourself what you think of that. All we know is that if God tells us that we have to do something, we hope it's not that! But she cites this an one of her qualifications to be President.
Let's keep some perspective here. Despite what Michele Bachmann says about there being a number of Democrats and Independents at the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll, this was strictly a small sampling of Republicans who participated. And don't believe Iowa's Governor, Terry Branstad (R), when he says that Iowa is the key to the nomination, in this case on the Republican side. Only approximately 17,000 people participated in the poll, of which Mrs. Bachmann got a little over 4,800 votes in a particularly far-right Republican caucus. The Governor cited that fact that Rudy Giuliani didn't get the nomination because he didn't compete in Iowa. No, Mr. Giuliani didn't get the nomination because the man he recommended to head the Department of Homeland Security was arrested for tax fraud (among other things).
In fact, all we heard from Governor Branstad were standard Republican talking points in his criticism of the President's fiscal policy and pointed out that we're losing jobs to Canada. Eugene Robinson pointed out that Canada recently discovered huge reserves of oil. The Governor said that we have too but the President won't let us use it. He was laughed at by the entire panel, but his limited understanding of the issue. He had no unique answers that echoed Mrs. Bachmann's which were to repeal 'Obamacare' and repeal financial regulation (The Dodd-Frank Act).
[As a side note, Congresswoman Bachmann is against extending an unemployment benefits, "We can't afford it." Again, there's a larger picture that she's not acknowledging. For every dollar of unemployment insurance that goes out, $1.70 comes back into the economy. And what happens to those people? They go homeless, and if that is the case, it will cost the government even more money to build shelters, soup kitchens, and the like. Just saying.]
Mr. Murphy's disdain for extreme-right evangelical Republicans always comes into distinct focus on Meet The Press and this week it made the Iowan Governor clearly uncomfortable. Mr. Murphy quipped that he could get a 1,000 signatures this week to ban algebra, not speaking well of the Straw Poll. On Texas Governor Rick Perry getting into the Presidential race, he said that he has a great first sentence - I've created a third of the jobs since the recession hit. But Mr. Murphy then said that his second sentence is that those jobs are at Burger King or for the government.
He did acknowledge that Mr. Perry changes everyone's strategy and is now a part of what Chuck Todd outlined as the top tier of Republican candidates - Romney, Bachmann, and now Perry.
Since Michele Bachmann will not get the nomination, that leaves Mr. Romney and Mr. Perry. Jonathan Martin, during the roundtable, beside putting out the requisite question, "Is Palin getting in the race?" he asked can Rick Perry appeal to Republicans like the ones in suburban Philadelphia or suburban Columbus. We don't know about Columbus, but as for suburb Philadelphia, the answer is no. Strictly having the 'Tea-vangelical' vote, as was quoted today, will not win the general election.
With that, we agree with the consensus on today's panel that Rick Perry could turn conventional Republican wisdom on its head and take the nomination from Mr. 'Next-in-Line' Romney has a better chance in the general. A barracuda is how Mike Murphy described Rick Perry as a candidate. He cited Mr. Perry's race with Kay Bailey Hutchinson for Texas Governor where he smeared her relentlessly. What he didn't mention that we're bringing up now is if it comes down to Perry and Romney, Mr. Perry's campaign will indirectly (through surrogates) wage a heavy continual attack on Mr. Romney's Mormon faith, no question about it.
Iowa’s Governor Terry Branstad (R); GOP strategist Mike Murphy; the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson; senior political reporter for Politico, Jonathan Martin; and NBC News Political Director, Chuck Todd.
Well, let's start with this. This column owes Congresswoman Bachmann an apology for in previous columns, we've most probably spelled her first name incorrectly, using two 'l's' instead of one. Sorry about that... but, that's as far as that goes.
And we'll say this for Mrs. Bachmann, which is that she is a disciplined candidate, but when a question comes her way that she can't handle, she directly faces it down and she's "I'm running for President of the United States." Today was no exception on today's program, and we just don't see how this will be successful in a general election or beneficial for the country if she's says one thing on a radio show and then won't own up to it when asked face to face. So we agree with Republican Strategist Mike Murphy when he confirmed his previous statement that Michele Bachmann has as much chance of landing on Jupiter as she does to become the Republican Presidential nominee.
With Texas Governor Rick Perry getting into the race and former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) getting out of the race, that's a net loss in the challenge quotient for the Congresswoman. Mr. Perry is a much harder challenge for her in terms of getting the conservative Tea Party vote. And as for Tim Pawlenty, by the way, who didn't see that coming that he was going to fold. Even we called that over a month ago. Mrs. Bachmann said that she would be calling Mr. Pawlenty and that she welcomes anyone into the race - strictly lip-service.
However, on more important points brought up by Mr. Gregory, the 3rd-term Congresswoman's answers were fraught with incorrect facts or hollow talking points or conflicting statements or non-answers.
On the debt ceiling vote, she is on the opposite side of conventional Republican opinion and outside expert opinion on advocating not to raise the debt ceiling. She would not have voted to raise it under any circumstances, saying that the American people didn't want it raised and I listened to the people of this country. However, if just looking at polls and asking a small sampling of like-minded people, framing the question in a particular way, isn't sound judgment for a serious Presidential candidate. How many of those people also understand that the debt ceiling has to be raised for money we've already spent. To which, people may say, yes, money that President Obama has already spent. But do those people know that it is because President Obama put the two wars we're in on the books along with Medicare Part D, both of which we're never factored into Bush Administration spending. The wars were done on emergency supplemental allocations. Mrs. Bachmann knows these things but chooses not to acknowledge these facts. Americans, unfortunately, are not fully informed (not implying that we are).
She began to say that the President said to the troops that he didn't know if they would be paid, to which Mr. Gregory immediately corrected her saying that it was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Either way, she called it irresponsible. And when confronted by Standard & Poor's statement as to why they downgraded U.S. credit, because of political brinksmanship on the part of the Republicans, she blamed the President on threatening our full faith and credit, imploring not to blame her. It seems like she hears something but is not listening just simply ignoring what is not agreeable to her. As President, you just can not ignore inconvenient reality, which is what the Congresswoman seems to be doing. And this goes toward her own statements.
"Did the Republicans use the debt ceiling vote as a bargaining chip?" Mr. Gregory asked. She never answered the question, which in political interviews means that the real answer is yes, in this case, but that's an unforgivable answer for a Republican. When asked about her religious beliefs, which influence her decisions and especially with regard to rights for gays and lesbians (though she denies this), she refused to even acknowledge her previous statements from a radio that gays are in bondage, have sexual dysfunction, and live a life of despair. Well, maybe we understand that she wouldn't acknowledge that statement, it's just weird, not to mention offensive.
David Gregory asked her if she would appoint an openly gay person to her cabinet, administration, et al., and she said that she wouldn't judge.
"You did judge," Mr. Gregory exclaimed. Then she just kept repeating "I'm not anyone's judge," until the question went away. It's obvious that she does by not even answering whether or not she thinks a gay couple with a child is a family.
Mrs. Bachmann has explained that God spoke to her through her husband to become a tax attorney (for the IRS - Thanks Mr. Eugene Robinson for the reminder), which you have to judge for yourself what you think of that. All we know is that if God tells us that we have to do something, we hope it's not that! But she cites this an one of her qualifications to be President.
Let's keep some perspective here. Despite what Michele Bachmann says about there being a number of Democrats and Independents at the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll, this was strictly a small sampling of Republicans who participated. And don't believe Iowa's Governor, Terry Branstad (R), when he says that Iowa is the key to the nomination, in this case on the Republican side. Only approximately 17,000 people participated in the poll, of which Mrs. Bachmann got a little over 4,800 votes in a particularly far-right Republican caucus. The Governor cited that fact that Rudy Giuliani didn't get the nomination because he didn't compete in Iowa. No, Mr. Giuliani didn't get the nomination because the man he recommended to head the Department of Homeland Security was arrested for tax fraud (among other things).
In fact, all we heard from Governor Branstad were standard Republican talking points in his criticism of the President's fiscal policy and pointed out that we're losing jobs to Canada. Eugene Robinson pointed out that Canada recently discovered huge reserves of oil. The Governor said that we have too but the President won't let us use it. He was laughed at by the entire panel, but his limited understanding of the issue. He had no unique answers that echoed Mrs. Bachmann's which were to repeal 'Obamacare' and repeal financial regulation (The Dodd-Frank Act).
[As a side note, Congresswoman Bachmann is against extending an unemployment benefits, "We can't afford it." Again, there's a larger picture that she's not acknowledging. For every dollar of unemployment insurance that goes out, $1.70 comes back into the economy. And what happens to those people? They go homeless, and if that is the case, it will cost the government even more money to build shelters, soup kitchens, and the like. Just saying.]
Mr. Murphy's disdain for extreme-right evangelical Republicans always comes into distinct focus on Meet The Press and this week it made the Iowan Governor clearly uncomfortable. Mr. Murphy quipped that he could get a 1,000 signatures this week to ban algebra, not speaking well of the Straw Poll. On Texas Governor Rick Perry getting into the Presidential race, he said that he has a great first sentence - I've created a third of the jobs since the recession hit. But Mr. Murphy then said that his second sentence is that those jobs are at Burger King or for the government.
He did acknowledge that Mr. Perry changes everyone's strategy and is now a part of what Chuck Todd outlined as the top tier of Republican candidates - Romney, Bachmann, and now Perry.
Since Michele Bachmann will not get the nomination, that leaves Mr. Romney and Mr. Perry. Jonathan Martin, during the roundtable, beside putting out the requisite question, "Is Palin getting in the race?" he asked can Rick Perry appeal to Republicans like the ones in suburban Philadelphia or suburban Columbus. We don't know about Columbus, but as for suburb Philadelphia, the answer is no. Strictly having the 'Tea-vangelical' vote, as was quoted today, will not win the general election.
With that, we agree with the consensus on today's panel that Rick Perry could turn conventional Republican wisdom on its head and take the nomination from Mr. 'Next-in-Line' Romney has a better chance in the general. A barracuda is how Mike Murphy described Rick Perry as a candidate. He cited Mr. Perry's race with Kay Bailey Hutchinson for Texas Governor where he smeared her relentlessly. What he didn't mention that we're bringing up now is if it comes down to Perry and Romney, Mr. Perry's campaign will indirectly (through surrogates) wage a heavy continual attack on Mr. Romney's Mormon faith, no question about it.
Iowa’s Governor Terry Branstad (R); GOP strategist Mike Murphy; the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson; senior political reporter for Politico, Jonathan Martin; and NBC News Political Director, Chuck Todd.
Sunday, August 07, 2011
8.7.11: Downgrading America and Its Greatness
If these two interviews serve as any indication of where this country is headed then we're most assuredly headed for another downgrade of some sort. Unfortunately, to put these discussions in context, we have to quote a few first worsts that occurred this week, actually in one day - Friday August 5th, 2011. On this day, Standard & Poor's, the credit rating agency, downgraded the United States of America's credit rating for the first time in its history. We were first rated back in 1941. Secondly, we suffered the single deadliest day in the Afghanistan war losing 33 soldiers, which included 22 navy seals. It seemed like the official day that officially ended America's greatness.
You have to basically ignore Senator McCain's criticisms of the President due to his bitterness of losing the election, he begins every answer with a jab, and in this case it was the President's decision on the timetable for the troop draw down in country and that he did not consult the military. This, we have to point out, is not the case as the President clearly took the advice of David Petraeus, or he would have done with the previous President would have down, follow the order or be fired. President Obama promoted General Petraeus to CIA head.
With that, the two Senators, Kerry and McCain, basically agree on most points in relation to this conflict, which is that Pakistan is a major player in the problems we have in Afghanistan. The Taliban also needs to be quelled, lest it harbor sanctuary for Al Qaeda again. Lastly, they both agree on the fact that several factions in the country are struggling to gain control.
On the draw down timetable, McCain thinks its too soon, and Kerry really didn't say because he won't publicly criticism the Administration on this front. Now, we're not military experts, but for our two cents, we disagree with both senators, and here's something to give thought to given the two differing perspectives.
First, the timetable for troop draw downs is fine, but what should the adjusted force look like, and what should be its function? We believe that it has a lot to do with how the Taliban think and what they respond to, and frankly, it's two things - uncertainty and ruthlessness. Draw down the troops so that Bagram Airbase is our huge center of operation - almost a city-state unto itself with 30,000 troops - fortified. Then run operations out of there and have troops at the ready stationed in other nearby country bases and on aircraft carriers at the edge of the region. This way, if any surge is needed, it can be accomplished quickly.
Also, how we run these operations is crucial. First, the tasks they wouldn't be responsible for would nation-building, having forward outposts in remote areas, and fighting the opium trade. However, it should support the central government by extension of the Administration's policies. The Taliban respond to the fear of the unknown. Having a large number of troops in one location, especially with the amount of fire power the U.S. military has, centralizes things and could make us more unpredictable in where we strike the Taliban, consistent covert missions with maximum strike force (a bit of the Powell Doctrine in there). Instill fear in the enemy that you will be unpredictable and mercilessly powerful, and you will see the Taliban shrink, while the central government can do more to build itself up. It may seem hawkish, but not really because look how everyone viewed the operation to kill Osama Bin Laden. We were all pretty impressed. Use reconnaissance to spot Taliban strong holds, and then instill some real feature, if you know what we mean.
Senator Kerry said that we need to get the other countries in the region involved - China, Russian, the other Stans (as he put it), Iran, even India. However, these countries don't want to have anything to do with Afghanistan. Russia's going to help us in Afghanistan? Really?
As it stands, this is a serious blow to the moral of the military. Speaking of being down of course, there was Standard & Poor's downgrading of the United States' credit rating, and this brings us back to the contrasting answers by the two aforementioned Senators.
When asked what we could do to revive the economy, Senator McCain said that we should cut corporate tax rates, put a moratorium on new fiscal regulations, and discuss the big elephant in the room - the entitlements of Medicare and Social Security. By contrast, Senator Kerry talked about a Senate bi-partisan highway bill, an infrastructure bank, regulatory reform, patent reform, cuts in waste to Medicare and Social Security, and revenue increases which of course translates higher taxes in some segment of the population. (We'll just leave that last one at that.)
What we hear from Senator Kerry are solutions that both parties can agree on, something that Austin Goolsbee and David Gregory jousted about during the round table. Mr. Gregory pointed out that Congress never gets to the start and these things never see any light. More bills, specifically in the House, need to have bi-partisan authorship, two people - one from each party. Why isn't that a rule? If you can't make nice on your own, then you have to impose it. Anyone who has gone to any school for one day knows this. Also, if instant citing and knowledge of the facts and details are any indication to the level that one grasps the issue makes a difference, we'd have to give that to Senator Kerry. Pointing out that China spends 9% of GDP on infrastructure, Europe 5%, and the United States only 2%, Mr. Kerry seems to have a better grasp of the whole.
With that said, he did start off the interview calling the credit downgrade a Tea-Party Downgrade. Senator McCain called it a failure of leadership on the part of the President. Taking these two statements together and factor in that Mr. Goolsbee and Ms. Maddow during the roundtable made discrediting remarks about Standard & Poor's, the $2 trillion math error and that S&P will give a triple-A rating to anyone respectively, here's what we can glean from all this.
The leadership failure, as stated by Senator McCain, was that the President's party controlled two-thirds of the government and couldn't get (we're presuming) his agenda through and hence a downgrade. It's pure rhetoric, but let's distill it for a moment. Consider that it takes 60 votes in the Senate (this is a Senate rule, not a law) to pass anything in the Senate, a simple majority (under 60 seats) doesn't do anything for the majority party so it's in fact an even split so the 'control' is limited. It was a moment that required compromise, which the President did offer, but it was rejected by Republicans.
Senator McCain mentioned that we shouldn't blame the Tea Party because the House had a mandate. That's debatable, but if they carried out their mandate then how can he say that the President failed in his leadership. Speaker John Boehner in an interview said that he got 98% of what he wanted and therefore he was happy. While he was getting 98%, some in his caucus were openly calling for the U.S. to default on its debt.
Alex Castellanos, the Republican strategist said that there was intransience on the part of both parties - the Republicans for their tax stance and the Democrats for the spending stance. Ms. Maddow, citing the S&P report in front of her, slammed Mr. Castellanos, said the downgrade was particularly because of the political uncertainty on the debt ceiling crisis. The crisis was, let's be honest, by Republicans and was purely political in nature. Also when Ms. Maddow asked Mr. Castellanos what tax loopholes or subsidies would the Republicans eliminate, he couldn't name one.
So was it a Tea-Party downgrade? Well, Republicans got most of what they wanted because of the Tea-Party caucus, and now we got downgraded... Hmm..... What's really sad is that if you do conclude that it is a downgrade sparked by the Tea-Party's willingness to default, now you see the Democratic Administration defending these actions on behalf of the country. This is the difficult part of governing that frankly, the Republicans won't take responsibility for, they can sit back and blame the President.
Lastly, for his wisdom, Alan Greenspan clearly didn't want to make news. He said that if the Israeli market, which is open today, is any indication that we can look for the downgrade to have a big effect, but then instantly backed off of that. He was even less committal on how to get the U.S. economy going again. He said that tax cuts don't slow the economy as much as spending cuts, which means... what? The one thing that we did finding informative was with regard to a double dip recession, which we feel is coming, is that, as Mr. Greenspan explain, it depend on Europe. Italy is in trouble and it's too big to be bailed out, he said.
Mr. Kerry's last statement was that 'we need to be statesmen here.' We need them badly right now, but sadly, Mr. Kerry was wrong in assuming that Senator McCain could be one of them. All his answers revolved around empty rhetoric so we're officially downgrading John McCain's credit.
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Dr. Alan Greenspan, outgoing White House Economic Adviser, Austan Goolsbee, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, and Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos.
You have to basically ignore Senator McCain's criticisms of the President due to his bitterness of losing the election, he begins every answer with a jab, and in this case it was the President's decision on the timetable for the troop draw down in country and that he did not consult the military. This, we have to point out, is not the case as the President clearly took the advice of David Petraeus, or he would have done with the previous President would have down, follow the order or be fired. President Obama promoted General Petraeus to CIA head.
With that, the two Senators, Kerry and McCain, basically agree on most points in relation to this conflict, which is that Pakistan is a major player in the problems we have in Afghanistan. The Taliban also needs to be quelled, lest it harbor sanctuary for Al Qaeda again. Lastly, they both agree on the fact that several factions in the country are struggling to gain control.
On the draw down timetable, McCain thinks its too soon, and Kerry really didn't say because he won't publicly criticism the Administration on this front. Now, we're not military experts, but for our two cents, we disagree with both senators, and here's something to give thought to given the two differing perspectives.
First, the timetable for troop draw downs is fine, but what should the adjusted force look like, and what should be its function? We believe that it has a lot to do with how the Taliban think and what they respond to, and frankly, it's two things - uncertainty and ruthlessness. Draw down the troops so that Bagram Airbase is our huge center of operation - almost a city-state unto itself with 30,000 troops - fortified. Then run operations out of there and have troops at the ready stationed in other nearby country bases and on aircraft carriers at the edge of the region. This way, if any surge is needed, it can be accomplished quickly.
Also, how we run these operations is crucial. First, the tasks they wouldn't be responsible for would nation-building, having forward outposts in remote areas, and fighting the opium trade. However, it should support the central government by extension of the Administration's policies. The Taliban respond to the fear of the unknown. Having a large number of troops in one location, especially with the amount of fire power the U.S. military has, centralizes things and could make us more unpredictable in where we strike the Taliban, consistent covert missions with maximum strike force (a bit of the Powell Doctrine in there). Instill fear in the enemy that you will be unpredictable and mercilessly powerful, and you will see the Taliban shrink, while the central government can do more to build itself up. It may seem hawkish, but not really because look how everyone viewed the operation to kill Osama Bin Laden. We were all pretty impressed. Use reconnaissance to spot Taliban strong holds, and then instill some real feature, if you know what we mean.
Senator Kerry said that we need to get the other countries in the region involved - China, Russian, the other Stans (as he put it), Iran, even India. However, these countries don't want to have anything to do with Afghanistan. Russia's going to help us in Afghanistan? Really?
As it stands, this is a serious blow to the moral of the military. Speaking of being down of course, there was Standard & Poor's downgrading of the United States' credit rating, and this brings us back to the contrasting answers by the two aforementioned Senators.
When asked what we could do to revive the economy, Senator McCain said that we should cut corporate tax rates, put a moratorium on new fiscal regulations, and discuss the big elephant in the room - the entitlements of Medicare and Social Security. By contrast, Senator Kerry talked about a Senate bi-partisan highway bill, an infrastructure bank, regulatory reform, patent reform, cuts in waste to Medicare and Social Security, and revenue increases which of course translates higher taxes in some segment of the population. (We'll just leave that last one at that.)
What we hear from Senator Kerry are solutions that both parties can agree on, something that Austin Goolsbee and David Gregory jousted about during the round table. Mr. Gregory pointed out that Congress never gets to the start and these things never see any light. More bills, specifically in the House, need to have bi-partisan authorship, two people - one from each party. Why isn't that a rule? If you can't make nice on your own, then you have to impose it. Anyone who has gone to any school for one day knows this. Also, if instant citing and knowledge of the facts and details are any indication to the level that one grasps the issue makes a difference, we'd have to give that to Senator Kerry. Pointing out that China spends 9% of GDP on infrastructure, Europe 5%, and the United States only 2%, Mr. Kerry seems to have a better grasp of the whole.
With that said, he did start off the interview calling the credit downgrade a Tea-Party Downgrade. Senator McCain called it a failure of leadership on the part of the President. Taking these two statements together and factor in that Mr. Goolsbee and Ms. Maddow during the roundtable made discrediting remarks about Standard & Poor's, the $2 trillion math error and that S&P will give a triple-A rating to anyone respectively, here's what we can glean from all this.
The leadership failure, as stated by Senator McCain, was that the President's party controlled two-thirds of the government and couldn't get (we're presuming) his agenda through and hence a downgrade. It's pure rhetoric, but let's distill it for a moment. Consider that it takes 60 votes in the Senate (this is a Senate rule, not a law) to pass anything in the Senate, a simple majority (under 60 seats) doesn't do anything for the majority party so it's in fact an even split so the 'control' is limited. It was a moment that required compromise, which the President did offer, but it was rejected by Republicans.
Senator McCain mentioned that we shouldn't blame the Tea Party because the House had a mandate. That's debatable, but if they carried out their mandate then how can he say that the President failed in his leadership. Speaker John Boehner in an interview said that he got 98% of what he wanted and therefore he was happy. While he was getting 98%, some in his caucus were openly calling for the U.S. to default on its debt.
Alex Castellanos, the Republican strategist said that there was intransience on the part of both parties - the Republicans for their tax stance and the Democrats for the spending stance. Ms. Maddow, citing the S&P report in front of her, slammed Mr. Castellanos, said the downgrade was particularly because of the political uncertainty on the debt ceiling crisis. The crisis was, let's be honest, by Republicans and was purely political in nature. Also when Ms. Maddow asked Mr. Castellanos what tax loopholes or subsidies would the Republicans eliminate, he couldn't name one.
So was it a Tea-Party downgrade? Well, Republicans got most of what they wanted because of the Tea-Party caucus, and now we got downgraded... Hmm..... What's really sad is that if you do conclude that it is a downgrade sparked by the Tea-Party's willingness to default, now you see the Democratic Administration defending these actions on behalf of the country. This is the difficult part of governing that frankly, the Republicans won't take responsibility for, they can sit back and blame the President.
Lastly, for his wisdom, Alan Greenspan clearly didn't want to make news. He said that if the Israeli market, which is open today, is any indication that we can look for the downgrade to have a big effect, but then instantly backed off of that. He was even less committal on how to get the U.S. economy going again. He said that tax cuts don't slow the economy as much as spending cuts, which means... what? The one thing that we did finding informative was with regard to a double dip recession, which we feel is coming, is that, as Mr. Greenspan explain, it depend on Europe. Italy is in trouble and it's too big to be bailed out, he said.
Mr. Kerry's last statement was that 'we need to be statesmen here.' We need them badly right now, but sadly, Mr. Kerry was wrong in assuming that Senator McCain could be one of them. All his answers revolved around empty rhetoric so we're officially downgrading John McCain's credit.
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Dr. Alan Greenspan, outgoing White House Economic Adviser, Austan Goolsbee, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, and Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
7.31.11: Code-Red Day
At the top of today's program, Mr. Gregory reported that we are 'very close' to a deal to avoid default. The deal would consist of about $3 trillion in cuts over 10 years, no revenue increases, and a raising of the debt ceiling through 2012. There will also be the formation of a bipartisan super-committee that would make recommendations for further cutting of spending.
What is not in the agreement is a balanced budget amendment provision, which may be the sticking point for the Republican controlled House of Representatives and cause a collapse in any agreement because it is the House that has not been willing to compromise, even with its leader, John Boehner. Mr. Boehner to pass a bill in the House this week had to put in a balance budget amendment to placate Tea Party Republicans to get it passed.
During today's program, there was a lot of talk about leadership. David Plouffe, Senior Advisor to the President, has said that this debt crisis has harmed our economy, certainly an understatement and there really was much more that he could say. President Obama, for his leadership, has made concessions at every level to get the debt ceiling raised so when conservatives say that he's failed to lead, it's ridiculous because he's given Republicans more than he's given Democrats in these negotiations. It's Democrats who should be complaining that he hasn't lead because of these concessions, many of which go against the Democratic Party's core beliefs - such as cuts in Social Security and Medicare without raising any revenue.
During the round table, Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) commented that the media played a big part in this crisis, to which financial analyst Jim Cramer of CNBC took exception to this statement and explained that it was the President that caused the crisis saying that things may not get paid if we don't raise the debt ceiling. During the complete discussion, both of these individuals showed that they have little perspective on the various, realistic considerations that need to be taken into account when trying to solve the budget problems we face. Representative Labrador doesn't see any need for compromise as he believes that the 2010 mid-term election was a mandate for Republicans to enact legislation without it. As Repubican freshman should have learned, this is not the case. Mr. Cramer, for his two cents, is only loyal to the stock market. On his program leading up to the great recession of 2008, Mr. Cramer continually advocated the buying of toxic assets - he was never so wrong so frankly, his opinion carries little weight with this column. His comments about the President were spiteful and certainly not insightful. And when he says that if we don't act to resolve this, we'll (The U.S.) will lose huge. That's not insightful, it's banal.
Even with those huge concessions, there's no confidence that the House will vote and pass the bill that comes back from the Senate. When asked about invoking the 14th Amendment, which could be interpreted that the President can override all this and just raise the debt ceiling to get the bills paid, David Plouffe said that the Administration has looked at that and it will not go down that road. And he shouldn't because the language is vague enough that it could be interpreted in a number of ways. Some could argue that it would be an impeachable act, on which most certainly Republicans would start proceedings. Going into an election year under impeachment would be a heavy weight around the neck of his re-election campaign.
The credit rating is about confidence, confidence that the United States will pay it's bills. One way or another, the U.S. will pay it's bills but confidence has evaporated, no more clearly exemplified of the latest example that was noted on today's program (and before) that when asked by a soldier if the military would be paid on time, Admiral Mullen said that he didn't know. The reason that confidence is gone is because frankly, with one party unwilling to compromise on anything, a slash and burn approach, the American public has to wait until the very last minute for things to move forward. This debt ceiling debate is just the latest... Remember when there was a last minute deal to avoid a government shutdown? All of this last minute legislation has decimated the public's confidence in its government. Congress thinks they have until Tuesday to get this worked out, but the reality is that the market is dictating that today is, as Mr. Gregory said, the code-red day (before the markets open).
Given all this, and now with the repeated theme that government is broken, Mr. Gregory frivolously asked Mr. Plouffe if there would be a third political party, to which he couldn't comment. Presumably that third party would be the Tea Party so how would Mr. Plouffe know about that? A silly question by Mr. Gregory in that he asked the wrong person, who wouldn't be able to answer that.
In the joint interview with Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and John Thune (R-SD), Mr. Thune said that he wasn't a fan of the super-committee idea, and we have to agree with him. For us, it creates a slippery slope to go down. Here's why. If for every crisis, fiscal or otherwise, you create a small super-committee (super meaning that it can not be questioned or that it's conclusions are fast-tracked) important decisions, it could theoretically do so without considering a differing majority view and then there's nothing you can do about it. That's the scary extreme, but in the mild reality, the idea of the super-committee shows everyone that Congress can not legislate properly. It's sad.
Mr. Thune, whose demeanor we appreciate, reinforced his party's standard talking points that, 'we spend too much, we need entitlement reform, broaden the tax base, etc.' As we've previously stated in this column, is that, yes maybe we spend too much, but we spend too much money on the wrong things. And broadening the tax base, making the tax system 'fair for everyone,' to use Congressman Labrador's words from today, means that people in this country who now make so little that they are unable to pay taxes, will have to pay taxes on what ever they make, "broadening the base." The basic takeaway from this is that it will, as with much of this economic policy, put more burden on the people who are least equipped to handle it.
Ms. McCaskill, on the other hand, reiterated the argument that we shouldn't give subsidies to oil corporations and then change Medicare in a voucher system. We would agree with this, but the problem with the Democrats isn't the more prudent position they take, it's the lack of political will and discipline to get their caucus on the same page in its entirety.
Overall, as long as we politically deny the fact that we need more tax revenue coming in to balance the budget, we'll never turn this around. Whether it be eliminating subsidies, broadening the base, increasing the rate for the top 1%, what ever it is - none of it is happening and something has to give. There is no way to cut enough money out of the budget to balance it. The compromise of spending cuts coupled with some increases in tax revenue is the essence of being American. If it seems reasonable, there's a pretty good chance that it is. Everyone can't eat all the steak, but we have to finish all the spinach.
Round Table: Former Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm (D), Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), the host of CNBC's "Mad Money" Jim Cramer, and NBC's Tom Brokaw.
What is not in the agreement is a balanced budget amendment provision, which may be the sticking point for the Republican controlled House of Representatives and cause a collapse in any agreement because it is the House that has not been willing to compromise, even with its leader, John Boehner. Mr. Boehner to pass a bill in the House this week had to put in a balance budget amendment to placate Tea Party Republicans to get it passed.
During today's program, there was a lot of talk about leadership. David Plouffe, Senior Advisor to the President, has said that this debt crisis has harmed our economy, certainly an understatement and there really was much more that he could say. President Obama, for his leadership, has made concessions at every level to get the debt ceiling raised so when conservatives say that he's failed to lead, it's ridiculous because he's given Republicans more than he's given Democrats in these negotiations. It's Democrats who should be complaining that he hasn't lead because of these concessions, many of which go against the Democratic Party's core beliefs - such as cuts in Social Security and Medicare without raising any revenue.
During the round table, Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) commented that the media played a big part in this crisis, to which financial analyst Jim Cramer of CNBC took exception to this statement and explained that it was the President that caused the crisis saying that things may not get paid if we don't raise the debt ceiling. During the complete discussion, both of these individuals showed that they have little perspective on the various, realistic considerations that need to be taken into account when trying to solve the budget problems we face. Representative Labrador doesn't see any need for compromise as he believes that the 2010 mid-term election was a mandate for Republicans to enact legislation without it. As Repubican freshman should have learned, this is not the case. Mr. Cramer, for his two cents, is only loyal to the stock market. On his program leading up to the great recession of 2008, Mr. Cramer continually advocated the buying of toxic assets - he was never so wrong so frankly, his opinion carries little weight with this column. His comments about the President were spiteful and certainly not insightful. And when he says that if we don't act to resolve this, we'll (The U.S.) will lose huge. That's not insightful, it's banal.
Even with those huge concessions, there's no confidence that the House will vote and pass the bill that comes back from the Senate. When asked about invoking the 14th Amendment, which could be interpreted that the President can override all this and just raise the debt ceiling to get the bills paid, David Plouffe said that the Administration has looked at that and it will not go down that road. And he shouldn't because the language is vague enough that it could be interpreted in a number of ways. Some could argue that it would be an impeachable act, on which most certainly Republicans would start proceedings. Going into an election year under impeachment would be a heavy weight around the neck of his re-election campaign.
The credit rating is about confidence, confidence that the United States will pay it's bills. One way or another, the U.S. will pay it's bills but confidence has evaporated, no more clearly exemplified of the latest example that was noted on today's program (and before) that when asked by a soldier if the military would be paid on time, Admiral Mullen said that he didn't know. The reason that confidence is gone is because frankly, with one party unwilling to compromise on anything, a slash and burn approach, the American public has to wait until the very last minute for things to move forward. This debt ceiling debate is just the latest... Remember when there was a last minute deal to avoid a government shutdown? All of this last minute legislation has decimated the public's confidence in its government. Congress thinks they have until Tuesday to get this worked out, but the reality is that the market is dictating that today is, as Mr. Gregory said, the code-red day (before the markets open).
Given all this, and now with the repeated theme that government is broken, Mr. Gregory frivolously asked Mr. Plouffe if there would be a third political party, to which he couldn't comment. Presumably that third party would be the Tea Party so how would Mr. Plouffe know about that? A silly question by Mr. Gregory in that he asked the wrong person, who wouldn't be able to answer that.
In the joint interview with Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and John Thune (R-SD), Mr. Thune said that he wasn't a fan of the super-committee idea, and we have to agree with him. For us, it creates a slippery slope to go down. Here's why. If for every crisis, fiscal or otherwise, you create a small super-committee (super meaning that it can not be questioned or that it's conclusions are fast-tracked) important decisions, it could theoretically do so without considering a differing majority view and then there's nothing you can do about it. That's the scary extreme, but in the mild reality, the idea of the super-committee shows everyone that Congress can not legislate properly. It's sad.
Mr. Thune, whose demeanor we appreciate, reinforced his party's standard talking points that, 'we spend too much, we need entitlement reform, broaden the tax base, etc.' As we've previously stated in this column, is that, yes maybe we spend too much, but we spend too much money on the wrong things. And broadening the tax base, making the tax system 'fair for everyone,' to use Congressman Labrador's words from today, means that people in this country who now make so little that they are unable to pay taxes, will have to pay taxes on what ever they make, "broadening the base." The basic takeaway from this is that it will, as with much of this economic policy, put more burden on the people who are least equipped to handle it.
Ms. McCaskill, on the other hand, reiterated the argument that we shouldn't give subsidies to oil corporations and then change Medicare in a voucher system. We would agree with this, but the problem with the Democrats isn't the more prudent position they take, it's the lack of political will and discipline to get their caucus on the same page in its entirety.
Overall, as long as we politically deny the fact that we need more tax revenue coming in to balance the budget, we'll never turn this around. Whether it be eliminating subsidies, broadening the base, increasing the rate for the top 1%, what ever it is - none of it is happening and something has to give. There is no way to cut enough money out of the budget to balance it. The compromise of spending cuts coupled with some increases in tax revenue is the essence of being American. If it seems reasonable, there's a pretty good chance that it is. Everyone can't eat all the steak, but we have to finish all the spinach.
Round Table: Former Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm (D), Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), the host of CNBC's "Mad Money" Jim Cramer, and NBC's Tom Brokaw.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
7.24.11: Is Government Broken? If Yes, Who Broke It?
Simply as a practical matter in these debt talks, entitlement reform should be taken off the table, not the discretionary spending but definitely Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These latter three should be tackled separately so when Senator Coburn (R-OK) in today's interview keeps talking about entitlements, they should not be tied to the debt ceiling vote.
Two more important notions to keep in mind before we go any further, which are: 1) Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements. These are programs that as American individuals we pay into for all of our working lives and entitlements suggests that these are just 'given' to us, which they are not. Secondly, raising the debt ceiling accounts for money that the United States has already spent. We can argue about who spent what, but the fact remains that for all practical purposes, it must be raised.
In this debt debate, it has been pretty well clear that it has been President Obama who has been more willing to make concessions [read: compromises] to get a deal done. Also, we believe that Speaker Boehner has been willing, be it less so, to compromise as well. However, Speaker Boehner is completely beholden to the Tea Party Republican caucus in the house, and we agree with Doris Kearns-Goodwin when in today's panel she said that he is a different kind of leader, but completely disagree with freshman Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) that he's been a good one. As Ms. Goodwin stated, he is unwilling to demand followers, leveraging his power as the Speaker to get his part in line. That he can not get House Republicans to see a way to compromise is not leading.
Ultra business-friendly White House Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, stated that one of the keys is to take the uncertainty out of the market and the uncertainty that he is referring to, in the immediate sense, is whether or not the United States is going to default on its debts for the first time in its history. As we have stated before, we're not sure what will happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised (We're not one of those columns to think it knows everything about everything as former Senator Chuck Hagel mentioned during today's round table.), but any unprecedented act, especially one that is perceived negative, will have an adverse effect on the economy.
Last reported was that Speaker Boehner walked out of negotiations because the President 'moved the goal posts,' going from asking for $800 billion in revenue to $1.2 trillion in revenue. By the way, all of this revenue would be by closing corporate tax loopholes now, and then having the Bush Era Tax Cuts sunset for the richest 1% of the country in 2012. Mr. Daley, emphatically said that it wasn't true what Mr. Boehner said, 'he was in the room.' Even if the President did 'move the goal posts,' you're talking $40 billion a year more in revenue increases, which really isn't that much. When Speaker Boehner says that we can not raise taxes on job creators, it rings so hollow that it echoes to every corner of the country. The job creators to which he's referring are corporations who are sitting on cash with the lowest tax rate they've had in the past 50 years and are not investing the money that hence creates jobs. That statement means nothing.
Mr. Daily called a raising of the debt ceiling for the next six month a 'short-term gimmick,' which it is because it puts a beaten debt-ceiling argument back into play during the Presidential election, something that the President clearly doesn't want so it makes sense that he flatly rejects that.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said in the next segment that it was a ridiculous position to hold because that is what the compromise vote is going to look like. Even though we disagree with most all of Mr. Coburn's political positions, he is worthy of our respect because he has shown that he understands that to lead in this country, compromise is needed. He does see room for getting rid of some tax subsidies for ethanol and wind. Mr. Coburn is the Senator that made news for saying that he would not be beholden to Grover Norquist's tax pledge, to which Andrea Mitchell asked a most sensible question - how do 236 members of Congress sign a pledge before even coming into the chamber? Congress Adam Kinzinger should have had to answer that, but it probably would have been a rote answer - 'We can not raise taxes on job creators...etc.'
However, Congressman Kinzinger does believe we can reach a compromise. That is the general consensus - everyone says that - but where is the compromise to go with it? What the Tea Party Republican caucus doesn't understand that in a large, diverse country such as ours (As Ms. Goodwin reminded us), compromise is essential - democracy can not survive without it.
One example that was touched on by Chief Daley and then rebutted by Senator Coburn was the impass over the FAA, which as Mr. Daley said resulted in the layoff of 4000 airport workers on Friday. Democrats and Republicans couldn't come to an agreement. Mr. Coburn said, for the Republicans part, that there were subsidies and duplication of payments that were a complete waste of federal dollars. What went unmentioned was that Republicans wanted the stripping of collective bargaining rights on behalf of the workers. Because Democrats would not give in to that demand, a deal didn't get done, hence the aforementioned result.
So when it comes to the debt deal, Mr. Daley described an 'our way or the highway' approach when it comes to revenue on the part of the Republicans. That's a problem that both the Paul Ryan budget plan has and the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill both have. When those bills go over to the Senate, controlled by Democrats, there's no chance of them going back to the House because the House will reject them because of compromises edited in by Senate Democrats.
Mayor Corey Booker said that he agrees with Republicans in that we have a spending problem, and we do, but it's where the spending is going that is the problem. Tax cuts can not be the only answer - it is not a panacea because if it were, the economy would be booming by now. What creates economic growth is a solvent federal government and for that to happen, it needs to take in more money, not just cut spending. Bringing that down to a familial level, mothers and fathers get more than one job to sustain a level of existence for their kids. To feed them, they not only say to themselves, 'We have to lower our expenses," but also say, "We have to find a way to get more money coming in." It's a two-way street.
And actually, there's a third important notion that you need to keep in mind. Former Congressman Dick Armey's FreedomWorks that started the Tea Party movement has no interest in having the economy stabilize. His motivations are purely to drive Democrats out of control of any part of government for the long term and put forth a radically right agenda. Hence, compromise on the part of Tea Party Republicans is not an option. With any problem, it's always very helpful to identify that cause so when you say that governing is compromising, you now know what the cause is. Is our government broken? Ms. Goodwin said that there's no question it's broken. So who broke it? Tea Party Republicans did. Hopefully, for all of us, a default on our debt and the downgrading of the United States' credit rating will not be their legacy.
Round Table: Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel (R); Illinois tea party freshman Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R); Mayor of Newark, Cory Booker (D); Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; and NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
Two more important notions to keep in mind before we go any further, which are: 1) Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements. These are programs that as American individuals we pay into for all of our working lives and entitlements suggests that these are just 'given' to us, which they are not. Secondly, raising the debt ceiling accounts for money that the United States has already spent. We can argue about who spent what, but the fact remains that for all practical purposes, it must be raised.
In this debt debate, it has been pretty well clear that it has been President Obama who has been more willing to make concessions [read: compromises] to get a deal done. Also, we believe that Speaker Boehner has been willing, be it less so, to compromise as well. However, Speaker Boehner is completely beholden to the Tea Party Republican caucus in the house, and we agree with Doris Kearns-Goodwin when in today's panel she said that he is a different kind of leader, but completely disagree with freshman Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) that he's been a good one. As Ms. Goodwin stated, he is unwilling to demand followers, leveraging his power as the Speaker to get his part in line. That he can not get House Republicans to see a way to compromise is not leading.
Ultra business-friendly White House Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, stated that one of the keys is to take the uncertainty out of the market and the uncertainty that he is referring to, in the immediate sense, is whether or not the United States is going to default on its debts for the first time in its history. As we have stated before, we're not sure what will happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised (We're not one of those columns to think it knows everything about everything as former Senator Chuck Hagel mentioned during today's round table.), but any unprecedented act, especially one that is perceived negative, will have an adverse effect on the economy.
Last reported was that Speaker Boehner walked out of negotiations because the President 'moved the goal posts,' going from asking for $800 billion in revenue to $1.2 trillion in revenue. By the way, all of this revenue would be by closing corporate tax loopholes now, and then having the Bush Era Tax Cuts sunset for the richest 1% of the country in 2012. Mr. Daley, emphatically said that it wasn't true what Mr. Boehner said, 'he was in the room.' Even if the President did 'move the goal posts,' you're talking $40 billion a year more in revenue increases, which really isn't that much. When Speaker Boehner says that we can not raise taxes on job creators, it rings so hollow that it echoes to every corner of the country. The job creators to which he's referring are corporations who are sitting on cash with the lowest tax rate they've had in the past 50 years and are not investing the money that hence creates jobs. That statement means nothing.
Mr. Daily called a raising of the debt ceiling for the next six month a 'short-term gimmick,' which it is because it puts a beaten debt-ceiling argument back into play during the Presidential election, something that the President clearly doesn't want so it makes sense that he flatly rejects that.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said in the next segment that it was a ridiculous position to hold because that is what the compromise vote is going to look like. Even though we disagree with most all of Mr. Coburn's political positions, he is worthy of our respect because he has shown that he understands that to lead in this country, compromise is needed. He does see room for getting rid of some tax subsidies for ethanol and wind. Mr. Coburn is the Senator that made news for saying that he would not be beholden to Grover Norquist's tax pledge, to which Andrea Mitchell asked a most sensible question - how do 236 members of Congress sign a pledge before even coming into the chamber? Congress Adam Kinzinger should have had to answer that, but it probably would have been a rote answer - 'We can not raise taxes on job creators...etc.'
However, Congressman Kinzinger does believe we can reach a compromise. That is the general consensus - everyone says that - but where is the compromise to go with it? What the Tea Party Republican caucus doesn't understand that in a large, diverse country such as ours (As Ms. Goodwin reminded us), compromise is essential - democracy can not survive without it.
One example that was touched on by Chief Daley and then rebutted by Senator Coburn was the impass over the FAA, which as Mr. Daley said resulted in the layoff of 4000 airport workers on Friday. Democrats and Republicans couldn't come to an agreement. Mr. Coburn said, for the Republicans part, that there were subsidies and duplication of payments that were a complete waste of federal dollars. What went unmentioned was that Republicans wanted the stripping of collective bargaining rights on behalf of the workers. Because Democrats would not give in to that demand, a deal didn't get done, hence the aforementioned result.
So when it comes to the debt deal, Mr. Daley described an 'our way or the highway' approach when it comes to revenue on the part of the Republicans. That's a problem that both the Paul Ryan budget plan has and the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill both have. When those bills go over to the Senate, controlled by Democrats, there's no chance of them going back to the House because the House will reject them because of compromises edited in by Senate Democrats.
Mayor Corey Booker said that he agrees with Republicans in that we have a spending problem, and we do, but it's where the spending is going that is the problem. Tax cuts can not be the only answer - it is not a panacea because if it were, the economy would be booming by now. What creates economic growth is a solvent federal government and for that to happen, it needs to take in more money, not just cut spending. Bringing that down to a familial level, mothers and fathers get more than one job to sustain a level of existence for their kids. To feed them, they not only say to themselves, 'We have to lower our expenses," but also say, "We have to find a way to get more money coming in." It's a two-way street.
And actually, there's a third important notion that you need to keep in mind. Former Congressman Dick Armey's FreedomWorks that started the Tea Party movement has no interest in having the economy stabilize. His motivations are purely to drive Democrats out of control of any part of government for the long term and put forth a radically right agenda. Hence, compromise on the part of Tea Party Republicans is not an option. With any problem, it's always very helpful to identify that cause so when you say that governing is compromising, you now know what the cause is. Is our government broken? Ms. Goodwin said that there's no question it's broken. So who broke it? Tea Party Republicans did. Hopefully, for all of us, a default on our debt and the downgrading of the United States' credit rating will not be their legacy.
Round Table: Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel (R); Illinois tea party freshman Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R); Mayor of Newark, Cory Booker (D); Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; and NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)