Dec
17
Where’s The Leadership?
Filed Under American Politics | 5 Comments
Democratic activist John Aravosis has a scathing attack on the Democratic leadership (Obama right at the front) at AmericaBlog:
I’ve heard people say that it’s not fair to criticize the Democrats for botching health care reform because the Democrats never truly had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Sure, they have 60 votes in principle, the argument goes, but with Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, and Bayh counted as four of those votes, it’s not really a solid 60.
Perhaps. But then how was George Bush so effective in passing legislation during his presidency when he never had more than 55 Republicans in the Senate? In fact, during Bush’s most effective years, from 2001 to 2005, the GOP had a grand total of 50, and then 51, Senators. The slimmest margin possible.
And look at what George Bush was able to accomplish in the Congress with fewer Senators than the Democrats have today:
- John Ashcroft nomination
- Iraq war resolution
- Repeated Iraq funding resolutions
- 2001 & 2003 tax cuts
- Patriot Act
- Alito
- John Roberts
- Medicare Part D
There are two differences between Barack Obama and George W Bush. Barack Obama was inexperienced; a part-time Senator of only four years having come from the Illinois Senate where him voting “present” demonstrated his commitment to not being committed. in other words, no executive experience at all. Bush on the other hand was a two-term Governor of one of the largest states in the union – a huge gap in respective experience. The second difference is one of partisanship. Obama and the Democratic congressional leaders (Pelosi in particular) have shown that they are more interested in getting one over on the enemy (or Republicans as most people know them), whereas Bush was comfortable reaching out to Democrats to get his legislation passed. Bush demonstrated political experience and maturity; something Obama is seriously deficient in.
It’s not about the votes, people. It’s about leadership. The current occupant of the White House doesn’t like to fight, and the leadership in Congress has never been as good at their jobs, at marshaling their own party, as the Republicans were when they were in the majority. The President is supposed to rally the country, effectively putting pressure on opposition members of Congress to sit down and shut up. And the congressional leadership is supposed to rally its members to hold the line, and get the 51 votes necessary for passing legislation in a climate where the minority is too afraid to use the filibuster. When you have a President who is constitutionally, or intellectually, unable to stand for anything, and a congressional leadership that, rather than disciplining its own members and forging ahead with its own agenda, cedes legislative authority to a president who refuses to lead, you have a recipe for exactly what happened last night. Weakness, chaos, and failure.
We lost real health care reform not because we don’t have a “real” filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. We lost health care reform because we don’t have a real leader anywhere in our party. It’s not going to get better if we elect more Democrats to the Senate and it’s not going to play out any differently should we try to revisit this issue in the future.
And that’s coming from the left. Ouch! Mind you, the right are just saying “we told you so!”
Oct
22
What Would Republicans Do?
Filed Under American Politics, Economics | 1 Comment
The Anonymous Liberal asks an intriguing and important question. If the Republican party was to get it’s hands on the levers of power, both in Congress and the White House, what would they do to lower the deficit?
Let’s try this. Suppose that somehow, magically, the GOP found itself once again in control of Congress and the White House. Republicans could set the agenda and pursue whatever policies they saw fit. What would they do to bring the deficit under control?
He comes up with some options he doesn’t think will garner enough Republican support to pass:
Well, let’s tick through the options. One idea that some Republicans have suggested (safe from their position in the minority) is to cancel the rest of the stimulus bill. The near universal consensus among economists, however, is that stimulus spending in the coming year will be crucial. Moreover, the states, including most red ones, are very much counting on this money. I find it hard to believe that the GOP–even with a larger majority–could garner anywhere near enough votes to cancel the stimulus bill. Moreover, doing so would only improve the deficit numbers for one year (after that, the stimulus spending is done). Even if it didn’t harm the economy, it would do nothing whatsoever to improve the long term deficit numbers.
For Republicans, defense cuts are most likely out of the question, as are tax raises. The anonymous Liberal argues that that leaves only one option for the Republicans, proof that they are the party of one idea (at least in his mind). Tax cuts!
I’ll come to tax cuts shortly, but The Anonymous Liberal has a very short memory if he thinks that Republicans are only focused on tax cuts as a way to fix the deficit. One of the central themes of John McCain’s Presidential campaign was the elimination of pork-barrel spending. It’s true that that is a relatively small figure. If memory serves, an $18 billion saving against a federal deficit of $1.4 trillion, but a saving is a saving.
The problem for anyone wanting to eat into the deficit is that non-defense discretionary spending only accounts for one-sixth of the budget. Interest payments, defense spending and the three behemoths of entitlement programs; social security, medicare and medicaid, all of which are popular, increasing in cost year on year and unable to be changed without an Act of Congress. So for Republicans to attack the big three or target defense spending would require a high degree of political bravery or a very secure electoral majority. And in non-defense discretionary public spending, there is not a lot of room for movement, Reagan successfully cut it by 11%, but Clinton and George W Bush both increased that level of spending.
Which brings us back to tax cuts. And I don’t see the problem here. Firstly, federal tax revenues are down 18% this year as a result of the recession, so there is already room for growth there. But of course, just wishing for it doesn’t recover those lost tax receipts; something more needs to be done. And unfortunately, throwing money at the problem by way of Keynsian stimulus doesn’t work, to date, Obama’s stimulus program has resulted in only 30,000 jobs added to the American economy. But targeted tax cuts, aimed at promoting growth, at keeping money within the American economy and at lessening the costs of employment would help ignite a rejuvenated business sector that would lead to recovery and therefore to rediscovering those lost tax receipts. And targeted correctly, tax cuts can result in increased tax receipts; Bush’s 2003 tax cuts on capital gains and dividend income resulted in a 12% increase in federal tax collections. And there were three other periods in 20th century American economic history where tax cuts were a significant part of an administrations agenda; the 1920’s, JFK’s presidency and Ronald Reagan. All these cuts presaged a period of strong economic growth.
The Anonymous Liberal may be right, the Republicans may be the party of one idea, but when that idea is a good one, I don’t see the problem with it.
Does anyone have any better ideas?
Oct
9
>The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize – an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride – unless of course you are the Republican Party.
Stupid is as stupid says where the Democrats are concerned. I particularly liked:
an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride – unless of course you are the Republican Party.
Because they would have cheered to the rafters if Bush had won the same.
Compare and contrast.
Obama’s contribution to world peace – None
Bush – Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan
Millions in Africa helped or freed from the evils of AIDS & Maleria
An end to the Libyan nuclear program
The first President in American history to recognise a Palestinian state
Oct
4
And hopefully this silly meme about cheering against America to bed.
Nate Silver says:
But the fact is, we probably wouldn’t be hearing conservatives like Mr. McCormack “Rooting for Rio” if John McCain had been elected President, and he were lobbying for Phoenix’s Olympic bid instead. And we certainly wouldn’t be hearing many of them — including McCormack and his colleagues — erupt in cheers after the American bid had lost…..I honestly don’t think you’d have seen the Netroots Nation convention burst into cheers once the Phoenix were rejected*.
Maybe. But the counter-factual is also true. If George W Bush had been campaigning for the Olympics to go to Texas, had made a personal plea and had been rejected by the I.O.C., does anyone seriously believe that the left wouldn’t have been engaged in the same sort of schadenfreude we are witnessing from the right? Of course they would. Because that is the way that politics is in a partisan America. The right are having a little fun at Obama’s embarrasment, but soon they will return to more serious issues like healthcare and Afghanistan.
Oct
1
This Is An Interesting Graph
Filed Under American Politics | 12 Comments
It shows the future American deficit as projected at different times by the Congressional Budget Office:
From it, one can determine who’s responsibility the deficit is. So for example, the purple part of the bars represent Bush’s responsibility for the deficit before TARP and the financial crisis, the black part of the bar represents the extent to which TARP added to future deficits whilst the red is Obama’s contribution.
As can be seen, in this financial year, the massive deficit levels are significantly a result of TARP, hardly Obama’s fault. However, as TARP and Bush’s deficits reduce significantly, from 2014 onwards, Obama’s deficits start to ramp up significantly. Obama’s contribution post 2014 match year on year match Bush’s worst deficit which happened in his final year. And does anyone else find the timing of when Obama’s deficits ramp up interesting, ie when there are no Congressional or Presidential elections to be won? Or is that just me?
It should also be noted that Obama’s portion of the deficit only includes legislation that he has passed to date, so does not include Obamacare, Cap and Trade or any other legislation coming down the road.
Sep
3
Obama’s Appeal To the Voters Of 2020
Filed Under Uncategorized | 99 Comments
Some on the right are getting their knickers in a twist about Obama’s proposed address to all public school children on Sep 8th.
I’m not that concerned. A couple of things do bother me, firstly, if as the timing suggests, the address is all about health care and getting the little Harry’s and Henrietta’s to persuade Mommy and Daddy that supporting reform is a good thing, then I think that is inappropriate. But I have seen no evidence that this is the case. Secondly, amongst the teaching aids related to this address, two related questions teachers are told to ask of their children are:
What do you think the President wants us to do?
Does the speech make you want to do anything?
While in a context free situation, these questions are fairly innocuous, connected to each other, they are somewhat leading. But again, without the context of Obama’s speech, one can’t determine whether these questions are innocent or insidious.
Right wing parents are talking about withholding their pupils from school on that day. That’s madness. The Presidency has always been a position that commands respect, regardless of the office holder. Sure, that respect has been diminished post LBJ/Nixon (and certainly during the Bush Presidency), but the youth should be encouraged, not discouraged, from respecting the Office of President regardless of the office holder.
But there is an even better reason for children going to school that day, and it is the so what factor as this insightful comment tells us:
Besides which, I know from experience that my boy is going to tune out any speech lasting longer than 30 seconds in favor of poking the little kid sitting next to him.
Lest we forget, for those who think this a dastardly evil plot for domination of the young, this event is supposed to take place on Sept 8th. As the planes flew into the World Trade Center on Sept 11th, George W Bush was at a school also.
Aug
25
Another Obama = Bush Story
Filed Under American Politics | 3 Comments
So let’s see. Bush was condemned for the indefinite detention of terrorist prisoners. Obama is continuing that process. Bush was criticised for the killing of innocents in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is killing more of them (24%). Bush was criticised for the secrecy surrounding prisoners at Guantanamo. Well different place, but for Bush’s Guantanamo, just read Obama’s Bagram.
And now another Bush era tactic for fighting terrorism is being continued by Obama. Rendition. From the New York Times:
The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation
In Obama’s own words:
To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.
Don’t get me wrong, I welcome the fact that Obama realises that his first duty is to protect the American people. I also welcome the fact that, although he hasn’t said it yet, the fact that Obama is carrying on these measures proves that the fight against terrorism is not the cut and dried sanitised affair that Bush’s critics seem to think.
If, as these stories reveal, Obama is carrying on Bush’s approach to keeping America safe, the way that either one is viewed needs to be re-appraised. One can not be condemned whilst the other is exalted, that is inconsistent and illogical.
Aug
16
Bush And His Wars
Filed Under American Politics | 16 Comments
During the last five years of Bush’s Presidency, the overwhelming rhetoric from the left was focused on George Bush’s wars. No other Bush policy (aside from possibly Guantanamo and torture) excited the left quite as much as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (particularly Iraq, though even after the surge stabilised the situation there).
But under Barack Obama, not a lot has changed. Whilst American troops have withdrawn from Iraqi cities (a Bush administration agreement) and a timeline has been set for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops (similar to George Bush’s timeline), the war in Afghanistan has been escalated as have drone attacks on the Taliban in Pakistan.
But strangely, these are no longer serious issues for the left. A straw poll was conducted at Netroots Nation, an annual conference for liberal bloggers. The wars have fallen right down the liberal blogging agenda:
Now, with Obama in the White House, all that has changed. Greenberg presented respondents with a list of policy priorities and asked, “Please indicate which two you think progressive activists should be focusing their attention and efforts on the most.” The winner was passing comprehensive health care reform, with 60 percent, and number two was passing “green energy policies that address environmental concerns,” with 22 percent. Tied for eighth place, named by just eight percent of respondents, was “working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Not only are the bloggers no longer concerned about the wars, they are no longer interested in doing anything about them:
Then Greenberg asked which one of those issues “do you, personally, spend the most time advancing currently?” The winner was health care reform, with 23 percent, and second place was “working to elect progressive candidates in the 2010 elections,” with 16 percent. In 11th place — at the very bottom of the list — was “working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Just one percent of Netroots Nations attendees listed that as their most important personal priority.
So in the space of a few months and a new President, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone from the single most important reason for opposing Bush to a relative afterthought. Why is that? It’s because it was never about the wars, it was always about Bush. The left used the wars as a weapon with which to bash Bush, now he’s no longer there to bash, their righteous indignation has become more nuanced.
And now they are criticising Republicans and conservatives for opposing Obama regardless of policy. Interesting how that works.
Jul
27
Upping The Stakes
Filed Under American Politics | 6 Comments
The Bush administration was a disaster! The liberal rhetoric on the Bush administration leaves no room for qualification. He was the worst President ever! Cheney was of “the dark side”. They were corrupt, fascists, incompetent, dishonest, and if the calls for prosecutions are indicative, they were criminals too. For the leftist partisan, there is plenty of perceived ammunition with which to target the Bush administration. Which kind of begs the question, why are the left now attacking the Bush administration for things they didn’t do?
Congressional Democrats are investigating the administration over Cheney’s secret squirrel assassination program.Well I say program, but it never was a program, it was an idea, a thought, a possibility, a weighing up, a testing of potentialities. But despite that, it is deemed a worthy exercise on the left to investigate it.
And now, shock of all horrors, an idea was mooted to use the military to arrest six terrorist suspects in Buffalo in 2002. This was an exploring of possibilities in the worrying aftermath of 9/11, an idea dismissed by both the Department of Justice and , most importantly by the President himself (a rather pertinent fact seemingly missed by the liberal commentary desperate to make this a something out of a very little).
Salon.com go for the dramatic in their reporting of this matter:
it is not hyperbole to observe that this October 23 Memo was one of the most significant events in American politics in the last several decades
I would suggest that it is hyperbole to equate something that didn’t happen to some things that did; Watergate, the impeachment of Bill Clinton etc.
Why do the left feel the need to do this? I take issue with their desire to investigate the past for political reasons, but I can see that where there is substance to their allegations, there is a reasonable argument to be made for investigations. Criminalise acts by all means, just don’t try and criminalise thoughts.
Jul
24
Shockwaver posted this in the comments, but I thought this was too interesting for you to risk missing it:
As far back as 2001, George W Bush and his administration recognised the potential for a recession caused by a dysfunctional housing problem. The man who stood in the way of any reform or regulation? Good old Barney Frank.
Discuss.