Many would say that our sense of “entitlement” began with the social programs of The New Deal in the 30’s. But Social Security is the only “alphabet” program that survived the war. Most were not necessary, or couldn't be sustained during the war. Roosevelt did what appeared to be necessary to move the nation forward after three years of floundering under Hoover.
Propelled by robust industry and the Marshall Plan, America became an industrial and financial giant after the war. America “worked” and prospered during the fifties and even the sixties. In the seventies, cracks appeared in our superstructure with the energy crisis, and were highlighted by President Carter in his call to the nation to move in a new direction.
As for the budget, President Eisenhower was a relatively conscientious steward, and even Richard Nixon produced one balanced budget. The weight of our unfunded war in Vietnam, along with the social programs of the 60’s fell upon President Carter, who faced so-called “stagflation”, a term coined to describe high inflation coupled with increasing unemployment.
The clarion call of "modern" America was sounded in 1981 by Ronald Reagan, with “Morning in America”. Under his vision, prosperity would just happen! We didn’t have to pay for it; in fact, the lower he could drive taxes, the greater would be our prosperity! Reagan ushered in a dramatic increase in government programs and spending, doubling the “defense” budget and cutting back on nothing.
Through our history, multiple world wars, social problems and all, we arrived at the dawn of Reagan with public debt under a trillion dollars (it is now over $12 Trillion!) So who let the cat out of the bag? Common (Republican) wisdom tells us that it’s “tax and spend” Democrats who bust the budget. That makes no more sense than the multitude of other Republican canards, since “tax and spend” would tend to keep the books straight.
Reagan campaigned on fiscal prudence (don’t they all), and backed it up with his record as California Governor, where he raised taxes and balanced the budget. But this was the new Gipper! Now his policy was “borrow and spend”. Even though he raised taxes in his second term to slow the ballooning debt, by then he was the “Teflon president”, and his minions ignored it. Reagan increased government debt by three and a half times to $3.1 Trillion; the residual of his policy added two additional trillion in the four years of George H. W. Bush. Bush raised taxes in mid-term, was called to task for what was ignored from Reagan, and thus lost his bid for re-election.
Meanwhile in the 1984 presidential campaign, Walter Mondale, without “getting it”, spoke fiscal truth. "After four years of Reagan profligacy, the budget required a tax raise!" Mondale told us straight out that he would be a prudent steward of our legacy. He lost 49 states. After that, we all got it!
What had happened between even the 70’s and 1984? Ronald Reagan showed us the path to power. He told us we could have it all: limitless oil, lower taxes, all the government services we wanted. This was not a plan for good government; this was a ruse for getting elected.This is what Republicans venerate him for, and it has worked! Prior to Reagan, presidents (and aspirants) made the assumption that the American public wouldn't tolerate irresponsible government.
Reagan gave us the sense of entitlement. Who cares about the budget? We glorify consumption over responsibility. Would we demand responsibility from our government when we run our own households on credit card debt? Why would we vote for higher taxes when we're offered the alternative of 'all for nothing'?
Now the public simultaneously demands and rejects government commitment to programs that might deal with deficits, healthcare, unemployment…you name it! We want our government services, but we have been taught that we don’t have to pay for them. 67% favor balancing the budget even in recession; yet an even greater margin rejects the kind of spending cuts that would deliver this objective.
The public doesn’t watch CNN, or listen to public radio---or even Glenn Beck! We watch American Idol. We live in Playland. The most successful politicians are those who can offer the impossible with a straight face. Scott Brown, our new darling from Massachusetts, is going to balance our budget and cut taxes even more by "cutting government waste". (Have we heard this before?) Here's what we have not heard: “I’m going to cut military spending by 45%, legalize drugs, eliminate the tax exemption for mortgages over $85,000, eliminate farm subsidies, clean up the prescription drug fiasco, re-regulate and tax the financial services industry, stop water projects…”
Instead, Republicans reiterate their mantra of “tax and spend Democrats”, assuring us that any contrary messages come from “liberal media”. "Liberal media", Hah! There’s a serious disconnect when the “liberal media” is owned by a handful of rich, Republican industrialists. But it's enough to bamboozle voters. (A liberal media would have mobilized enough public skepticism to head off our recent wars by exposing the lies behind that mess.)
If we are going to turn this country around, we must realize that our childish expectations are what drive our politicians to treat us like children. We vote for irresponsible government, and we get what we demand. Some think that Democratic majorities in both houses of congress should be expected to push forward responsible legislation; but we now have 15 “new” (corporate) Democrats in the senate, and about 55 in the house. The far-right is on the march, propelled by middle America, to support policy that’s contrary to their own interests. (See What’s Wrong with Kansas.)
Republicans continue to run on promises of lower taxes, decrying “tax and spend Democrats”. To achieve endorsement, the party has a "No New Tax" pledge that all faithful are expected to take. I hear friends and acquaintances claim: “I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal”. What does that mean? Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending….(straight from Wikipedia). “Tax and spend”, my friends, (long-ago discarded by all parties) may be political liberalism, but it is fiscal conservatism. Borrow and spend, by any definition is fiscal “liberalism”, for lack of a more descriptive term. Those who utter this mantra probably voted for Reagan, if not Bush. Yet both of these men were "fiscal liberals and social conservatives."
Let’s take a look at some figures:
Removing politics from the equation, the entitlement figures for the next 30 years are staggering. Even from President Obama we find a disturbing lack of candor. Assuming full economic recovery, the shortfall of receipts for the next ten years is expected to be $8.5 Trillion! 43% of the budget during this period will be consumed by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (health insurance for the poor). The mass retirement of "baby boomers" propels this sea of red ink and will drive it higher. Essentially the budget will be set up to transfer wealth from young workers to retired boomers. This dilemma cannot be managed without draconian tax increases or large cuts in other government programs.
The irony, as so often is the case, is that reality lies 180 degrees from "common knowledge". "Conservatives" rage over "tax and spend" Democrats. They point their fingers at programs for the poor and indigent, while oblivious to corporate welfare and "welfare for the rich". The primary responsibility goes to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who lied their way to power promising "tax cuts" for the rich and "voodoo economics". But the real onus falls on us, voters from Kansas and 49 other states, who returned these two men to office even after we could see what they were doing. The programs that we all expect and receive threaten to bury us. We tolerate political hacks who pander to greed by telling us they'll cut taxes "by eliminating waste" in government, while we drive our own families to the precipice on credit card debt.
Do-nothing Republicans and scared Democrats are not moving at this time of economic emergency. But the longer we delay real budget reform, the greater will be the stress on our beleaguered currency. At some point we will no longer be able to sell debt on the world market. Then, look out! The ensuing crisis will compel abrupt measures that make today’s choices look like a bunny slope. Good luck.
There were some interesting comments last month about budgets and debt, including: “Mr. Obama quadrupled our debt”, (a line that we had previously heard from a zealous Republican partisan in “rebuttal” to the State of the Union address.) Obviously, Tom took that statement and ran with it Robbinsense sent our staff scurrying to find the source of this dubious statistic.
Pull up this website to follow along. There it is, bigger than life. (First, this graph is not charting debt, it’s charting the government deficit. Avowed "conservatives" are frequently loose with specifics.) Bush deficit in 2008: about $450 Billion; Obama deficit in 2009: a whopping $1.85 Trillion! Case shut!
I have a problem with this, having lived through the period: the statistics don't jive with my memory. Where do these figures come from? Who is “The Foundry”? If we look a little closer and uncover hidden details, it turns out this is The Heritage Foundation, a group that by its own description:
“Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. We believe the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles.”
This looks suspicious. $400 Billion in 2008---that’s odd. Why would the figures projected for 2009 before Mr. Obama took office be three times higher?
·Deficit when Obama took office: By the time Obama took office, the black ink (of the Clinton years) had turned to gushers of red. "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion," CBO said in its "Budget and Economic Outlook." That was released Jan. 8, 2009, only days before Obama’s inauguration. Update Feb 5: The $1.2 trillion projection would have been $966 billion had CBO been accounting for mortgage losses then the way they were eventually treated in the official deficit figures. See clarification below.
In all fairness, Mr. Obama was off also in his State of the Union address. He claimed that Bush left him a $1.3 Trillion deficit. Well, no one’s perfect.
After expanding the "Foundry" chart for clarity, let’s add the figures from the chart:
(2000:($237) Billion SURPLUS---Clinton’s final year in office)
2001: ($120) Billion SURPLUS---left over from Clinton budget
2002: 140Billion deficit
2003380“
2004 410“
2005 310 “
2006 230“
2007 150“
2008 430 “
Tot:1.930 (Trillion)
According to this graph, and The Heritage Foundation, the total debt accrued from the eight years of Bush presidency is $1.93 Trillion! Very interesting, since there’s little dispute that Mr. Bush entered office with $5.6 Trillion in government debt and left with about $10.5 Trillion, an accumulation of roughly $5 Trillion, not $1.93 T. Who are these people? Given that the Bush deficit figures are obviously cooked, we can assume the Obama figures are cooked also to corroborate anything that The Heritage Foundation wants to “prove”. (“Reliable” sources put the 2009 figure at about $1.45 Trillion.)
Cross-check these figures with a chart from Wikipedia. This is usually a pretty reliable source, as it is largely assembled by web-users. When figures or information is unconfirmed or disputed, Wikipedia posts a disclaimer.
Clearly Tom wasn’t talking about growth of government debt. Mr. Obama entered office with total debt of approximately $11 Trillion. It’s now about $12.5 Trillion (not $40 T!)
If one wants to look for real spend-thrifts, we must look to Republicans. Ronald Reagan almost quadrupled government debt, in eight years: $0.9 Trillion in 1981 to $3.1 Trillion in ’88. With inertia from the Reagan budget, George H. W. Bush piled on another $2 Trillion. We see from the figures above that George W. Bush doubled government debt during his tenure. These were both periods of prosperity for this country. Isn’t that when we’re supposed to rein the budget in? But Republicans continue calling Democrats the big spenders. It’s a war of words for the GOP…they make up their own facts.
The internet is an awesome tool. Funny Figures & Mad Money can be traced by anyone with a small dose of skepticism. Check your figures.
Well, we now know we can't even use the Republicans as a source of occasionally-valid Obama criticism. Even I, a certified Republican-hater, was astonished at the depths and extent of brazen, shameless hypocrisy exhibited by Alabama Senator Shelby as he acted like a puppy caught in a bear-trap in lashing out over the administrations announcement to close some 'gubbmint' facilities in his home state of Alabama. Although he's been 'tight-lipped' about it, his office nonetheless proclaimed, in a hissy fit of pique, that he will 'block' ALL of Obama's nominees. Not because they may be unsuitable, but just because they are HIS nominees. This is sure starting to seem like SOP for the GOP. If so, when, if ever, can we tell whether they have a VALID argument when their game-plan is to block, obstruct or defeat ANYTHING that comes from the administration? Any normal, sane human being knows that EVERYTHING Obama says or proposes can't be all bad. Surely there must be at least ONE thing that hasn't come directly from Satan.
Reading of this, yet another lapse of common sense coming from a Republican, I grew even more despondent over the fall from sanity that this party has taken. It's just too easy now to simply ignore them when you realize that ANYTHING that comes from their mouths, whether truthful or not, is too poisonous for normal, uncritical consumption. Forget for the moment Senator Shelby's hypocrisy over objecting to cutting government expense because it happens to come in his own back yard (including one which was one of his own EARMARKS (gasp!)) and his shameless use of calling the cuts tantamount to aiding the terrorists: we have, through his claim to block EVERY appointee, an elected official who has simply abdicated his duties as a US Senator. He might as well have said that he's decided never to speak again, because his words, truthful or not, will be dismissed as not worth the air used to form them. Like a schizophrenic in a mental ward, we'll never know if he speaks from a point of clarity or not. Yes, I'm glad that I no longer have to spend time fact-checking Republican claims, but honestly, I'd much rather do that than admit that they are now certifiably, unequivocally - irrelevant.
As Sarah 'her badself' Palin might have commented, 'Say it ain't so, Joe'!
Bill Jellick is a senior correspondent for Robbinsense
"Going Rogue," the title of Sarah Palin's book, refers to a remark made by an anonymous McCain aide late in last year's presidential campaign. It was used to describe the vice-presidential candidate's efforts to break free of her campaign constraints and go “off-script”. In particular, it referred to her reaction to the decision to pull out of the Michigan race. But the term seemed to catch on with the race in general, and with Palin in particular. She clearly sees herself as a self-propelled agent of her own will.
This book, reasonably well-written we assume by an un-credited ghost writer, is not a political treatise; it’s an autobiography. The first half deals with her life leading up to the 2008 presidential election. Palin’s fans and followers will savor every page of this quick-reading work. Critics will rush straight to the meat---the campaign.
Through it all, Ms. Palin emerges as a new style of feminist: a politician who took on the Ole Boy network and won; a wife with a supportive husband whose career takes second place to hers; and a mother who, unlike working women of an earlier age, isn't shy about showcasing her family responsibilities. She writes with sensitivity and affection about her gay college roommate, and she confesses her anguish when she found out that she was carrying a baby with Down syndrome. That experience, she says, helped her to understand why a woman might be tempted to have an abortion. This is not the prejudiced, dim-witted ideologue of the popular liberal imagination.
This woman, who’s captured our national imagination, is a walking package of “Americana”, by her portrayal a combination of Norman Rockwell, Garrison Keillor, Shirley Temple, Davy Crockett, William Jennings Bryan (sorry but Bryan was a pacifist,) and Annie Oakley on a snowmobile. Palin appears to be a dedicated public servant, eager to improve life for all of her constituants. She is scrupulous in her public dealings, instructing her daughter not to accept even a bottle of Gatorade from a car-pooling mother who happens to be a lobbyist.
It’s clear from day one of the campaign, however, that she’s under wraps. Though extolling praise for McCain, she chafes at her confinement, secluded even from the friendly, Alaskan press. When one of her aides asked McCain headquarters for permission for her to go to the rear of the campaign plane to talk to reporters, the response was swift: "No! Absolutely not—block her if she tries to go back." She rails about being prepped for her debate with “non-answers” to questions: “Why wouldn’t I want to answer the question?”
It’s all here. Every morsel that emerged during the campaign; from the announcement of her daughter’s pregnancy to the phone call from the French President, it’s all here, eagerly explained:
“Wardrobegate” was thrust at her without her endorsement. She was not delighted by her unwed, teenage daughter’s pregnancy, but would make the most of it. “Book-banning” was a misunderstanding, and over-blown by the (liberal) media. “Hunting wolves from choppers was photoshopped.” Troopergate was spawned from a false report made by a local blogger. (Public Safety Commissioner, Walt) Monegan was fired because of insubordination, not because he wouldn’t fire Mike Wooten, Palin’s ex-brother-in-law. Fortunately we learn that in her admittedly weak interview with Katie Couric, she said Russia could be seen from Alaska, not from her front porch. The poor performance resulted from getting a bit flustered and a poor briefing by the campaign staff. “Hi, do you mind if I call you ‘Joe’?” was not a gesture of flippant informality, but from fear that she’d call him “Senator O’Biden”, and she didn’t know the mic was hot.(?) Randy Scheunemann, a well-known Washington lobbyist was assigned to Palin’s staff by the campaign, not Sarah herself. Engagement in a lengthy phone call from a comic in Montreal, claiming to be French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, was the natural result of having received so many previous calls from foreign leaders. Of course. Wardrobegate II, the family returned 30 boxes of clothing. Allegations of corruption in her administration? Well…
And here we get to the beef. A great deal of speculation swirls around the decision to resign the governorship. Going Rogue presents a full capitulation of the circumstances. Returning to “normal” life, leaving the bubble of protection of the campaign, the Palins were pummeled by the full thrust of celebrity: paparazzi, intrusion and wackos galore. It’s easy to see how this could make governing troublesome. Even in back-woods Alaska they were inundated by prying people stalking the family. The prying included “inquiry” into public records, which in Alaska is free. FOI inquiries require attention and resolution from the government, and from Palin’s personal resources.
Yet her airy resignation speech of July 3rd seemed evasive at best…interesting that this issue was skimmed over in a very short paragraph. The usual culprits, of course stand behind all of this: liberals. Paparazzi, liberals? Tabloid readers, liberals? Intrusive wackos, liberals? Sarah is a bonafide celebrity. Our society produces a host of people obsessed by celebrities. Digging into a personal life, scratching for any morsel of life or character to make an impact on their lives is a consuming pursuit for these people. Republican reality, and Palin’s reality, however, is that liberals and Democrats are responsible for all things bad. No “liberal” that I know would have the slightest notion of engaging in this kind of stuff. Watching Fox News, Rush, Beck and the others, however, we see and hear anger-baiting pundits inflame their audience with validation of victimhood. Does anyone suspect that Scott Roeder or Joe Stack were Democrats? (These were good American, right-wing terrorists, now applauded by many right-wingers.) Do we contend that Sarah’s own constituency was responsible for this disruption? Not necessarily. But it seems likely that intrusions into the Palin family came from the spectrum of people obsessed by Sarah, rather than liberals.
Rogue is part travelogue, with many references to the majesty of the Alaskan landscape---“We stopped amidst the fjords of Kodiak where emerald green mountains plunge straight down into brilliant blue waters surrounded by picturesque---” always with a smattering of scorn to all who would suggest that pristine wilderness be preserved. It should be exploited for the benefit of all U. S. citizens, and particularly for Alaskans. BTW, Alaska is not owned by Alaskans, per se, (unless we speak of the Inuits.) Alaska was bought by the government and people of the United States.
Aside from covering all bases, the book is a well-spring of Republican sloganeering. Every trite sop that has been sounded for the last forty years, one would think, came from Sarah. Here we find half a dozen lectures on the propriety of “fiscal responsibility” (from one side of her mouth). From the other side she makes thirty-four references to Ronald Reagan, extolling the benefaction of his great presidency. Does Palin not know that Reagan was the most fiscally irresponsible president we’ve ever had? Doesn’t matter; her legions don’t know or care.
Palin seems to see the world through the prism of politics: “I had more administrative and executive experience than either Obama or Biden.” Fascinating that she did not include McCain on the list.
Indignation over the “book burning” allegation: “Suddenly I was the book-burning evangelical extremist sweeping down from the North on her broomstick. Reporters didn’t bother to find out the facts and print the truth.” What about “Death Panels", Sarah?
“I reminded Americans that it hadn’t been so long ago that the pundits had written John off…..determination, resolve and sheer guts of Senator McCain…” No mention here that his opponents had imploded, leaving him the only man standing; or that he was considered so marginal that no one bothered attacking him.
Rationalization and “spin” flow like a fire hose. We find long-winded descriptions of her voracious reading as a child (in a home with no television)…vindication for silly remarks to Katie Couric? When offered three opportunities to name “one” periodical or news source that she used for information, she couldn’t do it. “Oh, I read them all” is ingenuous beyond the belief of any but the most ardent Palin supporter. Contending that she naively thought that she and Couric were just going for “girl-talk”, even if that’s true, who, engaged in our politics, can’t spontaneously come up with “Time” or “Newsweek?”
(“Death panels” are a far-fetched image based upon proposed insurance coverage for private conferences with personal doctors. This was not 'fashioned' by President Obama. The disgusting reality, ignored by Palin and Republicans, is that “death panels” exist…now. They exist in the executive chambers ofinsurance companies, making the decision to rescind coverage for sick policy-holders.) But politically, this works beautifully. When Andrew Breitbart, the founder of BigGovernment.com, introduced Ms. Palin by describing her as “the first person to tell us about the death panel,” the partisan crowd cheered wildly. Can we believe, then, any of the rationalizations presented here?
Page after page of plaints---liberals!
“In those days, ACLU activists had not yet convinced young people that they were supposed to feel offended by other people’s free exercise of religion.”(?)
“90% of the newspeople covering the debates were liberal.” Really?
“The time has come to acknowledge that it is counterfeit objectivity the liberal media try to sell consumers.” and “…beware the left’s attempts to silence these…('informative' talk-show hosts.)”
We are offered (only) one specific: ….hateful and “distorted images over Trig’s pretty face…" by "...the official Alaskan blogger for the Democratic National Committee…”
Note that there is no reference here. In fact there are no footnotes, not a single reference in the entire book. The reader is to accept all claims as fact. It’s odd that a book covering a political period or life would appear without footnotes. Even Robbinsense provides references for all “facts” and sources regarding material or claims that the publisher thinks readers might find suspect. Palin supporters require no validation of her “facts”---they are not skeptical of anything that supports what they want to believe.
As a political work, at best this book serves as a manifesto of the political “right”. Going Rogue is an entertaining and worthy book, as Sarah Palin is an interesting and entertaining personality. Literature? Well…. But for a committed Republican or the 25 million or so Sarah Palin fans, this is cotton candy.
In The Way Forward, we hope to find clues as to what might be on the horizon. But at a mere 13 pages, The Way is another tour through the GOP slogan book. [“We (America) don’t go looking for fights, but we’re ready to face them if necessary.” Like Iraq?] In a rare moment of candor, Palin admits that we cannot expect to get more than slogans even from Republicans. The reader is left lurching for some leader who can bring this country out of the wilderness…...Sarah?
Welcome, gentle readers, to the twelfth edition of Robbinsense.
In our 100-day assessment of the president’s performance, Robbinsense gave Mr. Obama a C to C-. We had a number of comments from readers that our assessment was harsh and premature. Two weeks ago we passed the next significant milestone, the one-year mark. With approval ratings tumbling toward 50%, the election of a Republican senator in Massachusetts, and a shocking ruling from the Supreme Court, it appears that our assessment may have been on the money.
We have still seen no significant change from the mess that Mr. Obama inherited, nor have we seen as yet any evidence that such change might be forthcoming. Operations in Washington appear to be on track with “business as usual”, instead of “change that you can believe in”.
Considering the impact of recent events and the gravity of the situation, our February issue will focus on this matter. Jackson Dave takes a look at where we are and speculates on where we might go. The issues currently on track are many and deep. I want to apologize up front for the length of Jack's essay. We try, at Robbinsense, to keep our articles under 2000 words, but this was apparently impossible.
Correspondent Bill Jellick, from our Boulder desk presents an additional view. Bill’s an obstreperous sort and usually stirs up the pot.
Additionally, our editorial staff presents an over-view on war in the late 20th Century.
Next month we’ll take a look at facts and figures. Also, we'll try to get to the most protean, if not compelling, enigmatic and controversial political force (or is that farce) of our age: Sarah Barracuda, herself. Where are we going? And why? Does Jackson Davereally sport a Sarah Palin for president bumper sticker?
Robbinsense will endeavor to publish between the first and fifth day of every month. If you wish to be notified of new posts, contact the publisher; otherwise, just stop in for a pique. If you enjoy an article, please pass our site on to your friends; and don’t hesitate to insert comments---this is a "public forum". (Under “Select Profile” you may select “anonymous” or input your name under “Name/URL”. Leave “URL” blank---unless you have one. If all else fails, send an email to the publisher. Posted comments cannot be altered; they can only be deleted. If you wish to edit a comment, post your corrected comment and notify the publisher by email.)
In 1989 the Berlin Wall was dismantled by joyful East Berliners. Soon the Soviet Union collapsed. To a naïve world, it appeared that a new era of peace was at hand; the Pax Americana would descend and the world would become a better place for all….sure!
Disruption of the world order, held in place by the cold war, blew the lid off hostilities and hatred that have festered for generations. Poverty and injustice persist worldwide. In short order, genocide in East Timor expanded; Somalia erupted in warfare, dragging a reluctant U. S. response…then Bosnia, Montenegro, genocide, mass-mutilation in Sierra Leone…on and on.In only 15 to 20 years we find a world more dangerous than the one featuring our controlled proxy wars against our “evil”, imaginary rival.
Move forward 20 years and re-visit the euphoria felt by many over the election of a black man to our presidency. Not only did we eclipse our legacy of slavery and racism, but the political order of the “neocon” was swept away with the disgraced Bush administration. Now embarrassed Republicans would recognize the sour fruit of their political extremism and begin to co-operate in national revitalization…sure!
Three weeks ago, again the lid was blown off. Consensus is exposed as a house of cards, and the Supreme Court of our land---the third pillar of our precious government---is exposed as a bunch of political hacks. What’s going on?
To this point, your editorial staff at Robbinsense has engaged in a tacit policy of “political” avoidance. But what we see emerging in recent weeks is so steeped in political swamp-dredgery that we are compelled to speak to it.
Mr. Obama has been exposed as a cerebral, somewhat bland technocrat who can command a dais and inspire with rhetoric, but has no apparent gift for leadership. Of the many promises made during the campaign few have been fulfilled, and many have been sidetracked by his own dithering. (Approximately 125 of 500 promises have been kept.) One promise, however, that has been kept was his striving for bipartisanship. This has been naively pursued even in the face of obstinate obstructionism by Republicans.
At the one-year mark, we should have seen one, maybe both wars brought to an end; we should have seen healthcare reform; Gitmo should have been closed; torture as well as torture-by-proxy (extraordinary rendition) should have been categorically renounced (instead of just stopped, sort of); financial institutions should have been brought to heel with solid regulation ending the practices that brought us to the brink of ruin; we should bear a new face of international cooperation, putting an end to our “war on terror”.
Instead, the wars go on, with expanded troop levels in Afghanistan, now wide-spread bombing in Pakistan, lingering military presence and killing in Iraq. We are still widely regarded as world policeman and bully. Terrorism, on the heels of international outrage stalks us on our streets and in our skies. Our financial structure with massive infusions of cash from the government has rebounded, bringing health to Wall Street while Main Street remains on life support with 11% unemployment and manufacturing stagnation. Interest rates are bottoming out, retarding investment, while banks have a choke-hold on personal credit, thumbing their noses at the tax payers who bailed them out. Collateral debt obligations, as well as credit default swaps and mind boggling hedge-funding go on their merry way with bankers pulling huge salary bonuses right under our noses.
Republicans succeeded in delaying healthcare reform “until somebody died”, as Tom Coburn prayed on the Senate floor. (In this case it was the Kennedy Democratic Senate seat.) After advocating a (wildly sensible) tax on soda pop, and with moderate support from congress, the president allowed the effort to die before resistance from the food industry. In the face of bi-partisan support, he opposed the "family care-givers stipend", which would compensate family members for tending to vets with traumatic brain injury, affecting 22% of those injured in our current wars. Even on the environmental front, Mr. Obama recently put on hold impending regulation to reclaim salmon habitat, leaving the Pacific Coho on life support. The Obama plan adopts the Bush plan’s legal and scientific clap-trap in its entirety! “Bush Lite!” On and on it goes…
The Massachusetts Senatorial election was not a repudiation of Mr. Obama, so much as it was a shot across the bow letting this government know that “change we can believe in” has been a farce, and this government has but another six to eight months to engage.
Beyond Mr. Obama, congress is a disgrace, absorbed by fund raising to stoke political and personal greed. As healthcare reform sunk into oblivion, Max Baucus (D-Mont), heading the Democratic effort opened up his campaign to a $4 million contribution from the industry he was supposed to be reforming. Senators Lieberman (I-Conn.), Bayh (D-Ind.), Nelson (D-Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) accepted millions from the insurance industry then promptly opposed the “public option”.
This putrid Congress lies at the very heart of our government. And if that’s not bad enough, the third leg of our government, the Supreme Court, is equally determined to continue “politics” as usual, opening floodgates for the river of money that’s destroying us. How is our technocrat president going to make a dent in this political deluge while continuing the political game that brought us to this point? Our only hope is for citizens to stand up and DEMAND that the president perform and reform. We hope this Massachusetts shocker is precisely that.
As for the Republicans, where do we begin?
We assume that the first order of government is on behalf of the public good. Yet one need only look at our election process to realize that the majority of the people in government must have a personal agenda and ambition to wade into this swamp. Can one of our two major parties blatantly appear to have no concern for the welfare of this nation whatsoever? Would that be the party that runs Patriotism up its flagpole as a pillar of its public stance?
Republicans, for the last year, have engaged in a campaign of “NO”. Their policy of blocking all significant legislation is a policy of political “scorched earth.” Even in good times this might be seen as naked obstructionism, but coming now when we’re confronting economic and financial melt-down, budgetary crisis at all levels of government, failing infrastructure, multiple wars on behalf of Republican doctrine, one might think that the public wouldn’t tolerate it.
Republicans, in a frantic chase to posture themselves for the next election cycle, demonize the president, calling him Hitler, his programs “communistic”. Having demonized the president or his programs with hyperbolic calumny, they place themselves in a position from which it is political suicide to compromise. In the meantime, as long as they can block any real change, Republicans can prevent a turn-around in our country’s fortunes that might be credited to Democrats.
While we acknowledge that both parties tend to operate the same way, recall that George W. Bush received cooperation from Democratic legislators, not only in his economic agenda, but also his war plans. Likewise, in 1981, with Ronald Reagan’s solid mandate, Democrats made no concerted effort to block his agenda. Fully 1/3 of House Democrats voted for the ill-fated Reagan economic agenda, billed as “voodoo economics” by his own VP and panned by his budget director, David Stockman, who in an article in the Atlantic Monthly, called it a “Trojan Horse”. (To save face, Reagan kept Stockman on, but he was effectively muzzled.)
So can Republicans be appeased by any policy? In the mid nineties America experienced unparalleled prosperity. Bill Clinton, a solid centrist, dropped Republican-opposed healthcare reform. He abandoned gays in the military, giving us “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”; he balanced the budget, pushed and passed NAFTA, and enacted welfare reform that significantly reduced welfare rolls. He also pushed an anti-crime agenda, expanding the scope of the war on drugs and imposing mandatory sentencing guidelines. This is a record that would make any Republican wildly proud. A logical person would presume that they would love him. But no, the Republicans loathed Bill Clinton and derailed his second term with investigations and eventual impeachment. Republicans are not motivated by issues---even their own issues! Republicans are motivated by power. They use issues to manipulate ignorant people.
In the struggle to enact healthcare reform, Democrats invested valuable months in trying to gain bipartisan support. Over and over, Republican demands for revisions and amendments were fielded, with hundreds of amendments approved. So many amendments were enacted that the AMA and insurance companies endorsed the bill! It broadly tracked the Republican alternative to the 1993 Clinton healthcare bill, with new cost-controlling devises favored by both parties! And how many Republicans voted for this package? None! The entire process was a charade, a delay tactic. Republicans are only interested in discrediting the Democratic president.
Their “policy” plan is simple and harkens back generations. Until the 1930s, our government, patterned after British tradition, had no provision for helping citizens during hard times. When the economy spiraled in after October, 1929, millions were thrown out of work and into extreme poverty. Co-incidentally, abnormal weather patterns and disastrous farming techniques left soils vulnerable to depletion and erosion in the Midwest. This brought about “The Dust Bowl," which drove additional millions from their destroyed homes and farms. Republicans blocked any efforts for congress to intervene, and under (Republican) Herbert Hoover, the government did nothing to help these people.
When FDR came to power in 1933, Republicans opposed programs that might help the needy. Roosevelt was demonized for driving up the national debt, labeled “Communist” and Fascist , another Hitler, (in power at the time in Germany). Does that sound familiar?
Calling FDR or President Obama “Hitler” or “Communist” is preposterous beyond consideration. But this is still the Republican plan: Just throw out accusations, names, calumny---however outrageous---(“death panels”)---and keep hammering it to see what eventually sticks. We are so dumb that eventually after hearing it, enough people start to make the desired association. Again, the strategy is not to achieve any kind of meaningful legislation---it’s only to derail the Democrats and get Republicans back in power.
This pathetic spectacle of Congress is like a small-town football team trying to organize. The community is wildly enthusiastic because Billy Farrell has a Favre-like, rapier arm. But Johnny Martin, with no arm, has the only football in town. He refuses to let the team use his ball unless he gets to play quarterback. Rather than field a team with no passing game, they just squabble, leaving the town frustrated and confused. The Democratic majority could have pressed a decent bill to the floor for debate and allowed the public to watch in disgust as Republicans filibuster. But no, the Dems are in collusion and wrangle for the 60-vote super-majority, which forced enough concessions from recalcitrant blue-dogs that the Republicans could achieve, and the country could see a bill that was by then pork-laden, unwieldy and unpopular.
As this essay goes to press, a backlog of 70 executive administration appointments is being held up by Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala) on behalf of two minor pork-barrel projects for his state. In the face of wide-spread distrust of their own congressional delegation by the public (45%), Republicans (who supposedly oppose earmarks) stand lock-step behind Shelby in blocking any and all public business of the Obama Administration.
Beyond this mess, the sad truth appears to be that the common American has been dumbed down to the point that no expression of evidence or logic can sway him from what he wants to believe. When our stupidity is validated by smarmy politicians, we like them! It’s easier to accept ourselves as we are than to think and change! Middle-class Americans believe Republican lies because they're being told they are victims. This is a disgusting, yet wildly effective technique for manipulating gullible or ignorant people. It also undermines any sincere efforts that Mr. Obama or the Democrats may put forward.
As for the Supreme Court:
Since Richard Nixon’s presidency, a central feature of Republican and conservative rhetoric has been to attack “judicial activism”, a vague term used to describe the (Republican, Earl) Warren court and anything with a liberal outcome. Turns out this only applies when it serves ideological convenience.
Brown vs. Board of Education, widely regarded as the greatest moment in Supreme Court history, was opposed by Republicans because it up-ended an 89-year precedent of Jim Crow. “Brown” overturned Plessey vs. Ferguson, and was handed down by unanimous vote. There was no partisanship on the panel. But the Roberts court’s campaign finance decision makes “conservative” rhetoric laughable. It eliminates a key component of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. “McCain” was a continuation of statutes piling up since the (Theodore) Roosevelt administration. There is not a shred of evidence that the framers of the 1st Amendment wished to protect the prerogatives of corporations to sway elections. For years, conservatives have argued that judicial restraint requires deferring to the choices of the elected branches of government. Where, oh where is the conservative outcry over this monstrosity? Yet the court has dramatically restricted free speech in other areas, such as government employees and students. These people are colossal hypocrites!
Misconduct on the court is obvious.
Any freshman law student knows “jurisprudence” demands that a judge excuse himself from a case where personal conflict exists. Federal law says "any justice or judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be questioned..."
For nearly three years, former Vice President Dick Cheney had been fighting demands that he reveal whether he met with energy industry officials, including Kenneth Lay when Lay was chairman of Enron, while Cheney was formulating the president's energy policy. A lower court ruled that Cheney must turn over documents detailing who met with his task force; but on Dec. 15, 2002 the high court announced it would hear his appeal. In a flagrant, public misstep, Judge Antonin Scalia, a personal friend of Cheney, went duck-hunting with his friend while Cheney was under indictment before his own court! Did Judge Scalia recuse himself from the panel? No, he voted on behalf of his friend!
This same stinking cabal put George W. Bush in the Whitehouse after losing the election of 2000, and has now assured that Republicans will dominate this government indefinitely, or until the people of this country stop it. (Recall that with countless irregularities, the Florida Supreme court had mandated a recount of the Florida vote. Our framers mandated that the STATES would control election of the president.)
Still, in the interim period during confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor, we heard conservatives wailing over possible “activist” tendencies of a Latina judge.
Supreme Court judges are “supposed to be” politically impartial, but if they’re not, too bad. There is no recourse within the constitution to deal with improper behavior. The president can refuse to enforce their rulings, risking impeachment himself; but the judges cannot be impeached. Congress may pass legislation to circumvent bad policy, but that again may be over-ruled. In any case, our current ability to predict Supreme Court decisions by weighing in the two parties’ political preferences is a case study in the character of the nominees placed before the Senate. It also marks a low in our nation’s descent into corrosive partisanship.
There is recourse for this decision. Congress could mandate that actual funding sources for ALL campaign-related material must be prominently displayed. If the court can enforce “freedom of speech” for corporations, Congress can mandate that the public be informed of who’s speaking! For films or advertising, large, prominent indication of the sponsors should be indicated both at the beginning and end of the material. This must preclude “straw man” references to bogus, front groups (“Citizens for Better Government”, or such dribble) that hide the real sponsors. When intelligent people see that Exxon/Mobile or Bear Stearns funded an attack ad, it could easily back-fire. We can be certain, however, that Republicans will oppose such a measure.
Progress over the last year? Obviously we're on a better track than under President Bush. We feel confident that we're in vastly better shape than we would have been under would-be President McCain, even if he had followed through on all of his promises!
But the struggle for healthcare reform casts too much light on Mr. Obama's performance to ignore. In a politically motivated drive to pass (any) healthcare reform, the president sold out to the political interests that would inevitably oppose the bill. By taking the "public option" off the table and requiring people to buy over-priced policies (whether government sponsored or not), he was throwing meat to the industry. A bill that would drive insurance stocks up cannot be a good bill, and ultimately would solve nothing! The hope and promise that propelled Mr. Obama to office---the expectation that this man would reform "politics as usual"---has been betrayed. Needing a microscope to find change, we grade the president: D, not passing. Congress gets an F; the Supreme Court F-; The Republican leadership in congress: F---.
The only practical solution to this and many of our political problems is campaign reform. Real reform is impossible unless we DEMAND it by promising to remove every recalcitrant bum from office who stands in its path. Asking voters to actually do this, however, is spitting into the wind. But with strong leadership, this is something that the president may be able to accomplish. If Mr. Obama is to regain momentum and the public esteem that he brought to office, he must begin by attacking the government itself, and delivering the kind of reform that he promised. The Massachusetts election is an opening salvo from the public, though it appears after his swearing in that Scott Brown is a dubious choice to begin the campaign. Stay tuned.
Boulder, Colorado. So how did we get to this point? Are we now, like California, so deeply divided that as a nation we're becoming ungovernable? I have a feeling it has something more to do with the Republican Party than anything else. Employing strategies and tactics characterized by a scorched-earth, win-at-all-costs ethic requires them to fight against everything proposed by the Democratic administration (even supporting the troops (gasp)) lest their opponents bask in the glow of some success.
Analyzing their behavior, Republicans appear to have 3 goals, in this order: 1) gain power and dominance, 2) prevent those who have the power they crave from using it and 3) destroy whatever government they happen to belong to regardless of whether or not they happen to be the governing party.
When out of power they throw all their energy into destroying those who are in power. Their tenacity and focus is remarkable. In fact, if it wasn't so deadly it would be admirable. They have no pretense of trying to work with their opponents - they simply denounce all opposition with a zealousness of conviction that echoes a religious cult. Any action that they did not initiate, and some that they did initiate that might now have the potential to help an opponent, is tagged as ruinous to life as we know it. If this reckless policy is not imminently dangerous, it’s likely to be "the first step down a slippery slope to certain oblivion."
Democrats are deemed “evil” and unpatriotic if they don't work (agree) with Republicans in power. And because of goal #2 above, Republican rules prohibit supporting any Democratic initiative, even if it is one that they would typically champion. They make their position brazenly obvious: a Democrat can never be right on an issue, even if it's a position that is usually considered to be a “Republican” issue. An opponent can never be strong enough on (pick one) a) National Security, b) supporting business, c) patriotism. “A Democrat can never be right”, to paraphrase Mary Matalin.
Their rhetoric, always designed to mislead, is riddled with exaggerations, innuendos and outright lies, and is delivered with a righteousness that Moses himself would envy. They expect bi-partisan cooperation from their opponents but do not reciprocate. Everything they believe (and those “beliefs” are frequently as changeable as the weather) is unquestionably right when they alone express them. Everybody else is wrong.
We cannot function as a democracy with our 2nd largest political party in the grip of such insanity. Why must Senate Democrats have a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority to get ANY legislation passed, but turn into “patriotic” rubber stamps for Republican policies when the Reps. have less than a 60-vote majority? It’s like dealing with a hysterical person - or a child. Reason is futile.
So what to do? Since think-tank programmed propaganda will fall like atomic rain no matter what, should the Democrats just push through their agenda and brace for the fallout? What Democratic political capital would be jeopardized that isn't already eroding because of hesitation brought on by---fear of Republican hysteria influencing the next election? It will happen anyway, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. So is it best to just leave the Republicans to their hyper-politicizations and get on with the business of governing without them? Absolutely.
A thread of the Republican narrative myth says that the “left” has been using these same tactics for years and therefore it's only fitting that Republicans should follow same. But when you read everyday Americans’ opinions you often hear that they are fed up with Washington or that they want the parties to stop bickering. They don't pick sides, although they really should because knowing who is instigating the bickering would help them understand what is happening to our government and inform their vote.
Now it may be that the Democrats actually did provide the inspiration for the Atwater/Ailes/Rove Willy Horton-style of dirty, misleading, divisive and incendiary politics that have come to be synonymous with the Republican Party. However, that (if ever true) is ancient history and gone from most peoples' memory. The Republicans, with their “only we can be right” posture stand naked and alone - exposed as practitioners of a political style that thwarts democracy and creates divisions deep in our body politic that promotes extremism and radical actions.
It is time for President Obama to recognize this. His opponents aren't tough negotiators - they don't negotiate at all. Their “our way or the highway” approach is their only position. He has precious little time left to take action before our fickle, uninformed, low-information electorate “throws the bums out” and returns the carpetbaggers to power. And one thing they do have down is what to do with power when they get it.
William Jellick is an Information Technology consultant.
The most salient issue in “politics as usual” is inertia around the war machine. We cannot know what resides in Mr. Obama’s heart in regard to continuing our fighting, bombing, killing…in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan… But there’s no easy answer here. The American public was coerced into supporting this misbegotten conflict, and while most see that we were duped, we are still ambivalent.
Mr. Obama is a cautious and cerebral man, trying to do what’s politically expedient. He’s trying to avoid mistakes that may compromise his presidency. He’s being influenced by the noisy rabble on the right and its ability to sway public opinion.
Republicans have a large stake in these wars. Aside from starting them, they have wholeheartedly supported their continuation, and will continue to so---by anyDemocratic president. The cynicism of the Republican’s position is that by wishing the worst for Mr. Obama, they also wish the worst for our country. The dilemma for Mr. Obama is that while continuing the wars will keep the right at bay, it assures that violence will continue and almost surely return to us. Continuation of war is politically safe for Mr. Obama; his opposition from the left is soft. Outrage from the right would be deafening if he pulled out, because staying the course validates the right! If Mr. Obama ended the wars and brought peace, Republican war policy would be exposed for the disaster that it’s been. The Republicans’ only hope for absolution would be terrorist attacks. Anyone who doesn’t believe that the Republican establishment will be overjoyed by terrorist attacks on this country while Mr. Obama is president is wildly naïve.
The irony here is that any Republican president could safely end these wars. The Republican establishment and noise machine will spin it as a triumph, and Democrats will be delighted with the only ultimate resolution. (Mr. Bush couldn’t stop them because that would have been an admission of mistakes.)
Half a century ago and half a world away, we find a Democratic president on the horns of a similar dilemma. At the close of WW II, Ho Chi Minh (our ally during the war) asked President Truman to help him keep the French out of Vietnam. Under advice from the State Department, Truman foolishly refused. (Roosevelt hated the French and had no intention of allowing them to re-claim their Southeast Asia colonies.) So Ho looked to the Soviet Union for assistance, setting the stage for the hottest of our many “proxy” wars with Russia. When the French left Vietnam in 1954, Eisenhower, proposing his "Domino Theory", took up the cause, delivering arms, "aid" and advisors to support Ngo Dinh Diem, a cruel and corrupt dictator. Fed by hatred of Diem, civil war intensified. Kennedy, hemmed in by his own campaign strategy of “out-Nixoning Nixon”, continued this woeful policy, but with great ambivalence.
Mr. Johnson assumed the presidency knowing that he was unpopular and considering himself an “interloper”. As such he was reluctant to reverse Kennedy’s position without himself being elected to office. Johnson agonized for sleepless months over his options, not wanting to commit to war, but still captive of the inertia of the cold war and “common knowledge” of Eisenhower's domino theory.
During the 1964 presidential campaign, Nixon and Goldwater were evoking wild enthusiasm from Republicans by pushing American commitment to expand the war. When Goldwater won the nomination and amped up his campaign, Johnson, pummeled by America's military naivete and captive of his patron's "bear any burden, pay any price", looked for some way to defuse his rival’s jingoistic support. In August, at the height of the campaign, a small incident occurred in the Gulf of Tonkin that gave Johnson the pretense to expand the war and show his mettle. Congress passed the resolution, and Johnson began bombing North Vietnam. Turns out, Democratic support for the war was tepid at best. Johnson won the election in a landslide because of broad apprehension over Goldwater; but having made his bargain with the devil, he couldn’t find his way out. Politically, it came to a Republican to extract us from that war.
There are striking similarities between the Vietnam debacle and our current dilemma in the Mid East. Perhaps the most striking difference is the contrasting character of the two “enemies”. Vietnam was a safe harbor for our military adventures because the Vietnamese were a gentle, agrarian society. We could safely dance there without bringing it back home. Our adversaries in the Middle East are not gentle, loving and docile people. This tar-baby has thorns; and it’s coming back after us. Killing these people does not slake their blood lust. Someone must extract us from this mess without using guns, bombs and missiles. Someone must use intelligence, diplomacy and a totally new approach to the problem. This is CHANGE, and it’s the essence of what our president “offered” us in words during his campaign. And it’s what we desperately need now.
In a 1936 speech, Ret. General Smedley Butler, twice decorated with the Medal of Honor, stated, “War is a racket….. I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." Nothing has changed.
For the past hundred years, time and again we (should) have learned that wars can only be won politically. Much as guns and bombs couldn’t defeat the Vietnamese without bringing on global war, military means won’t accomplish our goals in the Middle East. Our war machine is an enormous hazardous to us, as it will fall into the hands of reckless and naïve leaders whom we will be reckless and naïve enough to put into office. We’ll never know what would have happened if in 1964 President Johnson had said, “No” to war. But we know all too well what happened when he said, “Yes.”
Hi, I'm Mark Robbins and this is my blog. I enjoy writing and sharing my thoughts with others, regarding politics, music, wine, golf and news of the day. Enjoy---and hey, I hope you'll join the discussion with comments.
This is my alter-ego, Jackson Dave. He's a Robbinsense staff writer and as a young man, he sees through a broader lens. I hope you'll enjoy his columns.
Poor Mexico, The violence will never end 'til they stop the flow of drugs!
`
Newt Gingrich
"I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around a campfire but are lousy in politics."
