For years, I've witnessed the powerful messaging machine of the right wing in our country. Their exaggerations, threats, and misinformation have long dominated the political debate in America, and while I disagree with their viewpoint I do have to admit that their methods are incredibly effective. Many times when I've seen some crazy tax cut pushed through, or ridiculous cut in social services, I've said to myself, "If only the Democrats would fight in the same way as these Republicans."
I guess I should have been more specific, as it seems that President Obama has made my wish come all-too true. Not only is he fighting for an old Republican tax cut, larded with additional new Republican tax cuts, but he's also employing a Bush-like fear approach to his latest plan: Pass my bill or we'll see a recession!
Personally, I'm not sure we've ever exited the current recession. Unemployment has been at 9% for almost two years. Here in Oregon it's been in double digits for the same amount of time.* The housing market has been in the toilet for a couple of years. Sure, the stock market is up and there are record profits on wall street, but that doesn't mean the recession has ever really ended.
Even if an argument can be made that the recession has ended, what possibly makes you think that these tax cuts will prevent another one?** The evidence that they will do anything to help the economy is questionable at best. Does the President even recall his own arguments on the ineffectiveness of tax cuts? An equally (if not more) valid argument could be made that passing this bill instead of one more robust will lead to a double dip recession.
Every time I think we're as far as we can get into Bizarro World, we take a step further.
___
* Ignoring the fact, of course, that our method of counting unemployment is far from accurate as it fails to consider those underemployed or unemployed no longer receiving benefits.
** Not to mention the modest tax INCREASE that the very lowest paid Americans will see. Increase taxes on the poor, decrease taxes on the super rich. How is this the policy of a Democrat?
Showing posts with label national. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Obama's Compromise Victories? Tax Cuts.
I'll start out by saying that I am disgusted with the "compromise" plan put forth by the President yesterday. I haven't really wanted to post in the last few days, because I am tired of coming on here and just expressing how upset I am with the lack of leadership. As I've made clear, I think tax cuts are absolutely the wrong thing for our country and our economy... they're a lot of the reason we have the deficit we have now* and economists are almost universal in decrying their "stimulative" power.
So you can imagine my disappointment as I looked into the compromise that the President made, and discovered that in order to "temporarily" extend the Bush-Era tax cuts ($380B/year in the deficit) the President has received the following "concessions" from the Republicans.
1. Extension of the Federal unemployment benefits. This is the only real "concession" that I can see, in that this is something that needed to be done for the country. However, there's NO WAY that the Republicans wouldn't have ended up voting for an extension of these benefits by the end of the year. If the Democrats had been able to hold their ground in congress, the Republicans would have given in on the extension, just as they have done time and time again over the last few years.
2. A freeze for the alternative minimum tax. Yes, a tax cut that will affect some middle-class taxpayers, as well as wealthier taxpayers. This is something that needs to be reformed, for sure, but it's not a pressing issue. It's just another tax cut... and considering a tax cut to be a concession from the Republicans is ridiculous.
3. A huge reduction of the Estate Tax. In 2011, the Estate Tax was slated to affect estates of over $1,000,000 in value. Yes, if you left over a million dollars to your heirs, they would have to pay 35% in taxes to the government. The Repulicans were generous enough, however, to allow the President a tax cut for the wealthy on this as well, with the new Estate Tax affecting only estates of $5M or more. WOW! How crafty of President Obama to work another tax cut out of those Republicans.**
4. Additional tax cuts, from college tuition credits to child care credits. Even better, these "tax cuts" were the same tax cuts put into the weakened stimulus package to entice Republican support. That's right, the Republicans conceded and allowed Obama to continue giving them the tax cuts he gave them back in 2008. How very generous of them!
I've read a number of "democrats" defending the President's position on this compromise, some even calling the $300 billion in additional tax cuts "stimulus." As I've said, they are the same relatively worthless tax cuts from the stimulus package of 2008, but I tend to trust economists when it comes to economic stimulation more than I do the name attached to some paperwork.
Today the President said he's "ready to fight" and that the Republicans can expect him to fight in the future. I'm pretty sure he's said that before. Like, several times. I seem to remember he promised to fight for the Public Option. That never materialized, of course, as he made a deal with the insurance industry and gave us a wishy-washy industry-friendly bill. Hilariously enough, today he compared this compromise to the health care compromise as he was chastising liberals.
I guess he does get it. I guess we liberals are the fools hoping for someone who isn't a corporatist capitulator... apparently the President feels that is what the country needs. Well, that and more tax cuts.***
I had some hopes that we'd eke out a few minor victories in the lame duck congress. I suppose that is still possible, but unfortunately the President will continue fighting against real change and economic improvement.
___
* In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the housing bubble... but they're still a large portion of our deficit.
** This $5M cap isn't enough for some Republicans who are still complaining about the existence of any estate tax at all. These complaints are somehow supposed to justify the "compromise" as they're the example of the right being upset about the tax bill.
*** Is it just me, or does all this tax cutting sound like a tea party agenda? It's like the President has adopted their point of view, but left all the personal anti-Obama rhetoric aside.
So you can imagine my disappointment as I looked into the compromise that the President made, and discovered that in order to "temporarily" extend the Bush-Era tax cuts ($380B/year in the deficit) the President has received the following "concessions" from the Republicans.
1. Extension of the Federal unemployment benefits. This is the only real "concession" that I can see, in that this is something that needed to be done for the country. However, there's NO WAY that the Republicans wouldn't have ended up voting for an extension of these benefits by the end of the year. If the Democrats had been able to hold their ground in congress, the Republicans would have given in on the extension, just as they have done time and time again over the last few years.
2. A freeze for the alternative minimum tax. Yes, a tax cut that will affect some middle-class taxpayers, as well as wealthier taxpayers. This is something that needs to be reformed, for sure, but it's not a pressing issue. It's just another tax cut... and considering a tax cut to be a concession from the Republicans is ridiculous.
3. A huge reduction of the Estate Tax. In 2011, the Estate Tax was slated to affect estates of over $1,000,000 in value. Yes, if you left over a million dollars to your heirs, they would have to pay 35% in taxes to the government. The Repulicans were generous enough, however, to allow the President a tax cut for the wealthy on this as well, with the new Estate Tax affecting only estates of $5M or more. WOW! How crafty of President Obama to work another tax cut out of those Republicans.**
4. Additional tax cuts, from college tuition credits to child care credits. Even better, these "tax cuts" were the same tax cuts put into the weakened stimulus package to entice Republican support. That's right, the Republicans conceded and allowed Obama to continue giving them the tax cuts he gave them back in 2008. How very generous of them!
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I've read a number of "democrats" defending the President's position on this compromise, some even calling the $300 billion in additional tax cuts "stimulus." As I've said, they are the same relatively worthless tax cuts from the stimulus package of 2008, but I tend to trust economists when it comes to economic stimulation more than I do the name attached to some paperwork.
Today the President said he's "ready to fight" and that the Republicans can expect him to fight in the future. I'm pretty sure he's said that before. Like, several times. I seem to remember he promised to fight for the Public Option. That never materialized, of course, as he made a deal with the insurance industry and gave us a wishy-washy industry-friendly bill. Hilariously enough, today he compared this compromise to the health care compromise as he was chastising liberals.
I guess he does get it. I guess we liberals are the fools hoping for someone who isn't a corporatist capitulator... apparently the President feels that is what the country needs. Well, that and more tax cuts.***
I had some hopes that we'd eke out a few minor victories in the lame duck congress. I suppose that is still possible, but unfortunately the President will continue fighting against real change and economic improvement.
___
* In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the housing bubble... but they're still a large portion of our deficit.
** This $5M cap isn't enough for some Republicans who are still complaining about the existence of any estate tax at all. These complaints are somehow supposed to justify the "compromise" as they're the example of the right being upset about the tax bill.
*** Is it just me, or does all this tax cutting sound like a tea party agenda? It's like the President has adopted their point of view, but left all the personal anti-Obama rhetoric aside.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Obama's Pay Freeze Helps Keep Frivolous Tax Cuts
Yesterday President Obama called for a two year pay freeze for federal workers, estimated to save the government up to $6 billion a year for the next ten years.* This bit of preemptive capitulation hasn't pleased anyone, angering the President's supporters while emboldening his detractors who believe that the pay freeze is merely a first step. President Obama gave up this negotiating chit the day before meeting with Repulican leaders in their "Slurpee Summit."
I think this pay freeze is terrible policy for several reasons, especially with the dire state of our economy. Using the projections of the President's economic team, this pay cut will cost the country 25,000 private sector jobs over the next two years. Despite what Eric Cantor and the Republicans may say, federal employees currently earn 22% less than their private sector counterparts according to the 2009 Office of Personnel Management report.
How can we expect the government to do a better job than it is currently doing when we don't even want to pay the employees a fair wage? How can we expect to retain the best people we currently have when they are now more open to recruitment to fill jobs in the private sector?**
Meanwhile, the President still seems determined to allow the tax cuts to be extended permanently*** costing the country $370 billion per year. He's covered the 2% the cost of these tax cuts with this middle class pay freeze... how will he cover the other 98%?
In 2012, President Obama will be running for his reelection, and the right will have two new memes to press in their campaign. "President Obama wants to increase the pay of federal workers and raise your taxes." Follow this up with equally untrue stories about his $2B trip to India, lack of birth certificate, and Muslim faith, and we'll be looking at a serious GOP tea party in November.
____
* I have seen some conservative commentators wondering how a 2-year freeze can equal ten years worth of savings, I can see how it'd be difficult to accept that not getting a raise this year will make the raises in the future relatively smaller.
** This fits into the long-term plan of the Republicans to shrink the federal government and hand it over to the private sector; as the best employees leave, the quality of work will drop, which tends to feed into more cuts/firings, which tends to lead to private contractors filling in at a much higher cost.
*** There's no doubt in my mind that if they are extended for even a year that they will be extended permanently when they come up to expire next. If we can't allow them to expire with our large current majorities, what possibility will we have in 2011 or 2012?
I think this pay freeze is terrible policy for several reasons, especially with the dire state of our economy. Using the projections of the President's economic team, this pay cut will cost the country 25,000 private sector jobs over the next two years. Despite what Eric Cantor and the Republicans may say, federal employees currently earn 22% less than their private sector counterparts according to the 2009 Office of Personnel Management report.
How can we expect the government to do a better job than it is currently doing when we don't even want to pay the employees a fair wage? How can we expect to retain the best people we currently have when they are now more open to recruitment to fill jobs in the private sector?**
Meanwhile, the President still seems determined to allow the tax cuts to be extended permanently*** costing the country $370 billion per year. He's covered the 2% the cost of these tax cuts with this middle class pay freeze... how will he cover the other 98%?
In 2012, President Obama will be running for his reelection, and the right will have two new memes to press in their campaign. "President Obama wants to increase the pay of federal workers and raise your taxes." Follow this up with equally untrue stories about his $2B trip to India, lack of birth certificate, and Muslim faith, and we'll be looking at a serious GOP tea party in November.
____
* I have seen some conservative commentators wondering how a 2-year freeze can equal ten years worth of savings, I can see how it'd be difficult to accept that not getting a raise this year will make the raises in the future relatively smaller.
** This fits into the long-term plan of the Republicans to shrink the federal government and hand it over to the private sector; as the best employees leave, the quality of work will drop, which tends to feed into more cuts/firings, which tends to lead to private contractors filling in at a much higher cost.
*** There's no doubt in my mind that if they are extended for even a year that they will be extended permanently when they come up to expire next. If we can't allow them to expire with our large current majorities, what possibility will we have in 2011 or 2012?
Monday, November 29, 2010
Chase Bank - Preying on the Poor
Two decades ago, I opened a bank account at Washington Mutual, a regional bank here in the northwest. At the time, they were a responsible and accountable institution and I was proud to be associated with them. As time passed, they fell into the trap of so many banks and involved themselves with mortgage securities and eventually overextended to the point that they found themselves nearly bankrupt.
Financial giant Chase Bank swept in and bought out WaMu over a weekend, and before we knew it our friendly local bank became a cog in a cold international machine. We customers received letters assuring us that our accounts would remain unchanged, aside from the drops in savings interest rates, CD rates, checking interest, and other changes. Still, my free checking remained free, and I kept my account open with them as I had a number of automatic withdrawals funneled through my account.
Today, however, I received a letter from the bank announcing some changes to my "free" checking account. No longer a free account, my new "Total Checking" account now carries a $10 monthly fee. You can avoid this monthly fee if you meet one of the following conditions.
1: $1,500 minimum daily balance
2. $5,000 average monthly balance
3: $25/month other fees
4: One direct deposit of $500/month
Now, at first, the fourth option did seem to be somewhat reasonable... until you realize that it's not $500 worth of deposits per month... it's ONE deposit of that much. So if you're an average person making an average wage and get a weekly paycheck - even if you deposit the entire post-tax amount - you'll still have to pay the $10 monthly fee. That is, unless you happen to have a $1500 cushion in your account.
It's not even "poor" people who take home less than $500 a week. That's nearing the median income, if you consider that $500 take-home is about $700 gross (or $35k/year) in the best case scenarios. Take home $475 per week, every week? Tough luck, that's going to cost you.
Shame on you, Chase Bank, for finding a way to screw over the hard-working middle class customers who manage to keep their checking accounts in positive territory and avoid ridiculous fees. I've already made the calls necessary to cancel all of my direct payments through this account, and will be walking down to my local branch to close out my account as soon as this is posted. I've had a savings account with my credit union for some time now, looks like they'll be receiving all of my checking business as well. A change I'd say is long overdue.
Financial giant Chase Bank swept in and bought out WaMu over a weekend, and before we knew it our friendly local bank became a cog in a cold international machine. We customers received letters assuring us that our accounts would remain unchanged, aside from the drops in savings interest rates, CD rates, checking interest, and other changes. Still, my free checking remained free, and I kept my account open with them as I had a number of automatic withdrawals funneled through my account.
Today, however, I received a letter from the bank announcing some changes to my "free" checking account. No longer a free account, my new "Total Checking" account now carries a $10 monthly fee. You can avoid this monthly fee if you meet one of the following conditions.
1: $1,500 minimum daily balance
2. $5,000 average monthly balance
3: $25/month other fees
4: One direct deposit of $500/month
Now, at first, the fourth option did seem to be somewhat reasonable... until you realize that it's not $500 worth of deposits per month... it's ONE deposit of that much. So if you're an average person making an average wage and get a weekly paycheck - even if you deposit the entire post-tax amount - you'll still have to pay the $10 monthly fee. That is, unless you happen to have a $1500 cushion in your account.
It's not even "poor" people who take home less than $500 a week. That's nearing the median income, if you consider that $500 take-home is about $700 gross (or $35k/year) in the best case scenarios. Take home $475 per week, every week? Tough luck, that's going to cost you.
Shame on you, Chase Bank, for finding a way to screw over the hard-working middle class customers who manage to keep their checking accounts in positive territory and avoid ridiculous fees. I've already made the calls necessary to cancel all of my direct payments through this account, and will be walking down to my local branch to close out my account as soon as this is posted. I've had a savings account with my credit union for some time now, looks like they'll be receiving all of my checking business as well. A change I'd say is long overdue.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Cenk Uygur's Plea to President Obama
Sometimes I regret not having cable. While there's a lot of great television available over the internet, Cenk Uygyr's MSNBC Live is not available in its entirety. Cenk is passionate and independent-minded, and has had some of the most on-point criticism of our President's reluctance to stand up for Progressives. Here's an excellent example, really capturing the frustration I have with the current administration.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
McConnell, Maddow, and Capitulating with Fox's Game Plan
In my previous post, I took some umbrage with what I felt was Jon Stewart's evasion of the toughest questions in his interview with Rachel Maddow. Whenever an interviewee fails to answer the tough questions in an interview, I feel his message is diluted, and the post-rally analysis of Stewart has had that result. Although I know my blog is new and doesn't really command much attention (certainly not anyone who can influence the media or government policy... no offense, dear reader) I would like to take a moment to point out an example of where Jon was right about the left mirroring Fox's game plan.
On Friday, the following segment was the top story on Maddow's show.
To summarize:
1. According to George Bush's memoir, Sen McConnell (R-KY) privately urged Pres. Bush in Sep 2006 to bring troops home from Iraq in order to boost the Republican's chances in the '06 elections. That is to say, he suggested drawing down troops for political benefit. Sen McConnell in Decision Points "Your unpopularity is going to cost us control of the congress."
2. Bush declined his request, saying he "...set troop levels to achieve victory in Iraq, not victory at the polls."*
3. Sen McConnell, on Sep 4-6, 2006, repeatedly publicly decried the Democrat's calls for troop withdrawal. "Cutting and running is not a strategy for protecting the American people," was the basic (and most polite) jist of his condemnation.
4. When Maddow's team asked for comment on this hypocrisy, Sen McConnell's team responded with a standard "No comment on advising the president" line, stating that "the public record is clear on his unwavering support" for the war. He pointedly did not deny the President's recollection.
This "incredible story" of McConnell's "trouble on a grand scale" and "contemptible hypocrisy" makes up the first eleven minutes of Maddow's 46 minute show. I understand that hypocrisy is shameful, and McConnell has been caught red-handed. My question is, what difference does it make? Is this going to change anything? What makes this Kentucky story an "incredible" and "grand" national story?**
What I see is, McConnell supported his President publicly while disagreeing with him privately. I believe many of us have been upset with Reid and any number of our elected officials for not backing up President Obama publicly. I know I've written about how disappointed I am that Democrats haven't stood up for Obama's policies.*** McConnell did what the Republicans always do, he stayed in line and played ball. That's why they win elections and get things done when they're in power.
More importantly, why was this the most important thing to report on yesterday? Where was the reporting on supposedly impartial Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's serving as the keynote speaker at the Nov 9, 2010 conservative American Spectator event? How about the reporting of Debt Reduction Committee co-chair Erskin Bowle's job on the board of financial giant Morgan Stanley? There are two great conflict of interest stories, both occurring right now and not four years ago, both very relevant to issues facing Americans today.
Is the McConnell story interesting? I suppose so. Is it a more factual version of sort of thing Fox News does to democrats on a daily basis? No doubt. However, it's nowhere near as relevant as the Bowles or Alito conflict of interest stories. If Maddow or Olbermann were to cover them, they'd add a lot of legitimacy to them. The facts are out there, but if you search Google the links I've provided are the most legitimate media sources available. No matter how many links Think Progress, Truth Out, or I provide none of us have the legitimacy of MSNBC.
So while I agree that unilateral disarmament is a bad idea, Maddow and Olbermann and the rest of the media could take an important lesson from Mr. Stewart. Stop the sniping. There is plenty of fact-based information out there to take down the right. Let the right lie and name-call all they want, put the damning evidence we have out there, rather than letting it fester on the backrooms of the internet.
____
* I do find this hilarious. Either GW Bush spoke in talking points even in private conversations, or he completely fabricated the quotes of his own speech to match up to the talking points he was making at the time. I don't know which is a more ridiculous option.
** I remember in the '08 election, when Biden was chosen as Obama's running mate, there was a rehashing of how one time he forgot to attribute a quote in a speech. I got into an argument with a conservative acquaintance of mine about how silly this issue was. This McConnell thing has about as much national relevance in my opinion.
*** Forget that Bush's team was out there pushing the same policies as McConnell, while Obama hasn't made much of an effort to get out there and push anything. Sending out a YouTube video a week before the election is hardly an effort to equal Bush's six year non-stop fear machine.
On Friday, the following segment was the top story on Maddow's show.
To summarize:
1. According to George Bush's memoir, Sen McConnell (R-KY) privately urged Pres. Bush in Sep 2006 to bring troops home from Iraq in order to boost the Republican's chances in the '06 elections. That is to say, he suggested drawing down troops for political benefit. Sen McConnell in Decision Points "Your unpopularity is going to cost us control of the congress."
2. Bush declined his request, saying he "...set troop levels to achieve victory in Iraq, not victory at the polls."*
3. Sen McConnell, on Sep 4-6, 2006, repeatedly publicly decried the Democrat's calls for troop withdrawal. "Cutting and running is not a strategy for protecting the American people," was the basic (and most polite) jist of his condemnation.
4. When Maddow's team asked for comment on this hypocrisy, Sen McConnell's team responded with a standard "No comment on advising the president" line, stating that "the public record is clear on his unwavering support" for the war. He pointedly did not deny the President's recollection.
This "incredible story" of McConnell's "trouble on a grand scale" and "contemptible hypocrisy" makes up the first eleven minutes of Maddow's 46 minute show. I understand that hypocrisy is shameful, and McConnell has been caught red-handed. My question is, what difference does it make? Is this going to change anything? What makes this Kentucky story an "incredible" and "grand" national story?**
What I see is, McConnell supported his President publicly while disagreeing with him privately. I believe many of us have been upset with Reid and any number of our elected officials for not backing up President Obama publicly. I know I've written about how disappointed I am that Democrats haven't stood up for Obama's policies.*** McConnell did what the Republicans always do, he stayed in line and played ball. That's why they win elections and get things done when they're in power.
More importantly, why was this the most important thing to report on yesterday? Where was the reporting on supposedly impartial Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's serving as the keynote speaker at the Nov 9, 2010 conservative American Spectator event? How about the reporting of Debt Reduction Committee co-chair Erskin Bowle's job on the board of financial giant Morgan Stanley? There are two great conflict of interest stories, both occurring right now and not four years ago, both very relevant to issues facing Americans today.
Is the McConnell story interesting? I suppose so. Is it a more factual version of sort of thing Fox News does to democrats on a daily basis? No doubt. However, it's nowhere near as relevant as the Bowles or Alito conflict of interest stories. If Maddow or Olbermann were to cover them, they'd add a lot of legitimacy to them. The facts are out there, but if you search Google the links I've provided are the most legitimate media sources available. No matter how many links Think Progress, Truth Out, or I provide none of us have the legitimacy of MSNBC.
So while I agree that unilateral disarmament is a bad idea, Maddow and Olbermann and the rest of the media could take an important lesson from Mr. Stewart. Stop the sniping. There is plenty of fact-based information out there to take down the right. Let the right lie and name-call all they want, put the damning evidence we have out there, rather than letting it fester on the backrooms of the internet.
____
* I do find this hilarious. Either GW Bush spoke in talking points even in private conversations, or he completely fabricated the quotes of his own speech to match up to the talking points he was making at the time. I don't know which is a more ridiculous option.
** I remember in the '08 election, when Biden was chosen as Obama's running mate, there was a rehashing of how one time he forgot to attribute a quote in a speech. I got into an argument with a conservative acquaintance of mine about how silly this issue was. This McConnell thing has about as much national relevance in my opinion.
*** Forget that Bush's team was out there pushing the same policies as McConnell, while Obama hasn't made much of an effort to get out there and push anything. Sending out a YouTube video a week before the election is hardly an effort to equal Bush's six year non-stop fear machine.
Friday, November 12, 2010
A Quick Bit of Frustration
I've been sort of reluctant to post in the last few days, partly because I've just been frustrated with the news coming out of Washington, primarily the ridiculous National Debt Commission chair recommendations, which were released to the press behind the President's back earlier this week.* The press coverage has focused primarily on Social Security reductions (fueled by the oft-repeated lie that Social Security will be bankrupt in our lifetimes) and really didn't mention the 500,000 jobs that are suggested to be cut under the proposal. Yeah, that's what we need right now, to cut half a million jobs. All non-defense, of course.
On top of this is the "will they or won't they?" game the media is playing with the Administration's capitulation on the Bush tax cuts. It's all pretty clever, as they have now moved the discussion from whether they will temporarily keep the tax cuts to whether they will permanently keep the tax cuts. I'd like to see ALL of the the Bush tax cuts expire... including those on the middle and lower classes. I'm more than willing to take the $10-14 a week in tax increases that will hit me if they expire... it's a very small price to pay to help get our country back in shape. Realistically, I hope the true Democrats do stand up and prevent any extension of the cuts for $250k+.
Of course the headlines are almost all leading to the more tax cut, benefit cut philosophy. I'm tired of seeing CNN opinion piece headlines such as "Is American Losing It's Influence?" which then suggests that our current path is what has lead us down this road to ruin. That article particularly upsets me, as it is super light on specifics of how we've run into trouble, but very heavy on how tax cuts and benefit reductions will save us. As usual, no talk of jobs or investment in our crumbling infrastructure.
Then again, it's no surprise that the media is aligned against us. Rachel Maddow had Jon Stewart on as a guest last night and they discussed his false equivalencies between the right and left and their influence in the media. Although I agree with Stewart's message of thoughtful discussion and maintaining a fact-based dialogue, I was pretty disappointed with some of the things he had to say to Maddow. I felt he made a lot of excuses for the right and evaded more pointed questions about the differences.**
Almost seeming to be emboldened by the infighting on the left (and those who've taken Stewart's message to heart in some way) Glenn Beck is on a rampage this week with his nonsensical claims that George Soros controls the progressive movement and is building up to some violent revolution to conquer the US. In reality, Beck is a more visible and manipulative puppeteer, and the calls for violence have been far more prominent on the right... but of course they want to frame the narrative that it's the left who are the bad guys. It's all very scary... especially when you see the right wing corporate backed movement placing ads like this:
If this is what is being advertised on the centrist Huffington Post, I shudder to consider what lies and hatred are on the conservative websites.***
So it's been a little frustrating over the last week. I've been kind of busy too, but it's the continued daily assault on my sensibilities that have kept me from trying to make a difference here. It hasn't taken me long to remember why it is I stopped being involved two years ago... it's really hard when you keep getting hit in the face over and over again.****
____
* Notice the leading headline in that article. "Panel Seeks Social Security Cuts and Higher Taxes." The "higher taxes" bit is ridiculous, aside from the adjustment of a few fees and a modest increase in the national gas tax, there are few revenue increases. No surprise, it recommends keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich and suggests a corporate tax cut from 35 to 26% - that's about 1/3. You have to read through 3/4 of the article to get to that point, of course... the headline would be far more accurate to read "...Additional Tax Cuts" rather than "Higher Taxes."
** Sam Seder did a good analysis of Stewart's interview on his Majority Report podcast today. He discussed a few things I thought stood out from Stewart's interview... among them, the way he made excuses for Bush and his "Weapons of Mass Distruction" claim, equating it to a six year-old desiring car ownership. If we invaded every country who "sought out" WMDs in such a broad, long-term sense, we'd have to invade every country on the planet. He also failed to address the idea that claiming Bush is a war criminal (which he admitted was technically true) is the same as claiming Obama is a secret Muslim Socialist born outside the US. Tsk tsk.
*** And how many lies are in that simple ad? Unconstitutional? Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it unconstitutional, despite how many times people repeat it. Government Run? There's nothing in our watered down health care legislation causing it to be government run, any more than regulations run every aspect of our lives. Of course in an ad like that, you can just say whatever you want, and put it on a news site...
*** Having to provide these links to back up my arguments doesn't help. Nor my inability to keep it short or to-the-point. I should start writing outlines rather than just rambling on like I do...
On top of this is the "will they or won't they?" game the media is playing with the Administration's capitulation on the Bush tax cuts. It's all pretty clever, as they have now moved the discussion from whether they will temporarily keep the tax cuts to whether they will permanently keep the tax cuts. I'd like to see ALL of the the Bush tax cuts expire... including those on the middle and lower classes. I'm more than willing to take the $10-14 a week in tax increases that will hit me if they expire... it's a very small price to pay to help get our country back in shape. Realistically, I hope the true Democrats do stand up and prevent any extension of the cuts for $250k+.
Of course the headlines are almost all leading to the more tax cut, benefit cut philosophy. I'm tired of seeing CNN opinion piece headlines such as "Is American Losing It's Influence?" which then suggests that our current path is what has lead us down this road to ruin. That article particularly upsets me, as it is super light on specifics of how we've run into trouble, but very heavy on how tax cuts and benefit reductions will save us. As usual, no talk of jobs or investment in our crumbling infrastructure.
Then again, it's no surprise that the media is aligned against us. Rachel Maddow had Jon Stewart on as a guest last night and they discussed his false equivalencies between the right and left and their influence in the media. Although I agree with Stewart's message of thoughtful discussion and maintaining a fact-based dialogue, I was pretty disappointed with some of the things he had to say to Maddow. I felt he made a lot of excuses for the right and evaded more pointed questions about the differences.**
Almost seeming to be emboldened by the infighting on the left (and those who've taken Stewart's message to heart in some way) Glenn Beck is on a rampage this week with his nonsensical claims that George Soros controls the progressive movement and is building up to some violent revolution to conquer the US. In reality, Beck is a more visible and manipulative puppeteer, and the calls for violence have been far more prominent on the right... but of course they want to frame the narrative that it's the left who are the bad guys. It's all very scary... especially when you see the right wing corporate backed movement placing ads like this:
If this is what is being advertised on the centrist Huffington Post, I shudder to consider what lies and hatred are on the conservative websites.***
So it's been a little frustrating over the last week. I've been kind of busy too, but it's the continued daily assault on my sensibilities that have kept me from trying to make a difference here. It hasn't taken me long to remember why it is I stopped being involved two years ago... it's really hard when you keep getting hit in the face over and over again.****
____
* Notice the leading headline in that article. "Panel Seeks Social Security Cuts and Higher Taxes." The "higher taxes" bit is ridiculous, aside from the adjustment of a few fees and a modest increase in the national gas tax, there are few revenue increases. No surprise, it recommends keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich and suggests a corporate tax cut from 35 to 26% - that's about 1/3. You have to read through 3/4 of the article to get to that point, of course... the headline would be far more accurate to read "...Additional Tax Cuts" rather than "Higher Taxes."
** Sam Seder did a good analysis of Stewart's interview on his Majority Report podcast today. He discussed a few things I thought stood out from Stewart's interview... among them, the way he made excuses for Bush and his "Weapons of Mass Distruction" claim, equating it to a six year-old desiring car ownership. If we invaded every country who "sought out" WMDs in such a broad, long-term sense, we'd have to invade every country on the planet. He also failed to address the idea that claiming Bush is a war criminal (which he admitted was technically true) is the same as claiming Obama is a secret Muslim Socialist born outside the US. Tsk tsk.
*** And how many lies are in that simple ad? Unconstitutional? Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it unconstitutional, despite how many times people repeat it. Government Run? There's nothing in our watered down health care legislation causing it to be government run, any more than regulations run every aspect of our lives. Of course in an ad like that, you can just say whatever you want, and put it on a news site...
*** Having to provide these links to back up my arguments doesn't help. Nor my inability to keep it short or to-the-point. I should start writing outlines rather than just rambling on like I do...
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Why I Have Trouble Maintaining Hope
In 2008 I supported John Edwards, moved primarily by his "two America" philosophy. I felt this was the most sincere and direct words I'd heard from a politician regarding the problems facing our country today. In hindsight, I can say we're lucky that he lost the primary race, and after he did it was pretty easy to switch my allegiance to Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton, I felt, represented the middle-of-the-road corporatist policies of, well, President Clinton. Obama promised hope and change, and I felt that he represented a new progressive voice in America. His forceful and inspiring speeches and (at the time) obvious desire to lead inspired me as the summer went on.
Unfortunately, as he filled his cabinet with Clinton and Bush folks in early 2009, I realized that maybe I had been taken in by rhetoric. As January 20 came around, I said, "Give the guy a chance! He'll show us that he can lead and take these people down the right path." Unfortunately, a quick series of corporatist policies followed. An undersized, tax-cut-heavy stimulus package. Failure to investigate the crimes of the Bush administration. Abandoning the Public Option. Giving up on DADT. Failing to lead in general... where was the great orator we saw in the summer of 2008? Why wasn't Obama on TV every week fighting for his principles, leading progressives and persuading the independents of the value of his plans?
After several months of disappointment, I finally gave up on believing. I don't remember what it was exactly that caused me to lose hope, there are so many capitulations and concessions that our President has made to the right that I can't even count them. So I stopped being involved, and over the last two years watched the extreme right take over the narrative of the country. I imagine the independents did the same, and lacking political allegiance, jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon.
Realizing the error of my apathetic ways, I'm trying to get involved again. Then I hear the President on sixty minutes saying the same thing's he's been saying for the last eighteen months, and it makes me wonder why I bother.
Here are a few quotes: "You know, now I will say that when it comes to some of my supporters, some of my Democratic supporters who express some frustration, part of it, I think, is the belief that if I just communicated things better, that I'd be able to persuade that half of the country that voted for John McCain that we were right and they were wrong.
And, you know, one of the things that I think is important for people to remember is that, you know, this country doesn't just agree with The New York Times editorial page. And, you know, I can make some really good arguments defending the Democratic position, and there are gonna be some people who just don't agree with me. And that's okay. And then we've got to figure out a way to compromise."
Where did the President get the idea that he needs to persuade the half of the country who voted for McCain that he is right? Why is this a priority? We didn't vote in the President in order for him to win the 2012 election with the help of the right. We voted in the President so he could fix the country with progressive policies. I believe this WOULD have won him a larger majority in 2012 (as well as kept most of the people voted out in 2010 in their jobs) but we'll never know that now. Instead, our President basically abandoned many promises of his campaign and instead adopted positions akin to some hybrid of Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton.
Is it any consolation to know the President "can make some really good arguments defending the Democratic position." Personally, I can make a savory meatloaf with au gratin potatoes and a nice salad with a delicious chocolate cake for dessert. I've never done such a thing, but that's not important, because I CAN do it. I guess the slogan "Yes We Can" was right... we should have insisted on "Yes We Will," because the President has certainly shown us that just because he can do something doesn't mean he will.
Another quote, from the same page in the transcripts:
I'd like to know what he is talking about here. When has the President ever taken a hard line on anything? All he has done is say "Let's meet in the middle. Let's try it your way." And of course every time he does this, the right says "No, let's move further to the right." And we do. Further and further to the right, and the President continues to insist that "Oh, it's not you, it's me. I'll try it your way." He did it with the public option, with the stimulus, with Afghanistan, with climate regulations, the Bush tax cuts... the list goes on and on. And today, he's still doing the same.
I want to believe. I want to hope. I want to have a President that will lead us to the left and help the country recover from the three decades of right-wing corporatist policies that have bankrupted our country and left all but the wealthiest worse off than we we before. Unfortunately, Obama has not shown any real evidence of being that President.
Unfortunately, as he filled his cabinet with Clinton and Bush folks in early 2009, I realized that maybe I had been taken in by rhetoric. As January 20 came around, I said, "Give the guy a chance! He'll show us that he can lead and take these people down the right path." Unfortunately, a quick series of corporatist policies followed. An undersized, tax-cut-heavy stimulus package. Failure to investigate the crimes of the Bush administration. Abandoning the Public Option. Giving up on DADT. Failing to lead in general... where was the great orator we saw in the summer of 2008? Why wasn't Obama on TV every week fighting for his principles, leading progressives and persuading the independents of the value of his plans?
After several months of disappointment, I finally gave up on believing. I don't remember what it was exactly that caused me to lose hope, there are so many capitulations and concessions that our President has made to the right that I can't even count them. So I stopped being involved, and over the last two years watched the extreme right take over the narrative of the country. I imagine the independents did the same, and lacking political allegiance, jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon.
Realizing the error of my apathetic ways, I'm trying to get involved again. Then I hear the President on sixty minutes saying the same thing's he's been saying for the last eighteen months, and it makes me wonder why I bother.
Here are a few quotes: "You know, now I will say that when it comes to some of my supporters, some of my Democratic supporters who express some frustration, part of it, I think, is the belief that if I just communicated things better, that I'd be able to persuade that half of the country that voted for John McCain that we were right and they were wrong.
And, you know, one of the things that I think is important for people to remember is that, you know, this country doesn't just agree with The New York Times editorial page. And, you know, I can make some really good arguments defending the Democratic position, and there are gonna be some people who just don't agree with me. And that's okay. And then we've got to figure out a way to compromise."
Where did the President get the idea that he needs to persuade the half of the country who voted for McCain that he is right? Why is this a priority? We didn't vote in the President in order for him to win the 2012 election with the help of the right. We voted in the President so he could fix the country with progressive policies. I believe this WOULD have won him a larger majority in 2012 (as well as kept most of the people voted out in 2010 in their jobs) but we'll never know that now. Instead, our President basically abandoned many promises of his campaign and instead adopted positions akin to some hybrid of Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton.
Is it any consolation to know the President "can make some really good arguments defending the Democratic position." Personally, I can make a savory meatloaf with au gratin potatoes and a nice salad with a delicious chocolate cake for dessert. I've never done such a thing, but that's not important, because I CAN do it. I guess the slogan "Yes We Can" was right... we should have insisted on "Yes We Will," because the President has certainly shown us that just because he can do something doesn't mean he will.
Another quote, from the same page in the transcripts:
“Part of my promise to the American people when I was elected was to maintain the kind of tone that says we can disagree without being disagreeable. And I think over the course of two years, there have been times where I’ve slipped on that commitment.”
I'd like to know what he is talking about here. When has the President ever taken a hard line on anything? All he has done is say "Let's meet in the middle. Let's try it your way." And of course every time he does this, the right says "No, let's move further to the right." And we do. Further and further to the right, and the President continues to insist that "Oh, it's not you, it's me. I'll try it your way." He did it with the public option, with the stimulus, with Afghanistan, with climate regulations, the Bush tax cuts... the list goes on and on. And today, he's still doing the same.
I want to believe. I want to hope. I want to have a President that will lead us to the left and help the country recover from the three decades of right-wing corporatist policies that have bankrupted our country and left all but the wealthiest worse off than we we before. Unfortunately, Obama has not shown any real evidence of being that President.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Rising From the Ashes
It's my hope that the losses of last Tuesday will spur progressives across the country to stand up for our values and get our voices out. There's some sign that this might be the case, the blogs I've been reading have been pretty consistent on that tone. I think Keith Olbermann's suspension (and hasty reinstatement) will serve as a reminder to the power of the true left, and how we are capable of rallying together. Let's hope we can do so for our country which, no offense to Mr. Olbermann, is a much larger issue than an influential news personality.
One voice I am glad to see return to the national dialogue is Sam Seder. Sam was one of the original Air America radio hosts (hard to believe that was 6 years ago!) and has been sort of hard to hear from in the last couple of years. He has started a new daily podcast, "The Majority Report," which can be downloaded from Majority.FM, or subscribed to through iTunes or any RSS reader. He's only done a couple of episodes so far, he's calling these first shows their beta, but they're already well worth listening to.
If you're not familiar with Sam, he's funny and smart. While he is unhappy with the weak-kneed policies of the outgoing congress, he does realize that the Democrats are the best chance we have to improve our lot in the current system. Since he's also a pretty funny guy, I think his voice is one that could really help shape the dialogue over the next few years. If nothing else, he'll make it easier to get through the difficulties of the 112th Congress.
One voice I am glad to see return to the national dialogue is Sam Seder. Sam was one of the original Air America radio hosts (hard to believe that was 6 years ago!) and has been sort of hard to hear from in the last couple of years. He has started a new daily podcast, "The Majority Report," which can be downloaded from Majority.FM, or subscribed to through iTunes or any RSS reader. He's only done a couple of episodes so far, he's calling these first shows their beta, but they're already well worth listening to.
If you're not familiar with Sam, he's funny and smart. While he is unhappy with the weak-kneed policies of the outgoing congress, he does realize that the Democrats are the best chance we have to improve our lot in the current system. Since he's also a pretty funny guy, I think his voice is one that could really help shape the dialogue over the next few years. If nothing else, he'll make it easier to get through the difficulties of the 112th Congress.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Right Wing Media's $200 Million Field Day
I'm constantly surprised by the ability of the right wing media to make up crazy stories out of thin air, and how quickly they can spread across the public consciousness via the conservative Echo Chamber. The most recent wild accusation coming from the right is that the Obama administration is engaging in a $200 million per day trip to India. That link will take you to a Fox News clip where they list a number of fictional allegations against the President.
Snopes.com has quickly put up a response to this nonsense, disputing nearly every point made by Fox and other media outlets. There is also a great dispelling of the points over on Talking Points Memo. The compelling TPM article really makes me wonder how the right is able to come up with such a crazy narrative in such a short period of time.
I won't go into dispelling them here, as it's been done by people smarter than me, but I would like to comment on how these fabrications are even possible. The security of the President has been increasingly amped up over the last few decades, presumably starting with the assassination of JFK and accelerated by the attempt on Regan in '81. Due to these security concerns, the government is unable to reveal specifics on the number of people being sent in the President's entourage, as well as the number of vehicles/rooms/meals, etc. being purchased in the destination. It seems like overkill, if you ask me, but I can understand it; it's just part of our modern times.
Since no clear figures can be provided by the government, it leaves the window open completely for people to speculate and point fingers. Needless to say, commentators such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh who are not beholden to truth can just make stuff up without any clear facts available to refute them. Since this is the only information out there, it is repeated and taken by many as reality.
Most people don't have time to research information for themselves (and who can blame them? It's taken me an hour just to research the links provided in this post) and have no way of instantly debunking this nonsense. For example, I had no idea that the "34 warships" claim represents 10% of the navy. Looking at the information in the TPM article, most of the claims from the right are obviously ridiculous, but difficult to respond to because they are not commonly understood.
Hopefully, the mainstream media will dispute the lies and try to set the record straight. Unfortunately, as is evidenced by the presistent birther and Muslim lies about Obama, I imagine the $2 Billion India trip meme will be repeated endlessly from the far right and take a "Weapons of Mass Destruction" level place in the American consciousness.
Snopes.com has quickly put up a response to this nonsense, disputing nearly every point made by Fox and other media outlets. There is also a great dispelling of the points over on Talking Points Memo. The compelling TPM article really makes me wonder how the right is able to come up with such a crazy narrative in such a short period of time.
I won't go into dispelling them here, as it's been done by people smarter than me, but I would like to comment on how these fabrications are even possible. The security of the President has been increasingly amped up over the last few decades, presumably starting with the assassination of JFK and accelerated by the attempt on Regan in '81. Due to these security concerns, the government is unable to reveal specifics on the number of people being sent in the President's entourage, as well as the number of vehicles/rooms/meals, etc. being purchased in the destination. It seems like overkill, if you ask me, but I can understand it; it's just part of our modern times.
Since no clear figures can be provided by the government, it leaves the window open completely for people to speculate and point fingers. Needless to say, commentators such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh who are not beholden to truth can just make stuff up without any clear facts available to refute them. Since this is the only information out there, it is repeated and taken by many as reality.
Most people don't have time to research information for themselves (and who can blame them? It's taken me an hour just to research the links provided in this post) and have no way of instantly debunking this nonsense. For example, I had no idea that the "34 warships" claim represents 10% of the navy. Looking at the information in the TPM article, most of the claims from the right are obviously ridiculous, but difficult to respond to because they are not commonly understood.
Hopefully, the mainstream media will dispute the lies and try to set the record straight. Unfortunately, as is evidenced by the presistent birther and Muslim lies about Obama, I imagine the $2 Billion India trip meme will be repeated endlessly from the far right and take a "Weapons of Mass Destruction" level place in the American consciousness.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
On 2010 Results, Oregon's Governor's Race
I attended the Kitzhaber "victory" party last night, thrown by the Democratic Party of Oregon in downtown Portland. It was a nice party and it was fun to see the candidates who spoke there. You can see additional photos of them on my flickr page.
The overall election for the nation went about as I expected. The Democrats got hammered in the house, and lost a lot of ground in the Senate. I suspect the overall spin will be that the election was a repudiation of the progressive agenda, and that the President should move even further toward the right with additional spending on tax cuts for the wealthy, additional spending on the military, and less spending on social programs.
However there is some light for progressives, as the House results show that the progressive caucus held 76 of 80 seats, while the Blue Dog
Despite the loss of Sen Feingold (D-WI) (who tried to run a progressive campaign on the coattails of Obama/Reid's corporatist successes) the progressives did very well. If anything, the Democrats should learn that voters appreciate people who stand up for their values, who promise a progressive vision for the future. I seem to recall a black guy getting elected president running on that platform... whatever happened to him?
Here in Oregon, we were fortunate enough to hold on to our four Democratic congressional seats, with two moderately contested races holding true for Reps. Wu and DeFazio. We had a very mixed bag of ballot measure results, with progressive parks funding passing, along with a conservative (unfunded) mandatory minimum sentencing measure... both by similar margins. Our neighbors to the north really took it hard when it came to state revenue, all three Washington state tax measures fell on the tea party side of the vote by considerable margins.
Two important Oregon races remain up in the air at this time... the race between former Governor John Kitzhaber (D - Picuted above at last night's rally) and former Trailblazer (and Camas, Washington resident) Chris Dudley. Their race is down to the wire, with the final votes from Multnomah county being tallied to decide. It looks very likely the final count will fall within the 3000 votes requiring a mandatory recount, so it will be days before the results are know.
Also still up in the air is the Metro Presidency, with a very close race between progressive Bob Stacey and slightly less progressive Tom Hughes. While I would like to see Stacey win (I applaud his views on the urban growth boundary) it looks likely that Hughes will hold on to take it down. As a bicyclist, I hope Hughes' "Bike Registration Fee" plan doesn't actually materialize.
Can't wait to see the results, and it'll be an interesting journey to 2012.
Update: Kithaber pulled ahead with the Multnomah county results and ended up winning a third term (non-consecutive) as Governor with a 1% margin. Congratulations, Governor! At this time, the Hughes/Stacey race is too close to call, the current margin is within 0.2%, which means an automatic recount will be required. Thank goodness for our mandatory paper write-in ballots!
_____
* The numbers aren't quite equal in those two articles. The first lists 77 of 80 seats holding for the progressives, while the second lists 75 of 79. I split the difference with my figure, but the point is the progressives held.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)