Here are the facts: Reagan Presidency: The National Debt began at $1 trillion and ended at 3 trillion (I think this amounts to a 300% increase). Bush 1 Presidency: The National Debt began at 3 trillion and ended at 5 trillion (only 66% but he only had 4 years). Clinton Presidency: National Debt began at $5 trillion and ended at $6 trillion (20% increase over 8 years). Bush 2: National Debt began at 6 trillion and ended at 11 trillion (about 83% increase over 8 years). Since Reagan, the National Debt has increase 10 trillion. Clinton was responsible for 1 trillion in 8 years and the Republicans responsible for $9 trillion in their 20 years. Governemnt spending in the 8 years of Reagan increased 25%, In the Bush II 8 years, another 25%, in Clinton's 8 years it increased 9%.
The current Republican outrage at the trillion dollar stimulus should be listed by Webster's dictionary as a definition of what it means to have no shame.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Three Goals for the Next Four Years
Despite the failing economy, there are fantastic gains for humanity and the nation possible in the next four years. Here is my top three goals that would enhance human life at no cost to taxpayers
1. Goal: Through Intensive Research program, double the wattage that each solar panel can produce. Or, to put it in economic terms: cut in one half the cost of what it costs to install solar panels for the entire electric needs of a home. Think of the jobs this creates and think of the electric bills this will diminish. Think of the exports we could realize.
2. Create a set of relationships in the world that enables the United States to so reduce its perceived security needs that we can cut the Military budget in one half. (Actually, we could cut it in half right now and still be secure as the more we spend the less secure we are.)
3. Figure out a way for the government to own or share in the ownership of all good alternative energy companies. In two years, if we meet goal #1, the government will be able to recoup all the stimulus bill money.
Okay two more that would help us too:
4. Create a one payer national health system
5. Provide enough educational aid to schools that we can cut the average class size in elementary schools to 20 students.
1. Goal: Through Intensive Research program, double the wattage that each solar panel can produce. Or, to put it in economic terms: cut in one half the cost of what it costs to install solar panels for the entire electric needs of a home. Think of the jobs this creates and think of the electric bills this will diminish. Think of the exports we could realize.
2. Create a set of relationships in the world that enables the United States to so reduce its perceived security needs that we can cut the Military budget in one half. (Actually, we could cut it in half right now and still be secure as the more we spend the less secure we are.)
3. Figure out a way for the government to own or share in the ownership of all good alternative energy companies. In two years, if we meet goal #1, the government will be able to recoup all the stimulus bill money.
Okay two more that would help us too:
4. Create a one payer national health system
5. Provide enough educational aid to schools that we can cut the average class size in elementary schools to 20 students.
Its the Spending, Stupid, not the Tax Cuts
Be honest. When you get your $500 or $1000 in tax cuts, will you go right out and buy a new car or a new home? No, the tax cuts are useless. The government needs more money, not less.
For stimulus of the economy - jobs which produce people who do need to buy cars and can afford housese should be the goal and the tax cut will not create one job.
Now, if you propose that we get all the CEOs together from Wall Street, the Finance Industry and the Automakers and force them to give each American $500 for what they have done to ruin our economy, then the $500 a person seems like a reasonable proposal because, unlike the government, these folks don't need more money and even after they gave us each $500, they still would living better than all of us.
The waste in the stimulus bill is the tax cuts, not the spending. Get it right!
For stimulus of the economy - jobs which produce people who do need to buy cars and can afford housese should be the goal and the tax cut will not create one job.
Now, if you propose that we get all the CEOs together from Wall Street, the Finance Industry and the Automakers and force them to give each American $500 for what they have done to ruin our economy, then the $500 a person seems like a reasonable proposal because, unlike the government, these folks don't need more money and even after they gave us each $500, they still would living better than all of us.
The waste in the stimulus bill is the tax cuts, not the spending. Get it right!
Beyond Bipartisanship
President Obama gave it a try and discovered what many of us have known for some time now: the only bipartisan group in the US is the Democratic Party. The Republicans, at their core, represent that part of America which does not want to work in a bipartisan way. You cannot be bipartisan with the Republicans because they never respond in any bipartisan way to initiatives: whether in the Majority or in the Minority, they just insist on the same worn out formulas of the past.
But, if we think of "bipartisan" in the sense that is more profound and not in its very limited sense of actions which might gain the votes of both parties, we could move beyond the absolutely useless goal of trying to get Republican votes for sane legislation. "Ruepublican" and "bipartisan" are contradictory terms (like Military Intelligence).
The majority of Americans, I suspect, do not really care if any particular legislation is "bipartisan." They only care that it works for the betterment of the situation it addresses. At this point, neither the President nor the Democrats in the Congress should worry about getting one Republican vote. They should only worry about whether the legislation will help the majoriy of Americans, across generational, racial and ideological line. That is, "bipartisan" legislation is legislation that meets the needs, solves the problem of the majority of the nation.
This is exactly why the Republicans are not "bipartisan", because what they propose and support in the way of legislation is always something that solves the problem of the elites and not the majority.
So, by definition, to think of "bipartisan" in the normal sense means that in the more profound sense - legislation that serves the needs of the majority - it can never be achieved. Any legislation that the Republicans agree to is, by definition, legislation that serves the needs of only a small minority.
Let us go beyond "bipartisan" in its traditional sense of trying to get votes on both sides of the aisle and think of it as legislation that serves the needs of the majority (whatever partisan interests they might have). As long as the democrats have the majority, it will be enought to try to get enough Democratic votes to pass legislation that serves the needs of the majority. Concentrate on that challenge, Mr. President and forget about the Republicans. Pretend they don't exist. MAybe they will go away, in which case the nation and the world will be well served and we can all go on trying to find out how to pass really bipartisan laws to help the majority.
But, if we think of "bipartisan" in the sense that is more profound and not in its very limited sense of actions which might gain the votes of both parties, we could move beyond the absolutely useless goal of trying to get Republican votes for sane legislation. "Ruepublican" and "bipartisan" are contradictory terms (like Military Intelligence).
The majority of Americans, I suspect, do not really care if any particular legislation is "bipartisan." They only care that it works for the betterment of the situation it addresses. At this point, neither the President nor the Democrats in the Congress should worry about getting one Republican vote. They should only worry about whether the legislation will help the majoriy of Americans, across generational, racial and ideological line. That is, "bipartisan" legislation is legislation that meets the needs, solves the problem of the majority of the nation.
This is exactly why the Republicans are not "bipartisan", because what they propose and support in the way of legislation is always something that solves the problem of the elites and not the majority.
So, by definition, to think of "bipartisan" in the normal sense means that in the more profound sense - legislation that serves the needs of the majority - it can never be achieved. Any legislation that the Republicans agree to is, by definition, legislation that serves the needs of only a small minority.
Let us go beyond "bipartisan" in its traditional sense of trying to get votes on both sides of the aisle and think of it as legislation that serves the needs of the majority (whatever partisan interests they might have). As long as the democrats have the majority, it will be enought to try to get enough Democratic votes to pass legislation that serves the needs of the majority. Concentrate on that challenge, Mr. President and forget about the Republicans. Pretend they don't exist. MAybe they will go away, in which case the nation and the world will be well served and we can all go on trying to find out how to pass really bipartisan laws to help the majority.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Another Word for Failure is "Afghanistan"
Despite Fareed Zakaria's most recent reasoned essay on how to pull something positive for US national security and regional stability in the volative far Middle East out of a situation that daily deteriorates, getting it right in Afghanistan means getting out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Here are three things that wre wrong about going to war in Afghanistan to begin with:
1. Itis not our country
2. It is not even a country
3. Al Quaeda does not need a country to be a problem
Didn't you wonder how all the training that supposedly went on in the Al Quaeda camps in Afghanistan contributed to 9/11. Specifically, I could never understand how all the people running, jumping, shooting in the tapes we saw of the training camps in Afghanistan translated into 12 hijackers flying airplanes into the NY Towers. Somebody more intelligent than I am can tell me what the connection is. And, I am sure that the security obessessed folks who run much of our national security apparatus would be glad to tell me what the connection is.
Still, in my ignorance, I can imagine that we could have done a much better job of disarticulating Al Quaeda by not invading and not stationing troops exactly in the middle of one of the longest standing and intractible conflicts of modern history (that is the one between competing tribes exacerbated by surrounding interests who specialize in intrigue. The idea that we could establish somekind of democratic government in Kabul that would, eventually, win the hearts and minds of Afghanis assumes first that all the people withing the national boundaries conside themselves Afghanis and, secondly, that if they did, that the central goverment with no resources could do more for them than the poppy fields could.
Somebody who knows how to play chess, could probably have figured out a way to enter the conflict/intrigue of the region in a way that would eventually reduce Al Quaeda to a minor player. And, we would not have been embarrassed by so little success, have not demonstrated so clearly that we have no criteria for friendship (that is the Pakistan as ally thing), and would not have been the reason for so many civilians being killed by stray bomb blasts.
So, more troops, better counter-insurgency tactics, more humanitarian and evelopment aid for Kabul, geting tought with Pakistan....I am sad to say, it all just costs money, lives and destabilizes a region that had managed to stay stable for decades despite the incipient conflicts sowed into the soil of the region prior to our arrival. Worst of all it all still fails to take into account three things, if the goal is to disarticulate Al Quaeda's power:
1. It is not our country
2. It is not a country
3. Al Quaeda does not need a country
Best advise to President Obama is to "declare victory, go home and play chess."
1. Itis not our country
2. It is not even a country
3. Al Quaeda does not need a country to be a problem
Didn't you wonder how all the training that supposedly went on in the Al Quaeda camps in Afghanistan contributed to 9/11. Specifically, I could never understand how all the people running, jumping, shooting in the tapes we saw of the training camps in Afghanistan translated into 12 hijackers flying airplanes into the NY Towers. Somebody more intelligent than I am can tell me what the connection is. And, I am sure that the security obessessed folks who run much of our national security apparatus would be glad to tell me what the connection is.
Still, in my ignorance, I can imagine that we could have done a much better job of disarticulating Al Quaeda by not invading and not stationing troops exactly in the middle of one of the longest standing and intractible conflicts of modern history (that is the one between competing tribes exacerbated by surrounding interests who specialize in intrigue. The idea that we could establish somekind of democratic government in Kabul that would, eventually, win the hearts and minds of Afghanis assumes first that all the people withing the national boundaries conside themselves Afghanis and, secondly, that if they did, that the central goverment with no resources could do more for them than the poppy fields could.
Somebody who knows how to play chess, could probably have figured out a way to enter the conflict/intrigue of the region in a way that would eventually reduce Al Quaeda to a minor player. And, we would not have been embarrassed by so little success, have not demonstrated so clearly that we have no criteria for friendship (that is the Pakistan as ally thing), and would not have been the reason for so many civilians being killed by stray bomb blasts.
So, more troops, better counter-insurgency tactics, more humanitarian and evelopment aid for Kabul, geting tought with Pakistan....I am sad to say, it all just costs money, lives and destabilizes a region that had managed to stay stable for decades despite the incipient conflicts sowed into the soil of the region prior to our arrival. Worst of all it all still fails to take into account three things, if the goal is to disarticulate Al Quaeda's power:
1. It is not our country
2. It is not a country
3. Al Quaeda does not need a country
Best advise to President Obama is to "declare victory, go home and play chess."
Obama Dodges a Bullet: Daschle Steps Down
Of all the choices that President Obama has made for his leadership team, the one that troubled many the most was Tom Daschle for Health and Human Services. Former Senator Daschle is, by all accounts, likeable, intelligent, reasonable and knowledgeable. The trouble is that this is not exactly enough for the position he was nominated for. In fact, it was not exactly enough for the position he previously had in the Senate as Minority Leader. There is something about Daschle that comes up short somewhere between being a good person and being an effective leader. For years he seemed to be always just a tad short of what was needed for effective opposition to a really destructive Republican control of Washington.
As one who has worked out of the countries, I can at least appreciate that Geithner might have not understood fully his tax liability as the laws are at least more complicated than if one works in the US and is paid by a US employer. I understand that the Killifer situation was also minor. Daschle, on the other hand, had a problem that was neither understandable or minor. Whatever it was within him or his system of managing life that caused him to think that his delinquent taxes would not be a problem somewhere in his political life might be exactly that thing that always kept him short of effective, while still being quite a nice guy.
President Obama will now be free to choose someone who is more clearly capable of leading what will be a controversial, but extremely important position as we go into the debates on how to solve the national health care crisis in all its dimensions. No matter who is HHS Secretary, it will have to be the President who carries the ball on the debate with the vested medical and financial interests who will resist constructive change that would provide for health insurance and care to be universal.
President Obama dodged a bullet on this one. Unfortunately he was the one who pulled the trigger on the gun. Next time, it can be hoped, metaphorically, that he hits the target.
As one who has worked out of the countries, I can at least appreciate that Geithner might have not understood fully his tax liability as the laws are at least more complicated than if one works in the US and is paid by a US employer. I understand that the Killifer situation was also minor. Daschle, on the other hand, had a problem that was neither understandable or minor. Whatever it was within him or his system of managing life that caused him to think that his delinquent taxes would not be a problem somewhere in his political life might be exactly that thing that always kept him short of effective, while still being quite a nice guy.
President Obama will now be free to choose someone who is more clearly capable of leading what will be a controversial, but extremely important position as we go into the debates on how to solve the national health care crisis in all its dimensions. No matter who is HHS Secretary, it will have to be the President who carries the ball on the debate with the vested medical and financial interests who will resist constructive change that would provide for health insurance and care to be universal.
President Obama dodged a bullet on this one. Unfortunately he was the one who pulled the trigger on the gun. Next time, it can be hoped, metaphorically, that he hits the target.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Republicans, Looking for Someone to Blame, Pick Another Black Man
The Republicans and their repugnant and now repudiated view of economic and poltical reality are looking all around for someone to blame for the unprecedented problems they have created and the fact that the nation rejects them in historically high numbers (see recent polls of party identification).
Favorite targets are black men and women. In the last eight years, the Republicans have managed to turn a budget deficit into a $1 trillion a year deficit, a country at peace into a country involved in two wars it cannot win, an economy gorwing at a steady 4% a year into an economy shrinking at about 1% a year.So, Barack Obama, first African-American President is handed the ball, totally deflated, to fill up with air so that American families can stay afloat. Immediately the Republicans stake out their new ground, claiming that if the the stimulus program doesn't work, then President Obama is responsible for the recession (not the foks who created, but the foks who tried to solve it).
President Obama proposes a solution that many economic and political experts in both parties indicate has a good chance to put the air back in the deflated ball. The Republicans give zero votes to the proprosal and immediately realize that it was a mistake as the country repudiate's their resistance to change. Since the Black man in the White house enjoys, for the moment, the teflonic Reaganeque auro, they blame a woman, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, saying that if House Democrats had only worked with them, they could have crafted a "bi-partisam" bill to vote for.
So, who will take responsibility for the unraveling of the Republican domination of the political scene in America that began with Bush and now is in full bloom? The Republicans choose a Black man - Michael Steele, the newly elected Chair of the Republican National Committee - to take the blame. Aside from the obvious qualities reflectd in Steels's resume of business and political leadership, the choice is a cynical attempt to counter the Obama popularity by also showing that Republicans have African-American leaders and, at the same time, make sure that none of the good ole white boys of the party will have to take blame for the next round of failures in elections.
Steele cannot solve the Republican problem. The problem with the Republican party is that it follows the wrong ideological tendencies in its program of governance of all aspects of public life. There are only two things that can save the Republicans from a prolonged decline in influence: a huge failure by President Obama or the return of FEAR and GREED as primary dynamics in the public.
Steele by being Black cannot attract more African-American voters, much less more latinos because neither is blind to the fact that Republicans, by ideology, do not like African-Americans or Latinos, especially if they are poor, but also if they appreciate their own heritage or their recent past in another country.
Barack Obama has the backing of the American people and majorities in both houses. Nancy Pelosi has the majority in the House. Mr. Steele will bring intelligence, new ideas and energy to the RNC, but he only has the Republican establishment to work with. Who do you think will succeed?
Favorite targets are black men and women. In the last eight years, the Republicans have managed to turn a budget deficit into a $1 trillion a year deficit, a country at peace into a country involved in two wars it cannot win, an economy gorwing at a steady 4% a year into an economy shrinking at about 1% a year.So, Barack Obama, first African-American President is handed the ball, totally deflated, to fill up with air so that American families can stay afloat. Immediately the Republicans stake out their new ground, claiming that if the the stimulus program doesn't work, then President Obama is responsible for the recession (not the foks who created, but the foks who tried to solve it).
President Obama proposes a solution that many economic and political experts in both parties indicate has a good chance to put the air back in the deflated ball. The Republicans give zero votes to the proprosal and immediately realize that it was a mistake as the country repudiate's their resistance to change. Since the Black man in the White house enjoys, for the moment, the teflonic Reaganeque auro, they blame a woman, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, saying that if House Democrats had only worked with them, they could have crafted a "bi-partisam" bill to vote for.
So, who will take responsibility for the unraveling of the Republican domination of the political scene in America that began with Bush and now is in full bloom? The Republicans choose a Black man - Michael Steele, the newly elected Chair of the Republican National Committee - to take the blame. Aside from the obvious qualities reflectd in Steels's resume of business and political leadership, the choice is a cynical attempt to counter the Obama popularity by also showing that Republicans have African-American leaders and, at the same time, make sure that none of the good ole white boys of the party will have to take blame for the next round of failures in elections.
Steele cannot solve the Republican problem. The problem with the Republican party is that it follows the wrong ideological tendencies in its program of governance of all aspects of public life. There are only two things that can save the Republicans from a prolonged decline in influence: a huge failure by President Obama or the return of FEAR and GREED as primary dynamics in the public.
Steele by being Black cannot attract more African-American voters, much less more latinos because neither is blind to the fact that Republicans, by ideology, do not like African-Americans or Latinos, especially if they are poor, but also if they appreciate their own heritage or their recent past in another country.
Barack Obama has the backing of the American people and majorities in both houses. Nancy Pelosi has the majority in the House. Mr. Steele will bring intelligence, new ideas and energy to the RNC, but he only has the Republican establishment to work with. Who do you think will succeed?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)