Fear Itself

Michael Steele recently stated that the government has never created a job. This is typical of the Republican response to this Obama administration stimulus package. The Republicans have repeatedly referred to the stimulus package as a "spending" package. The Republicans have also seen fit to equate the stimulus package with FDR's new deal. The link, according to them, is that FDR's spending bills extended the depression and they make the argument that Obama's plan will do the same.

There are a couple of a fallacies in the Republican argument. First of all, the New Deal did not extend the Depression. FDR came in to office with an unemployment rate at well over 20%. While the rate fluctuated for the next ten years, it did generally go down and never again reached the levels of the previous administration. In fact unemployment had decreased to the low double digit range before the start of WWII. The second fallacy in the argument involves job creation. The Republicans credit WWII with ending the Depression. It was true that the war did stimulate spending and get everyone working, but the majority of those new jobs were government funded. Basically, if the government had hired millions of men to join the armed services and precipitated a massive military build up, even without the war, the results would have been the exactly the same.

So while the Republicans bash the current administration for spending money to try and stimulate the economy, they point to the biggest governmental spending program in history as the real cure for the Depression. While the Republicans are doing their best to try and minimize the role of FDR in ending the depression, or at least lessening the effects of the depression, they have unsuspectingly contradicted their own argument. As history has shown us, sometimes the government has to spend money in order to get the economy moving in a positive direction.

Walk and Chew Gum

I have heard a lot of talk lately about President Obama taking on too many problems at once. The economy is the major issue that the country is facing at this point. Candidate Obama made it clear that the President has to be able to tackle multiple issues at once during the campaign. While John McCain was "suspending" his campaign to "rush" back to Washington to work on the bailout package, Obama said, that as President, you have to be able to handle multiple crises at once.

It seems that some people are unable to make the logical link between our economic health and the spiraling cost of healthcare. One of the biggest problems that businesses face is paying for healthcare. From the big three automakers to the small business owner, paying for health insurance for workers can represent the difference between survival and bankruptcy. That doesn't even account for the almost 50 million Americans who do not have healthcare coverage.

If we do not improve our education system, the cost to society will only increases in the long run. The fact that only 50% of African-American students graduate high school represents a massive systemic failure. The cost increases when we allow a generation after generation of young adults to enter adulthood ill-prepared to compete for jobs or to care properly for themselves and inevitably, their children. The cycle of poverty can only be broken if the government takes steps to intervene in the process. Education isn't the only answer to the problem, but it is an important factor in breaking the cycle.

The longer we wait, the worse the problem gets. If now is not the time to address these problems, then when is the time? George Bush spoke on many occasions of the record breaking number of months of growth that took place during his administration. If that were the case, then why wasn't some of that money used for education? Why weren't some of those dollars used for healthcare? According to the Vice President, 9/11 was the reason for that. We were forced to go to war and so our priorities had to change. I don't believe that they would have taken any real steps in those areas, but my point is that even during "good" economic times we have never taken any real steps to address these issues.

The President is trying to make good on the promises he made during his campaign. It is very clear that our current economic crisis is his top priority. However, there are many other pressing issues that also need his attention. We are engaged in two wars, the Middle East conflicts continues to demand our attention, two nuclear nations (Pakistan and North Korea) are potential powder kegs, the drug wars in Mexico are now spilling over our borders, etc., etc., etc. The truth is that the President faces a myriad of problems. It is not only shortsighted but illogical for people to expect him to only handle one thing at a time. The President has explained his reasoning for wanting to change the healthcare system and improve education. They are tied to the long term growth and viability of our nation. Asking the President of the United States to be myopic in his approach is simply moronic.

Surprise, Surprise

The surprising answer to yesterday's mystery is none other than everyone's favorite conservative mouthpiece Pat Buchanan. I guess it just goes to show you that even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm reprinting a piece that I wrote last year after Pat Buchanan had written an article entitlted "Wake Up, Whitey". I think the post pretty much speaks for itself. We can enjoy the brief moments of clarity from folks like Buchanan, but let's not forget who he is.

Barack Obama's speech on race has allowed much more honest commentary from the press. There have been a string of articles either praising or criticizing the speech, but at least there has been a dialogue about the subject. It has allowed a lot of pundits to weigh in with their thoughts about the issues of race in the country, which is definitely a good thing. I believe that Pat Buchanan wrote the definitive article about the subject yesterday and I just wanted to add my comments to highlight that fact. Here are some of the salient passages:

"White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to"
Pat Buchanan does speak for "White America". He has run for President twice and come within 50,000,000 votes or so of becoming Commander-in-Chief. If that doesn't qualify you to represent the entire White population of America, I don't know what does.

"First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American."
I couldn't agree more. The Africans who signed up for that pleasure cruise across the ocean (during which many died) to have a better life here in America, I'm sure would be very grateful to learn that their offspring have done so well. I know that there is nothing I would like more than to be violently kidnapped and separated from my family and friends and taken half way around the world (if I was fortunate enough to survive the trip) and be forced into slavery so that in 300 years my descendants would be viewed as almost equal by the racial majority. Where do I sign up? I'm pretty sure that I've got some friends who want in this deal as well.

"Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream."

Damn, Pat. You're right again. Black people are downright ungrateful. Although all the programs that you mention (welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs) have given a lot more money to Whites than Blacks (and those are government programs funded by tax dollars, meaning that people of every race contributed to them, but let's not argue over details), we should be grateful to have been included when the government was giving out those freebies. There is nothing that people love more than being allowed to subsist below the poverty level.

"Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants."
You know what Pat? You are right on point again. Blacks should have been happy with separate but equal (damn that liberal Supreme Court). I mean forcing people to actually integrate is downright disgusting. I know that there were lots of schools in the South that couldn't wait to let Black people in. In fact they used have huge welcoming committees for them (usually a lot of soldiers and people holding signs and yelling). White America was waiting with open arms to embrace it's long abused brothers. If only the Government hadn't interfered so much, the country would be much better off today. Don't you think? I know Pat and I do.

"Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks. We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?"
Not enough gratitude, that's the problem with this country today. If we could all just be a little more thankful, then all of our problems would disappear. I'm not talking about the people who actually received help, I'm talking about all the Black people in America. There should be a national "Thank a White Person" day. That way all Black people would be able to properly thank the Whites for all the hard work they have done on their behalf. Oh, let's just make it a month. I'm thinking February. I hear there's nothing going on that month anyway.

"Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids."
Yeah, shouldn't the Ivy league schools be trying harder to get more White kids into their schools?

"As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?"
Another example of how lazy Blacks are. Instead of trying to find a rich Black person, Black criminals just pick the most convenient target around.

Pat and I are in total agreement. I can't wait for his next article to show us all the light once again. I'll end my article with this:
To all Black people, it is time to be more grateful to your benefactors. And to all White people I can only apologize for the delay. But I promise that if you just have a little patience, your gratitude is on its way. So don't be surprised if one day a black man, woman or child comes up to you and says thank you. "For what", you'll say. "For just being you", will be the answer. "For just being you".

Mystery Man

On Harball today, Chris Matthews was reviewing the love fest between John King and Dick Cheney this past Sunday. Matthews showed a clip of Cheney defending the war in Iraq by saying that we have met our goals there. By "our goals" he was referring to setting up an independent Democratic society. He clearly has a faulty memory because running around setting up Democracies was never our stated goal. I remember the talk of WMD's and ties to 9/11 and potential acquisition of nuclear technology (remember the famed yellow cake memo), but creating a "democratically governed Iraq" was not mentioned. John King never once called him on that fact on Sunday, but as the previous post by SJ pointed out, "journalists" no longer seem willing to speak the truth to power.

I am getting away from my main point, Matthews had a couple of people on to comment on the interview and he asked them about the answer that Cheney had given regarding Iraq. I will now quote in full the responses of one of the pundits:

"What the Vice President overlooked was the price of this war. 4,000 dead Americans, 30,000 wounded, 100,000 dead Iraqis, 100,000 widows and kids without fathers, 4 million refugees, the Christian community cut to pieces over there with half of them driven into Syria. It's been a horribly costly thing. Those people would have been better off if we'd left them alone. I do not believe that we have the right to attack a country that has not threatened us, want war with us or attack us in order to deprive it of weapons it does not have"

This same pundit continued later:

"He (Saddam Hussein) was deterred. He was in a box by 2001. He was no threat to the United States of America. If he were a threat why didn't the Jordanians and Turks and the others want us to invade? Nobody over there wanted this war."

Fairly coherent arguments against the war and against the statements of the Vice President, I would say. It's not that we haven't said it before, but it's always nice to hear it from someone else. So who is the mystery man? You'll just have to wait until tomorrow. And no peaking.

Bacon Brothers

I have a couple of things to discuss briefly tonight. I'm going to resort to the Colbert Report format of a "Wag of the Finger". My first WOTF is to Governor Sanford of South Carolina. He has stated that he will take the stimulus money that should be targeted for education and instead spend it on debt reduction. His justification is that the state should be fiscally responsible and not spend money (even federal money) that it does not have. The funny thing is that I don't remember him turning down any other federal money while the Bush administration ran up the largest deficits in US history. Did he turn down the money that went to defense contractors because the US government was running at a deficit? Of course not. But now that a Democratic president is offering his state money for education (which according to the governor is clearly not as important as paying off the state debt), he has all of a sudden decided to pray at the altar of fiscal responsibility. Governor Sanford is clearly trying to position himself for a run at the presidency in 2012 and he is trying to step over the bodies of the almost 8,000 teachers who would have to be fired if the stimulus money is not used. As I stated in a previous post, I expect the state legislature to over rule the Governor. However this stance is on its face so ridiculous that I think along with over ruling the Governor, the state legislature should also look into starting impeachment hearings. If purposefully denying your citizens of critical services such as education does not rise to the level of high crime or misdemeanor, then I don't know what does.

My second WOTF goes to the Obama justice department. Today they have done away with the "enemy combatant" label. Basically, by applying that label to individuals, President Bush was allowed to indefinitely detain any individual without charges. His justification being that those detained individuals posed an imminent threat to the health and welfare of America. Of course they never had to charge those people with anything, the president and the president alone had the power to apply that label. You would think that getting rid of that label would mean that those so designated individuals would now have to be charged with something and would have their day in court. Of course you'd be wrong. Those former "enemy combatants" are now just indefinite detainees. The still have not been charged, there is currently no plan to charge them, they still have no court dates, they still have no rights. One of the "enemy combatants" is a US citizen. One of them has a green card. My main desire for this presidency was that we would have an Executive branch that acts in accordance with and respects the Constitution. Where the hell is the man who said the choice between safety and our ideals is a false one? When our government stoops to the level of a Central American dictatorship (and I know that may seem harsh, but what do you call it when the government can basically make any of it's citizens disappear), we are all in danger. I for one expected more from this administration. I take that back, I expect more. I expect them to reverse this decision in the coming days, weeks or months. I expect them to do more than just try to put lipstick on a pig, because as the president told us during the campaign, it's still a pig.

Same As The Old Boss

The Republican response to all proposals by the Obama administration has certainly been consistent. As espoused by Bobby Jindal in his response to the President's speech last week and echoed by every speaker at the CPAC conference, the answer to our problems is not increased government aid but less government, more tax cuts and greater individual responsibility. This is the formula that led us to our current situation, but while some Republicans have accepted some responsibility for the current mess, they claim that it was the fault of the Bush administration for not adhering to these conservative principles.

The Republican leadership has railed against the administration for it's "out of control spending". They have called the President every thing from a socialist to a radical communist. They have accused him of trying to setup a "European style government" here in America. I'm frankly amazed that they haven't called him to task for his choice in dog. What the Republicans have failed to do however, is to tell the public what their vision of America is. They have talked about a tax cut only stimulus and smaller government and the lack of faith in the federal government to solve people's problem, but they have not told the American people what that would look like. Bobby Jindal used the example of the federal response to Katrina to illustrate the ineffectiveness of federal government in dealing with local problems. He did not, of course, tell the American people what the alternative would have been.

The states currently face massive shortfalls in their budgets and money provided by the stimulus package is the only way for them to maintain critical services. Some Republican governors have said that they will refuse the stimulus money because they believe that it is wasteful and does not effectively address the economic crisis. The stimulus package provides for the governors to be over ruled by their state legislatures in regards to accepting the money. I have no doubt that those states will end up accepting the money because economic reality will always win out over political ideology.

So what would America look like if the Republican version of the stimulus were enacted? We can look to a state like Louisiana for an example. When Bobby Jindal took over, the public schools were ranked 21st in the nation, this year they are ranked 35th. Fiscal conservatism is a fine ideal, but what is the cost in human terms? New York City has a $700 million shortfall for education funding for the upcoming fiscal year. Without the money from the stimulus, the city would be unable to pay for thousands of teachers. To republicans, that wouldn't be much of a problem. They would simply say that economic reality is that those in public school would simply have to do with less. The stimulus also provides for extended unemployment benefits. The Republican alternative would have no relief for those whose benefits have expired. The stimulus package provides money for health care. What would republicans say to those states who do not have the money to provide health care to the elderly? They would say that is the cost of fiscal responsibility.

The reality is that without help from the federal government, the states would have to cut back so severely on public services that the effects would be felt by almost every citizen. Services like garbage pick up would have to be cut back. Policemen and firemen would have to be laid off. The services provided by social workers, teachers, transit workers, health care providers and others would have to be dramatically scaled back. That is the reality of the republican alternative. It is the same reality that we have lived with for the past 30 years. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Newt Gingrich's big proposal to combat the economic crisis is to eliminate the capital gains tax!!#!?? How does that help middle and lower class Americans through this crisis? The answer is it doesn't, of course, but then when in the last 30 years have the republicans cared about that.

The reason that the Republicans refuse to illustrate their vision of what America would look like under their leadership is because they know that the American people would never buy it. So instead of laying out a viable alternative, they attack the President and his policies. Spending! they scream. Socialism! they bellow. Communism! they chant. But at the end of the day, they have no new answers to the problems that were created over the past 30 years. As our economy contracts to levels not seen in over a decade, the republican response is more of the same. The rich will eventually help the poor if we make them rich enough. That mantra however, does not feed or educate our children. It does not get medicine to the elderly. It does not keep former working families out of soon to be disappearing shelters.

The republicans pray for the failure of the presidents policies so that they can be returned to power. They realize the consequences if Obama fails, but they don't care. Power is their ultimate goal. The power to say who the government can help and who gets left behind. That is the reason for their opposition to the current administration. It is not about the amount of money being spent, but about where it is targeted.