Here's a thorough examination of the current state of politics in Ohio. As an important swing-state in the presidential election, many eyes will be focused here over the next 6 months of campaigning.
"Lodge 141 of the Fraternal Order of Police is housed, along with 446 jail cells, inside the Mahoning County Justice Center, a forbidding brick and steel hulk at the edge of the frayed downtown of Youngstown, Ohio. It’s a humble office, but its proprietors have embellished it with a number of rather pointed political decorations. There is a spoof of Shepard Fairey’s iconic Barack Obama poster, with the face of Ohio’s Republican governor, John Kasich, in place of the president’s and the word “DOUCHE” written across the bottom instead of “HOPE.” There is a newspaper clip describing protests by police officers last year in Columbus, the state capital. And there is a quotation from Martin Luther King decrying “right-to-work” laws, which limit the power of unions."
You can read the entire piece here.
Showing posts with label 2012 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 Election. Show all posts
Monday, May 21, 2012
Obama Pushes For Economic Stimulus Over Austerity at G8 Summit
This weekend, President Obama held an informal summit of the G8 leaders at
Camp David, prior to the NATO summit being held in Chicago on Sunday and Monday.
The talks of the this first-of-its-kind Camp David meeting focused primarily on
the volatile economic woes plaguing much of Europe and its effects on the U.S.’s
tepid economic recovery.
President Obama offered his take on the situation in Europe, addressing concerns of Spain’s worsening fiscal crisis and Greece’s possible exit from the European Union, and the disastrous effects a Greece default will have on the rest of Europe, which would surely send shockwaves throughout much of the world and certainly have an impact on the economy here at home. The President pushed for the G8 leaders to assure Greece’s stability and the rest of Europe’s commitment to keeping Greece in the Union, but more importantly spoke of the necessity for Europe to relinquish their intractable stance on austerity measures that have recoiled Europe back into recession. The good news for President Obama is that he will surely have a new ally in his calls for less austerity and more stimulus in France’s newly-elected President, Francois Hollande. Hollande is the first socialist president France has elected since the early 1990′s, and won the French election a few weeks ago on a populist wave amidst growing criticism of the austerity measures that has left Europe reeling with record unemployment.
Obama’s increased pressure on Europe to enact stimulus measures should come as no surprise to those familiar with the President’s leanings. The stimulus plan the President passed after taking office in 2009 was nearly a $1 trillion, but he wanted more. Republicans wouldn’t do it, and Obama compromised, partly because the severity of the recession was still unknown to many, and the administration reduced the amount from $1.2 trillion to about $800 billion. The stimulus, by most accounts, saved anywhere from 2-4 million people from losing their jobs during the worst of the recession. Since that time, Obama has spoken often of the need for more spending and stimulus, but a Republican-controlled Congress is absolutely unwilling to negotiate any new spending measures unless offset by cuts in other departments (excluding defense, of course…), and will do nothing at this point if it will add to the deficit, nothing except reduce taxes on the wealthy, which account for an immense portion of our current deficit.
I feel Obama’s posturing on the plight facing Europe will be viewed as strictly political. I’m anticipating pundits dismissing the President’s recommendations to his fellow G8 allies as a way to stave off critique should the economies in Europe continue to decline and those effects make their way across the Atlantic. If our economy should falter, unemployment rise, stocks dip, any of these things, Obama’s re-election chances become even slimmer.
But aren’t Mitt Romney’s attacks on the President’s handling of the economy after the recession also political? Aren’t the things pretty much any elected politician do political? Yes, they are. Obama’s hardened stance on Europe’s austerity failure should not be viewed as political, should not be construed as ‘saving his skin’ when it comes to criticism for the country’s economic woes. The President was elected to help the American people. A weakened economy in Europe will certainly be felt here before too long with our economic situation so anemic. The President is trying to prevent hardship on the people he was elected to protect. And, you know, he’s trying to lessen the burden so many Europeans are feeling because of the failed policies of austerity economics.
President Obama offered his take on the situation in Europe, addressing concerns of Spain’s worsening fiscal crisis and Greece’s possible exit from the European Union, and the disastrous effects a Greece default will have on the rest of Europe, which would surely send shockwaves throughout much of the world and certainly have an impact on the economy here at home. The President pushed for the G8 leaders to assure Greece’s stability and the rest of Europe’s commitment to keeping Greece in the Union, but more importantly spoke of the necessity for Europe to relinquish their intractable stance on austerity measures that have recoiled Europe back into recession. The good news for President Obama is that he will surely have a new ally in his calls for less austerity and more stimulus in France’s newly-elected President, Francois Hollande. Hollande is the first socialist president France has elected since the early 1990′s, and won the French election a few weeks ago on a populist wave amidst growing criticism of the austerity measures that has left Europe reeling with record unemployment.
Obama’s increased pressure on Europe to enact stimulus measures should come as no surprise to those familiar with the President’s leanings. The stimulus plan the President passed after taking office in 2009 was nearly a $1 trillion, but he wanted more. Republicans wouldn’t do it, and Obama compromised, partly because the severity of the recession was still unknown to many, and the administration reduced the amount from $1.2 trillion to about $800 billion. The stimulus, by most accounts, saved anywhere from 2-4 million people from losing their jobs during the worst of the recession. Since that time, Obama has spoken often of the need for more spending and stimulus, but a Republican-controlled Congress is absolutely unwilling to negotiate any new spending measures unless offset by cuts in other departments (excluding defense, of course…), and will do nothing at this point if it will add to the deficit, nothing except reduce taxes on the wealthy, which account for an immense portion of our current deficit.
I feel Obama’s posturing on the plight facing Europe will be viewed as strictly political. I’m anticipating pundits dismissing the President’s recommendations to his fellow G8 allies as a way to stave off critique should the economies in Europe continue to decline and those effects make their way across the Atlantic. If our economy should falter, unemployment rise, stocks dip, any of these things, Obama’s re-election chances become even slimmer.
But aren’t Mitt Romney’s attacks on the President’s handling of the economy after the recession also political? Aren’t the things pretty much any elected politician do political? Yes, they are. Obama’s hardened stance on Europe’s austerity failure should not be viewed as political, should not be construed as ‘saving his skin’ when it comes to criticism for the country’s economic woes. The President was elected to help the American people. A weakened economy in Europe will certainly be felt here before too long with our economic situation so anemic. The President is trying to prevent hardship on the people he was elected to protect. And, you know, he’s trying to lessen the burden so many Europeans are feeling because of the failed policies of austerity economics.
Cory Booker Doesn't Like Obama Bain Ad, Realizes Later He's Not Allowed to Think For Himself
On Sunday morning’s Meet the Press, Newark Mayor Cory Booker had some pointed criticism for President Barack Obama’s recent campaign ads attacking Mitt Romney’s record as a “job creator” with Bain Capital. Booker, comparing the Obama ads with Republican ads that were going to air (but now will not) drawing comparisons to Obama’s ties with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, said these kinds of campaign tactics were “nauseating.”
“This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It’s nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough,” Booker said during the round-table discussion.
This was apparently ill-advised criticism of the President’s re-election campaign strategy as Sunday night Booker posted a video to YouTube clarifying his remarks and insisting it is “reasonable” for the Obama team to criticize Romney’s Bain Capital rhetoric.
In the video, Mayor Booker tries to clarify that it’s not the content of the ad that he found nauseating, per se, but the denegrating trend of campaign ads. Booker does not find the Obama campaign’s use of Romney’s Bain record as nauseating. In fact, since Romney himself has made his economic policies a forefront of his campaign, he believes the Obama campaign is “reasonable” to use Bain criticism against Romney, and Booker actually “encourages” it. What the Mayor finds “nauseating” is the use of Romney’s Bain Capital record in TV ads because Romney’s record at Bain Capital had so many negative outcomes! In other words: ‘It’s okay to attack Romney’s record for all the negative outcomes he had with Bain Capital, just don’t make a negative campaign ad.’ This makes no sense.
Towards the beginning of Booker’s Sunday night video, he says, “And now [Obama's] focus on other issues going forward to me provide the best hope for our nation moving forward.” [My emphasis added.] It’s funny that Mayor Booker should use the term “forward” since it’s essentially what the Obama campaign is boiling their campaign message down to be. Were there some phone calls made Sunday to Mayor Booker about what he should be saying when he’s on TV?
Since when did it become impossible to think for yourself in politics? Just because you align yourself with a particular political affiliation, this does not mean you have to agree with that party on every single thing!! I commend Cory Booker for taking a stand and saying what he thinks about Obama’s campaign focus so far.
Besides now taking both sides of the “What’s fair game in campaign ads?” debate, Booker did offer some important criticism for Team Obama towards the end of Sunday night’s YouTube video. We need to “focus on the issues that count,” Booker says. He’s right. As I’ve said before, the Obama campaign is far too focused on their past accomplishments and with simply painting Romney as a far-right, ‘back to the days of George Bush’ candidate. The Obama campaign is offering little to their supporters of what we can expect from him over the next 4 years if we vote for him in November. With less than 6 months before the election, it’s high-time Obama’s supporters are told exactly what he plans to do next.
Monday, May 7, 2012
France, Greece Elections Referendum on Austerity Economics
Over the weekend, several countries in Europe held elections and the changes
were wide-spreading. But it was in France and Greece where the largest impacts
of Europe’s economic crisis could be felt.
In Greece, voters made apparent their displeasure with the country’s handling of their debt crisis, specifically the eurozone deal signed by the former Parliamentary leaders which has led to strict austerity measures increasing the countries economic issues with rising unemployment (now at 21%) and thousands of small businesses shuttering their doors. New Democracy and PASOK, the country’s political powerhouses over the last 40 years, suffered immense losses, receiving only 33% of the total vote – less than half of the vote total they received during the last elections in 2009. The two parties will hold 150 seats in Parliament, not enough to form a coalition government. Rejecting the policies of Greece’s ruling elite, voters instead turned to other political factions, notably the Syriza party, which came in second behind New Democracy’s 19% with 16.6% of the vote. The broad consensus of voters want Greece to remain in the Eurozone, but reject the notion of austerity as the most pressing option for handling the debt crisis. Antonis Samaras, the New Democracy party leader said the newly formed government should have two exclusive aims: first, to stay in the euro; second, to “amend the terms of the loan agreements so there is economic growth and relief for Greek society.”
Renegotiating the terms of the euro bailout likely just
became much easier for Parliament in Greece with France’s Nicolas Sarkozy losing
to socialist challenger Francois Hollande. Sarkozy and Angela Merkel,
Germany’s Chancellor, were the most vocal proponents of the austerity measures
taking hold throughout much of Europe, arguing for strict budget cuts to reduce
deficits, which would in turn restore “confidence” to the markets and that would
spur growth. However, that has yet to happen and most countries that adopted
austerity have now dipped back into a recession, as we pointed
out in this column last week. Austerity has failed
in Europe, and voters saw Sarkozy as having failed to restore the country to
its pre-recession levels. Now, with Hollande as President, France can be assured
to take a more proactive role in the budget cuts imposed by the Merkel-Sarkozy
European treaty, opting instead for increased spending and more government
stimulus to return the french, and Europeans in general back to work.
And how does this affect the United States? The implications are varied. Are most Americans aware of the failure of austerity economics in Europe, and thus reject the calls of many conservative politicians to cut spending? Will Americans view the rise of a “socialist” leader in France as threatening and thus reject any idea of ‘wealth redistribution’? (There has been plenty of ‘wealth redistribution’ in the country over the last 3 1/2 decades from the poor and middle classes to the top, but not many see this as such a bad thing; it’s only when it works the other way do some cry foul.) Is the impatience of the Greeks and the French indicative of the impatience of Americans, that no matter who is in office, if they failed to fix things quick enough, the voters are looking for someone different? Will the changing governments in Greece and France be able to enact any palpable, substantive change in the next 6 months prior to our own election to act as a marker? It’s hard to say. All we know right now is Europeans were unhappy and they sent a clear message to their own governments and the other governments around them: it’s high time someone was held accountable.
In Greece, voters made apparent their displeasure with the country’s handling of their debt crisis, specifically the eurozone deal signed by the former Parliamentary leaders which has led to strict austerity measures increasing the countries economic issues with rising unemployment (now at 21%) and thousands of small businesses shuttering their doors. New Democracy and PASOK, the country’s political powerhouses over the last 40 years, suffered immense losses, receiving only 33% of the total vote – less than half of the vote total they received during the last elections in 2009. The two parties will hold 150 seats in Parliament, not enough to form a coalition government. Rejecting the policies of Greece’s ruling elite, voters instead turned to other political factions, notably the Syriza party, which came in second behind New Democracy’s 19% with 16.6% of the vote. The broad consensus of voters want Greece to remain in the Eurozone, but reject the notion of austerity as the most pressing option for handling the debt crisis. Antonis Samaras, the New Democracy party leader said the newly formed government should have two exclusive aims: first, to stay in the euro; second, to “amend the terms of the loan agreements so there is economic growth and relief for Greek society.”
And how does this affect the United States? The implications are varied. Are most Americans aware of the failure of austerity economics in Europe, and thus reject the calls of many conservative politicians to cut spending? Will Americans view the rise of a “socialist” leader in France as threatening and thus reject any idea of ‘wealth redistribution’? (There has been plenty of ‘wealth redistribution’ in the country over the last 3 1/2 decades from the poor and middle classes to the top, but not many see this as such a bad thing; it’s only when it works the other way do some cry foul.) Is the impatience of the Greeks and the French indicative of the impatience of Americans, that no matter who is in office, if they failed to fix things quick enough, the voters are looking for someone different? Will the changing governments in Greece and France be able to enact any palpable, substantive change in the next 6 months prior to our own election to act as a marker? It’s hard to say. All we know right now is Europeans were unhappy and they sent a clear message to their own governments and the other governments around them: it’s high time someone was held accountable.
Friday, May 4, 2012
More Proof This Week Obama Is Not A Socialist
A few weeks ago, Rep. Allen West (R-FL), made some incendiary comments to a group of supporters claiming there were "about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party." Those are some pretty specific numbers, prompting many to question exactly who these card-carrying socialists are. He has yet to provide names. Seems the Right missed the "Red Scare" days and wanted to live vicariously through those great times once again. We're going to hear a whole lot until November about how socialist Democrats are, and it all starts with the de facto head of their party, (President) Barack Obama. Actually, we've been hearing President Obama is a socialist since Day-1 in office. Oh wait, he was a socialist back in 2007-8 too when he was running for president. Republicans want so badly to convince voters of this fact. It's been 5 years since Barack Obama burst onto the national scene and conservatives have yet to prove it. And this week, with just a couple stories of the economy, it's shown once again how far the Right's fear-mongering veers from any semblance of truth.
On Thursday, one-time Republican presidential nominee front-runner, and purporter of HPV vaccines causing mental retardation, Michelle Bachmann, endorsed Mitt Romney for the presidential nomination. In her endorsement, Bachmann says that Romney is "the last chance we have to keep America from going ... over a cliff." Bachmann is not one to be great with facts. So, it's not really surprising that she'd forget America went off a cliff towards the end of 2008. Jeez, must be another cliff down here somewhere. But Bachmann is one of the consistent demagogues of the House (along with Rep. West) appealing to people's fears that Democrats and Barack Obama are socialists and leading the country down the path to communism.
The President isn't, never has been, and never will. He's a firm believer of the free market system. In his latest interview with Rolling Stone, Obama says, "The free market is the greatest generator of wealth in history. I'm a firm believer in the free market, and the capacity of Americans to start a business, pursue their dreams and strike it rich." The President has never advocated simply taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. He has, however, been a strong voice against the corruption that has ensnared the country and politicians through the unequal distribution of wealth not seen since prior to The Great Depression. This does not make him a socialist. It shows he is conscious of some of the deep underlying issues plaguing this country. I could go on, but I'll stop, because we have some very clear evidence this week (again) contrary to Republican claims that Obama is a socialist.
On Tuesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached a 4-year high on news that manufacturing in the U.S. had reached a 10-month high. Wall Street and investors have returned to the level from before the Great Recession. If Obama had instilled some socialist policies, wouldn't it be the poor and middle class who had actually recovered first after the recession? Well, they haven't. In fact, we have Friday's jobs report now and the numbers are not good. Only 115,000 jobs were created. The three month average is 170,000, but that's down from 218,000 from the previous three months. Obama can point to the fact that the unemployment rate ticked down to 8.1%, but a heavy caveat hangs on that number since 342,000 people dropped out of the work force. (According to Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the CBPP, that number is actually fairly consistent; so we shouldn't place too much emphasis on it.) And then there's the data on average hourly earnings for workers: it went up one penny. One stinkin' cent. That's not enough to keep up with inflation, so the poor and middle class are feeling the pinch even worse this month. Socialist? I don't think so.
You might not agree with the President on everything. I don't agree with the President on everything. But let's quit with all this fear-mongering Communist nonsense, please. Let's get to the root of the problem. Let's solve our problems with cooperation, not division.
The President isn't, never has been, and never will. He's a firm believer of the free market system. In his latest interview with Rolling Stone, Obama says, "The free market is the greatest generator of wealth in history. I'm a firm believer in the free market, and the capacity of Americans to start a business, pursue their dreams and strike it rich." The President has never advocated simply taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. He has, however, been a strong voice against the corruption that has ensnared the country and politicians through the unequal distribution of wealth not seen since prior to The Great Depression. This does not make him a socialist. It shows he is conscious of some of the deep underlying issues plaguing this country. I could go on, but I'll stop, because we have some very clear evidence this week (again) contrary to Republican claims that Obama is a socialist.
On Tuesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached a 4-year high on news that manufacturing in the U.S. had reached a 10-month high. Wall Street and investors have returned to the level from before the Great Recession. If Obama had instilled some socialist policies, wouldn't it be the poor and middle class who had actually recovered first after the recession? Well, they haven't. In fact, we have Friday's jobs report now and the numbers are not good. Only 115,000 jobs were created. The three month average is 170,000, but that's down from 218,000 from the previous three months. Obama can point to the fact that the unemployment rate ticked down to 8.1%, but a heavy caveat hangs on that number since 342,000 people dropped out of the work force. (According to Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the CBPP, that number is actually fairly consistent; so we shouldn't place too much emphasis on it.) And then there's the data on average hourly earnings for workers: it went up one penny. One stinkin' cent. That's not enough to keep up with inflation, so the poor and middle class are feeling the pinch even worse this month. Socialist? I don't think so.
You might not agree with the President on everything. I don't agree with the President on everything. But let's quit with all this fear-mongering Communist nonsense, please. Let's get to the root of the problem. Let's solve our problems with cooperation, not division.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Obama Trying Too Hard For 'Cool' Vote?
I wasn’t going to even watch the video of Obama slow jamming. It just didn’t seem that interesting. Sure, it’s funny, but it’s not like Obama hasn’t done late night shows before. Then I saw something about Fox and Friends host Gretchen Carlson calling his appearance on Fallon, “nutso.” Being Fox and Friends, I didn’t think much of it. The backlash continued. A Missouri GOP House Member was reported to say in apparent response to the video that student loans gave America “stage three cancer of socialism.” Even that was not reason for me to watch. Republicans in the House have said much worse. But now we have George Stephanopoulos, of all people, reducing the issue to, “Campaigning for the ‘Cool’ Vote.” I drew the line. No, George. The President is just trying to do what is right.
Stephanopoulos questioning whether the President is simply using this as a wedge device between himself and his presumptive opponent, Mitt Romney, is not totally ludicrous. Much has already been made this week about President Obama’s sliding popularity with young voters. But Obama’s push to keep student loan rates constant is not some pedantic attempt to win the youth vote. The President is doing what should be done. Middle and low income families are the ones struggling right now. The highest income earners are not, and have not struggled for decades. The GOP has blocked any and all attempts to request the wealthy start paying a little more in taxes because they argue during a recession ‘is not the time to raise taxes.’ They argue taxes should remain at their current level (extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy), even if it adds to the deficit, because now ‘is not the time to raise taxes.’ Why then, for the sake of the economy, is there a fight to take money out of the hands of lower and middle income families? Money that pays off student loan debt will not be spent in the marketplace. We’re already dangerously close to dipping back into a recession. Taking money from the consumers’ hands makes no sense. The President recognizes this, he recognizes the struggles that everyone but the ultra-wealthy are experiencing right now. Even Mitt Romney recognizes the GOP is botching this one. He’s come out in support of the extension, though he too endorsed Paul Ryan’s House budget.
Stephanopoulos’ analysis is, in my view, completely off the mark and devoid of import. His concern is: ‘Who does this help come election time?’ and ‘Is Obama pandering?’ His morning show routine has made him complacent to ask the difficult questions. In a country of disillusioned youth, a generation who view their own government not as ally but foe, we need a President who can identify with this new generation of voters, who can laugh with them, and maybe come out to the ‘playground’ for a game every so often. They don’t need another authority figure in their lives telling them what to do. They need someone who is listening (and will occasionally sing a slow jam).
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Romney's Campaign Slogan Should Be 'War is Good'
Yahoo! had this piece up this morning sparking a little dialogue in me:
Romney has embraced the Paul Ryan budget, which by many factors will explode the deficit by giving the rich and wealthy more tax breaks and cutting essential services that the poor and middle classes depend on, including Social Security, Medicaid, benefits for veterans, environmental regulations (by cutting the EPA), and many, many more. What Romney however has no intention of cutting is the military budget, pledging to expand the Pentagon's budget, even more than most deficit hawk GOPers would do. I think Mitt Romney should unveil his new campaign slogan, 'War is Good,' because that's the only slogan that seems to fit with his campaign plan.
Even though most Americans oppose broad cuts to the above mentioned items, as well as a quick exit from Afghanistan - Romney has been on record several times saying he would stay in Afghanistan and would use military force to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - he still maintains these highly contentious points at odds with public opinion. But for the life of me, I can't understand why so many people still say they'll vote for him.
And it also raises and oft repeated line from the Occupy Wall Street protests, and the Occupy movement in general: "Why is it we have money for War, but nothing for Education?" I'd like to ask Mr. Romney that question some time.
Romney has embraced the Paul Ryan budget, which by many factors will explode the deficit by giving the rich and wealthy more tax breaks and cutting essential services that the poor and middle classes depend on, including Social Security, Medicaid, benefits for veterans, environmental regulations (by cutting the EPA), and many, many more. What Romney however has no intention of cutting is the military budget, pledging to expand the Pentagon's budget, even more than most deficit hawk GOPers would do. I think Mitt Romney should unveil his new campaign slogan, 'War is Good,' because that's the only slogan that seems to fit with his campaign plan.
Even though most Americans oppose broad cuts to the above mentioned items, as well as a quick exit from Afghanistan - Romney has been on record several times saying he would stay in Afghanistan and would use military force to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - he still maintains these highly contentious points at odds with public opinion. But for the life of me, I can't understand why so many people still say they'll vote for him.
And it also raises and oft repeated line from the Occupy Wall Street protests, and the Occupy movement in general: "Why is it we have money for War, but nothing for Education?" I'd like to ask Mr. Romney that question some time.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Washington Dysfunction: Buffett Rule Defeated (For Now)
Yesterday, the Senate voted down debate on the ‘Buffett Rule,’ effectively ending push by Democrats, including President Obama, the most vocal proponent of the law, to make the rule law. In a highly partisan vote, the measure was voted down 51-45, with only one Republican voting to continue debate, and one Democrat voting against the bill.
Republicans, with their blind intransigence to any sort of tax increase, do not see the bill as a viable solution to addressing either the deficit problem or unemployment. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has a better idea (more on that shortly).
Republicans essentially have two points of contention with the ‘Buffett Rule’. One, they argue, is that the bill does not significantly address the mounting debt in the country, which is true. The bill will only raise about $46 billion over 10 years. And that money would likely go to small businesses in the form of tax breaks for hiring new workers. Their second contention is that the target group, those making more than $1 million per year, is unfairly asked to pay an even greater share of the overall tax burden. Republicans argue that the wealthy pay an enormous sum of federal taxes, while many in the middle and lower classes pay nothing at all. Again, that’s all true, but when the top 20% control 80% of the total wealth of the country, yet only pay 40% of the total tax burden, their argument loses some leverage. And what Republicans never account in their “the wealthy pay enough taxes” argument is that the middle and lower classes pay a substantially higher proportion of their tax burden in state, local, and payroll taxes.
Republicans do, however, have an alternative solution. House Majority Leader Cantor is expected to bring a bill forward this week targeting tax breaks for small businesses in an attempt to spur investment and hopefully new hiring. The problems with Cantor’s bill are that one: the $47 billion price tag is simply going to be added to the deficit, a seemingly anathema proposal to Republicans over the past two years, but now do not seem to think much of a problem since tax breaks always lead to new hiring and hence more tax revenue. Except they don’t… And that’s the second problem, the Republican alternative relies solely on optimism and that business leaders will invariably invest their tax breaks back into their business to grow. But without customers, businesses are not likely to do any such thing.
But I think this latest squabble again encapsulates perfectly the growing dysfunction in Washington. Republicans propose a plan that adds roughly $45 billion on to the deficit. Democrats have a plan ready to raise roughly $45 billion over the same time period. Why is it so difficult for any of the over 400 members of the House, or the 100 members in the Senate to see they need only put these two bills together? The costs offset. Republicans get their small-business tax breaks to spur investment (a popular position with the American people). Democrats get to raise taxes on the wealthy and address ever-so slightly the deficit problem (popular positions with the American people).
But I don’t foresee this happening. By doing so, Republicans would inadvertently admit that you can spur investment and growth by taking slightly from the rich and giving to the poor(er).
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Rick Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign
Monday, April 9, 2012
Dems Target Romney Tax Loophole
"Under current tax law, certain kinds of financiers, including private equity investors and some managers of hedge funds, are allowed to treat bonuses like long-term investment income, called carried interest, taxable at the maximum 15 percent capital gains rate. Others have to pay up to 35 percent taxes on their labor income. The cost to the U.S. Treasury is more than $1 billion a year."
Continue reading here.
President Opposes Minnesota's Gay Marriage Amendment
The GOP's war of religion continues. Across the country, state legislatures have sought to restrict access to contraception for women in the name of "religious freedom," a thinly veiled attempt to restrict women's reproductive rights. And in Minnesota, the state is now seeking to restrict the rights of the LGBT community by proposing Amendment One, a law to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The state already has a same-sex marriage ban in place.
But in response, the Obama campaign in Minnesota has come out against the proposed amendment. In a statement from Kristen Sosanie, spokeswoman for the President's election campaign in Minnesota, "While the President does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples. That's what the Minnesota ballot initiative would do -- it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples -- and that's why the President does not support it."
While the President's stance on gay marriage continues to "evolve" (whatever that means), it's good to see them drawing attention to this issue in Minnesota and the GOP's continued hypocrisy on individual freedom and the question of repressive religious regimes on individual rights.
Romney's Swiss Bank Account
The conference call held between Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Ill), and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill), revolved around discussion of the 'Buffett Rule,' a law the Senate plans to bring up for a vote on April 15th, tax day. The 'Buffett Rule' seeks to raise revenue in order to reduce the deficit by closing tax loopholes that unproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans and help to ensure every American is paying their fair share. Income inequality in America is at an all-time high, where the richest 1% of Americans own over 40% of the total wealth of the nation (a figure unseen since right before The Great Depression), continue to slowly siphon wealth from the middle- and lower-classes, while the lower classes are increasingly squeezed by rising food and gas prices as well as budget cuts at the state and federal level.
And Mitt Romney seems to be the ideal poster-child for this widening income gap in America. Besides a majority of Americans supporting increased taxes on the rich, Romney has embraced Paul Ryan's "marvelous" budget presented by the House last week. Romney paid less than 15% in federal taxes over the last two years, despite making millions of dollars. He worked for Bain Capital, a venture capital firm notorious for buying struggling companies, laying off workers and selling the company for enormous profits while leaving them shackled in debt. Now, the Obama campaign wants to focus their attacks on Romney's overseas accounts, asking 'Why do you have a Swiss Bank account?'
I think Warren Buffett's response best captures the essence of the inquiry. Durbin asked the billionaire investor if he had a Swiss Bank account. Buffett simply responded, "No, there are plenty of good banks in the United States."
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Romney credits Bush for Economic Recovery?
Wow! Here's a case of the most virulent flip-flop in political history. Okay, it's probably not. But seriously! Mitt Romney has done nothing on the campaign trail but spoken of President Obama's failure to bring the economy out of the recession and that with Romney's business background, he's the best choice this fall to fix the economy. But, whoops! The economy is doing better now (though still a long way from recovery) and most economic projections are pointing to a sustained recovery from here on out. So, what do we get?
Mitt Romney: "I keep hearing the president say he's responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression," Romney said at a town hall in Arbutus, Maryland. "No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson."
Here's what Jonathan Chait at New York magazine has to say in response: "[T]he Wall Street bailout is actually a huge political liability for Obama because it’s incredibly unpopular and most Americans think Obama, not Bush, signed it. So having Romney run around reminding people that Bush bailed out Wall Street is actually Obama’s prayer answered..." continue reading here.
Not to worry though. This is all part of the Romney campaign's Etch-A-Sketch tactic. They'll just give Romney a little shake tomorrow and it'll be like it never happened!
Mitt Romney: "I keep hearing the president say he's responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression," Romney said at a town hall in Arbutus, Maryland. "No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson."
Here's what Jonathan Chait at New York magazine has to say in response: "[T]he Wall Street bailout is actually a huge political liability for Obama because it’s incredibly unpopular and most Americans think Obama, not Bush, signed it. So having Romney run around reminding people that Bush bailed out Wall Street is actually Obama’s prayer answered..." continue reading here.
Not to worry though. This is all part of the Romney campaign's Etch-A-Sketch tactic. They'll just give Romney a little shake tomorrow and it'll be like it never happened!
Monday, March 12, 2012
Primary Preview: Newt and Santorum on Edge
Tuesday’s Alabama and Mississippi primaries are all-important for Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Each are staking their campaigns on how well they perform Tuesday night, and bolstering that whoever loses should drop out.
Gingrich has essentially been banking his campaign on his performance in the South since the Florida primary loss to Mitt Romney. Gingrich at the time knew the northern contests in Michigan and Ohio would not play well to his favor and never put much into those primaries. Now Gingrich has a chance to prove his candidacy, and legitimize his reluctance to drop from the race, by showing he’s a strong favorite through the south and that, for instance, if Rick Santorum were to drop out, Gingrich could sway a large portion of Santorum’s voters his way to defeat Romney.
This is ostensibly the same argument Rick Santorum is making. In light of last week’s primary wins in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, and his near victory in Ohio, the Santorum campaign has publicly pressured Gingrich to drop out, arguing voters will coalesce behind him to defeat Romney.
Both candidates have strong cases for the other to concede defeat. Anti-Romney sentiment runs high in the GOP, seeing his wealth as a bulwark to connect with the average voter – and his gaffe-prone campaign cements that image nearly every day. Romney also does not have strong support in the south. Gingrich is from Georgia and can easily wrap up several southeast states in the general election. If voters are given Romney as the candidate, they may be willing to vote for Obama simply based on the improving conditions of the economy. Santorum, in contrast, polls well with southerners on social issues and can pull the evangelical vote his way throughout the south and the beltway. The evangelical voting-block could be essential for republicans this fall if they stand any chance of winning the White House. A poll today of likely GOP voters shows that a large majority of Alabama and Mississippi voters do not believe the President’s continued stated admission of his Christian beliefs and think he is a Muslim. But let’s be honest, Mississippi and Alabama also rank in the bottom 5 in education with some of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country. So, there’s that.
But maybe Romney still has the best argument for both Santorum and Gingrich to drop out. According to weekend polling in Mississippi and Alabama, Romney is virtually in a dead-heat with these other candidates. If he doesn’t win either state outright, he’ll still secure some delegates and inch ever-closer to the magic 1,144 needed for the nomination. And after last week’s big Ohio victory, the Romney campaign began making their case that they should be the nominee. Of course, it’s not about policies or that he really is the better candidate. It’s math! The Romney campaign thinks the others should drop out because they can’t possibly reach 1,144 delegates now, so, just get out! I know nobody wants me to win, but I’ve got a twenty run lead. You should just forfeit now in the bottom of the third. I’ll pay you…
~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker and AmericanLP
Gingrich has essentially been banking his campaign on his performance in the South since the Florida primary loss to Mitt Romney. Gingrich at the time knew the northern contests in Michigan and Ohio would not play well to his favor and never put much into those primaries. Now Gingrich has a chance to prove his candidacy, and legitimize his reluctance to drop from the race, by showing he’s a strong favorite through the south and that, for instance, if Rick Santorum were to drop out, Gingrich could sway a large portion of Santorum’s voters his way to defeat Romney.
This is ostensibly the same argument Rick Santorum is making. In light of last week’s primary wins in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, and his near victory in Ohio, the Santorum campaign has publicly pressured Gingrich to drop out, arguing voters will coalesce behind him to defeat Romney.
Both candidates have strong cases for the other to concede defeat. Anti-Romney sentiment runs high in the GOP, seeing his wealth as a bulwark to connect with the average voter – and his gaffe-prone campaign cements that image nearly every day. Romney also does not have strong support in the south. Gingrich is from Georgia and can easily wrap up several southeast states in the general election. If voters are given Romney as the candidate, they may be willing to vote for Obama simply based on the improving conditions of the economy. Santorum, in contrast, polls well with southerners on social issues and can pull the evangelical vote his way throughout the south and the beltway. The evangelical voting-block could be essential for republicans this fall if they stand any chance of winning the White House. A poll today of likely GOP voters shows that a large majority of Alabama and Mississippi voters do not believe the President’s continued stated admission of his Christian beliefs and think he is a Muslim. But let’s be honest, Mississippi and Alabama also rank in the bottom 5 in education with some of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country. So, there’s that.
But maybe Romney still has the best argument for both Santorum and Gingrich to drop out. According to weekend polling in Mississippi and Alabama, Romney is virtually in a dead-heat with these other candidates. If he doesn’t win either state outright, he’ll still secure some delegates and inch ever-closer to the magic 1,144 needed for the nomination. And after last week’s big Ohio victory, the Romney campaign began making their case that they should be the nominee. Of course, it’s not about policies or that he really is the better candidate. It’s math! The Romney campaign thinks the others should drop out because they can’t possibly reach 1,144 delegates now, so, just get out! I know nobody wants me to win, but I’ve got a twenty run lead. You should just forfeit now in the bottom of the third. I’ll pay you…
~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker and AmericanLP
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Rick Santorum Sinks Low
Rick Santorum has taken his current front-runner status in the GOP primary as a sign that he no longer needs to worry about his GOP contenders, but instead should start focusing his attacks on his presumptive opponent in the presidential race, President Obama. One might think Santorum, a former Pennsylvania Senator, would be attacking the President’s policies over the three years Obama's served in office, or maybe something the President did while in the Senate. No. It seems Santorum wants to forego debating what the President has done for this country (politics aside: staved-off an economic depression; saved the American auto-industry; provided access to health insurance for millions of Americans who couldn’t get it before; the list goes on…) and the administration’s policies and just go ahead and attack the man himself, unbelievably questioning the President’s core religious beliefs. On Saturday, Santorum said the President’s agenda is tied to “some phony theology” not based on the bible. I think in the next couple of days we’ll even see some on the right bemoaning Santorum’s remarks and saying he went too far. So far, of course, the Obama campaign has disavowed the remarks. Robert Gibbs, adviser to Obama’s re-election campaign, said on ABC’s This Week that Santorum’s remark, “crossed the line.” Surely, it did. But I also think this speaks largely to the campaign itself. As the economy continues to improve, it’s going to be harder and harder for the GOP candidates to argue how the President’s economic policies have actually hurt the country. And that’s what this election is all about. It’s about the economy, the most important issue on voters’ minds. What this shows to me, as well as the contraception ‘controversy’ drummed up over the past few weeks, is that the GOP are desperately searching for cultural issues as wedge devices in the upcoming election to pull independent voters their way. Will this Bush-era tactic work? I’m sure that some voters will be swayed, but for the vast majority of them, especially liberals and the all-important independent group, this will only serve to further pull them from ever voting 'right' again.
And speaking of running the country on a campaign ‘based’on the bible,' here’s an excellent clip from The West Wing season 2. Imagine if we did have a President who based how the country should be run only on the words of that outdated text.
And speaking of running the country on a campaign ‘based’on the bible,' here’s an excellent clip from The West Wing season 2. Imagine if we did have a President who based how the country should be run only on the words of that outdated text.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Sucker PAC'ed
President Obama today reversed his long-standing position on super PACs and his supporters donating to them. For a long time Obama has spoken of the dangers of the super PACs and the potential threat they pose to our elections and to democracy as a whole. Since the Citizens United decision back in January 2010, PACs have been able to raise unlimited amounts of money to spend in political campaigns without having to disclose their contributors, nor do the politicians affiliated with these PACs have to admit to any collaboration with them. These PACs have dwarfed the standard PACs of the past, and hence have now become "super" PACs simply based on the financial muscle they can now flex in influencing voters through attack ads. Some have argued that this wouldn't happen, but it's pretty clear the impact super PACs are going to have on the 2012 Presidential election already as evidenced by the brutal Republican primary currently taking place.
Now that Obama has changed his stance on the issue, how will this fair for his campaign and the democratic base. Over at The Huffington Post, Sam Stein writes an intuitive article on the potential impacts it could have on the left and Obama's supporters in general. And I have to agree mostly with what he is saying here. It does not seem likely that the base will abandon the President at all (especially given the choice of potential candidates coming out of the right). Sure, they're going to be angry with the President for a little while, but they will likely see this as consolation for the very nature the Citizens United decision has cast over the country. Just look at what the Koch brothers announced at a dinner this past weekend. The thing is, this presidential election is going to be costly and it's going to be downright ugly. The republicans have already shown their hand. They're attacking one another maliciously. Once the dust settles there, and all these super PACs focus their attention on the left, it's going to be worse. I for one will be happy the President has some allies in his corner to help. I don't like it, certainly, but he can't bring a knife to a gun fight.
But here is what I would hope the President does. He needs to continue to denounce super PACs and the Citizens United decision in general. He needs to reestablish his push for campaign finance reform, even though now it may seem hypocritical and he may have a hard time selling the public in general. But I think if he doubles-down on campaign finance reform he can at least appease the dissatisfied voters that are going to pop up because of this decision. And it's not really being hypocritical. Just because he wants to amend the rules of the game he's playing, doesn't mean he can't play by the rules already established. Mitt Romney made such a case for his 13.9% effective tax rate. After receiving initial criticism for for how little Romney actually pays in taxes, and that he has money in offshore tax havens, he argued not to begrudge him, he's just using the rule of law. And it's true. But Romney has made no mention that he wants to balance the disparities of the tax code (his tax plan will actually make it worse). President Obama still has the chance to do this, to make this argument against his opponents trying to draw him as hypocritical for this decision. Play the game by the rules. If you see a better way for the game to be played, make your voice heard and the people will follow.
Now that Obama has changed his stance on the issue, how will this fair for his campaign and the democratic base. Over at The Huffington Post, Sam Stein writes an intuitive article on the potential impacts it could have on the left and Obama's supporters in general. And I have to agree mostly with what he is saying here. It does not seem likely that the base will abandon the President at all (especially given the choice of potential candidates coming out of the right). Sure, they're going to be angry with the President for a little while, but they will likely see this as consolation for the very nature the Citizens United decision has cast over the country. Just look at what the Koch brothers announced at a dinner this past weekend. The thing is, this presidential election is going to be costly and it's going to be downright ugly. The republicans have already shown their hand. They're attacking one another maliciously. Once the dust settles there, and all these super PACs focus their attention on the left, it's going to be worse. I for one will be happy the President has some allies in his corner to help. I don't like it, certainly, but he can't bring a knife to a gun fight.
But here is what I would hope the President does. He needs to continue to denounce super PACs and the Citizens United decision in general. He needs to reestablish his push for campaign finance reform, even though now it may seem hypocritical and he may have a hard time selling the public in general. But I think if he doubles-down on campaign finance reform he can at least appease the dissatisfied voters that are going to pop up because of this decision. And it's not really being hypocritical. Just because he wants to amend the rules of the game he's playing, doesn't mean he can't play by the rules already established. Mitt Romney made such a case for his 13.9% effective tax rate. After receiving initial criticism for for how little Romney actually pays in taxes, and that he has money in offshore tax havens, he argued not to begrudge him, he's just using the rule of law. And it's true. But Romney has made no mention that he wants to balance the disparities of the tax code (his tax plan will actually make it worse). President Obama still has the chance to do this, to make this argument against his opponents trying to draw him as hypocritical for this decision. Play the game by the rules. If you see a better way for the game to be played, make your voice heard and the people will follow.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)