Obama's Debt Problem? He's Served Leftovers

We’re going to see a lot over the next few months prior to the 2012 Election (as maybe some of you have seen already these past few months) charts and graphs excoriating President Obama’s lavish “spending” and how he will have increased the debt by nearly $5 trillion dollars over his first term, equal to Pres. George W. Bush’s full two terms in office. In truth, that’s a hell of a lot of money. And since Congress is steadfast in their opposition to any revenue raising legislation, our debt “crisis” will only get worse if conservatives win this election. But how is this even possible? How could Obama gorge himself so substantially in just a few years to the same tune as Pres. Bush did in eight? Well, turns out these figures only explain half the problem. It wasn’t that Obama waltzed up to the “per-pound” buffet and just started piling food on the plate. Sure, he went and picked a few of the things he liked, but when GWB got up from the table, he slid a mass of half-eaten food right onto President Obama’s plate before cutting out on the bill.

Last year, during the debt-ceiling debacle, Republicans were quick to judge Obama’s policies over his first two full years in office as “out of control spending”. The debt had already risen substantially during Obama’s first term in office, and someone had to put their foot down and say, “No more.” Republicans, led by a hungry scad of new Tea Party legislators, were just the team for the job. But while conservatives were quick to chastise the President, and liberals in general, for their lavish spending, most notably the $1 trillion stimulus package, they failed to recognize that much of the fast-increasing debt was from policies that they enacted during a Bush II presidency.

The previous winter, Republicans held lower- and middle-class tax cuts hostage unless tax cuts for the very rich, those making over $250,000 per year, were extended also, i.e. the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts contributed to over $1.8 trillion worth of Bush’s total debt by time he left office, and they continue to do so today. It should be noted as well, that this figure alone disproves the mantra that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves by spurring new hiring and hence increasing tax revenue from the working class. If that were true, the Bush Tax Cuts would have reduced the deficit.

And then there’re the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These mired military engagements have cost a staggering sum, not only in dollars, but in American morale and American lives. And really, what have we gained? That’s a discussion for another time. But these are Bush-era holdovers, Republican policies gone awry, and Obama is left to clean it up. Indeed, he has done an exceptional, responsible job in this regard, ending military operations in Iraq and continuing to wind down our involvement in Afghanistan.

What we have is a large bevy of Bush-era policies, continued by Republicans through the Obama administration, that are the sole reason for our national debt issues. But don’t take my word for it. This chart was released amidst the debt-ceiling debate last year highlighting new policies enacted under George W. Bush and new policies enacted during Obama’s first term in office.

The contextual view is that Obama’s policies have increased the debt, but his new policy measures were only temporary expenditures meant to stabilize a depressing economy. If he had not been shackled with so many poor policy decisions of the previous administration, the country would be in a considerably better position now than we are. If the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest had not been extended, that would be $1 trillion off Obama’s “tag” right there. If Bush hadn’t let the housing bubble inflate and burst so disastrously, Obama wouldn’t have needed his own stimulus package (it does one well to remember that Bush bailed out the banks and enacted his own stimulus package in the wake of the financial crash of 2008), and been left with high unemployment leading to decreased tax revenues, both of which are impacting the debt substantially.

I mean, these are pretty clear numbers here. Based on the policies Obama has enacted, he will only raise the deficit less than $1.5 trillion over an 8 year period. That’s 1/3 of Bush’s total over that same time period. The massive increase in debt over the past few years has been partly due to the stimulus and the effects of the Great Recession, but the rest has been the leftovers from what will be considered one of the worst presidencies in American history. Yes, there is some validity in the argument that Obama should have been stronger and Democrats should have done more to end Bush’s ridiculous policies. I agree with that. But when it comes to the deficit hawks’ fanatical insistence showing “Obama’s out of control spending,” it’s all just politics to get a Republican back into office to continue the same policies Bush used to bloat our national debt in the first place.

"Bogus" Study Touted By The Washington Post

Last night, reports circulated that a new study showing the Affordable Care Act, pejoratively known as Obamacare, and more widely known as health-care reform, will actually increase the deficit. The study was completed by Republican Medicare trustee, and former Bush administration official, Charles Blahous. The Washington Post legitimized the study by pointing to Blahous' "trustee"signature, so surely it must be credible. Right? Unfortunately, as many have started to point out, Blahous' math is erroneous and it turns out that in fact the CBO analysis that the ACA will reduce the deficit is still correct. I'm still at a loss as to how this became such big news so quickly. It should not be incredibly shocking that a Republican and The Washington Post would argue against health-care reform.

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!

Obama and the Contraceptive Accommodation

I guess one of the things I find most appealing about Facebook is the access to information and opinion from my friends that I don’t find elsewhere. And I think the impersonal dialogue that exists through the site gives people incentive to write things they might not normally say during a conversation. For me personally it provides a gateway to my friends’ point-of-view that normally I do not think I would know. The contraception “controversy” dogging President Obama through the last couple of weeks has again provided a basis for some personal introspection on my part, some friendly banter on Facebook, and some evolving perspective on the issue.

It started with a link of mine to an article on Truthout.Org describing how this contraception issue is mostly being drummed by a partisan right-wing agenda to shift the upcoming presidential election towards social issues rather than the economy. The reason being this issue of having employers (including religious institutions) provide birth control care in their insurance plans has been law since 2000 and the Bush administration coming into office did absolutely nothing to appeal the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ruling that denying contraceptive care is in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination based on sex. So, clearly, this was never a problem until a democrat was in office and then it became an ‘example’ of “government overreach by this administration”.

My point in linking the article was to highlight this GOP hypocrisy, but a friend commented about the ruling itself, having also fallen into the trap that the government is only now overstepping its bounds (and never did in the previous 8 years of the Bush presidency). He mocked that toothpaste will be the next thing the government will require employers to cover in their insurance plans. I responded that that was ridiculous because toothpaste is over-the-counter, and further tried to make my point that I was not addressing the contraception issue per se (for my views on it were initially that I think religious organizations should be allowed to deny birth control coverage based on freedom of religion), but, again, the hypocrisy of the GOP to make this an issue now. My friend then posted this:

“Here’s what I think. I read an article about how England lost their right to own firearms. It started slowly and pitted gun owners against each other. The government first outlawed automatic firearms. This only affected persons who owned automatic firearms so everyone else who owned semi-autos, bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Next the government outlawed semi-autos. So everyone that owned bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Then they outlawed bolt actions and so on and so forth. In England, all firearms owners should have stood together to fight the bans whether it affected them of not, but they didn’t and the government was able to break them down piece by piece. I see this contraception deal as the same thing. Non-Catholics are saying, 'Why do we care? We believe in contraception and preventative pregnancy.' What non-Catholics should be saying is, 'We do not share the Catholic Church’s belief on contraception, but we stand behind them in their Constitutional right to believe and practice their religious views.' This isn’t about me being Republican and you being Democrat. This is about a slippery slope. This is the first step toward the Government impeding the free exercise of religion. This isn’t some conspiracy theory,[sic] it’s just what governments eventually do.”

After pointing out that my friend should read Martin Niemoller’s “First They Came...” quote on the rise of Nazi Germany, I dove into an argument showing how I think President Obama’s shift to exempt religious organizations/businesses from this Affordable Care Act requirement was a “slippery slope” inclined the other way. (Note: the administration is now shifting the burden of covering contraception to insurance companies.) In my view, offering this accommodation to businesses with religious affiliations creates the opportunity for other businesses to deny contraceptive coverage, not only because they might have a moral/religious objection to contraception, but because they might want to save a little money instead of provide care to their employees. What were to happen if one of the largest insurance companies in the country decided that they had moral objections to contraception because some of their top executives suddenly became devout 'Catholics'? And when businesses are granted special privileges, why can’t a state or local government not be offered these same exemptions to discriminate against women for contraceptive use? And the current GOP front runner for the presidential nomination is Rick Santorum, who has been running on a staunchly evangelical platform and wants a Constitutional Amendment banning all contraceptives. This outcome seems like the next step in accommodating one religious group, or in reality what we should classify the Catholic Church as, this one business. The more I think about this issue, the more I side with President Obama’s initial take on this (and the one the EEOC deemed in 2000) is that no one group should be allowed to discriminate from any one group.

And I think it bears to mention, that Ron Paul, who has a strong backing all over the country for the GOP nomination, believes the Civil Rights Act was itself unconstitutional and should be repealed, and by extension would disagree with the EEOC’s ruling. Paul, a long-serving Texas Congressman, seems to me a very dangerous individual to have in office. Congressman Paul thinks that if a business, a person, or really anybody, wants to discriminate against a race, a sex, or any other group they have it within their rights to do so. Paul does not seem to understand that one individual’s freedom cannot be limitless. According to Immanuel Kant, the famous German philosopher, individual freedom extends only to the cusp of infringing on another’s freedom. Sure, you have the right to own a gun, but if your right to have that gun to kill me infringes on my right to life, then you should have to relinquish that right. Such are the basis for laws. Such balance is the basis for the Civil Rights Act, and the mandate in the Affordable Care Act to require employers to cover contraception. Government has an obligation to protect the citizenry no matter of race, religion, or creed. It has an obligation to thwart any person or entity who wishes to restrict the autonomy of another.

President Bill Clinton in 2004 Daily Show Appearance

     

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bill Clinton Pt.1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

     
Watching some old clips of The Daily Show, I stumbled upon this little gem of the first time former President Bill Clinton went on the show. The segment is dated August 9, 2004, which puts it right in the middle of the 2004 Presidential campaign between George W. Bush and John Kerry. Jon Stewart asks this interesting question: "Why is that a campaign commercial doesn't have to be as truthful as, let's say, a toothpaste commercial?" It's a good question, and Mr. Clinton offers a thorough answer saying, in essence, that the media does fact-check these ads, and is getting better at doing it. But the issue seems to be why are these ads even on the air? We have rules against companies falsely advertising goods and services on TV, on the radio, or any other media format so as not to intentionally lead the public into believing something that is demonstrably false, and this does not seem an issue with many "constitutionalists" as a violation of the First Amendment. But, why do we allow campaign ads such a luxury when, theoretically, they have the potential to be far more damaging to the country as a whole? Shouldn't someone propose a stop to this?

Unemployment Rate Falls Once Again

Last Friday, the unemployment rate once again fell, January now the 23rd straight month of job creation for the country. In December, the unemployment rate was 8.5%. In January, the economy added 243,000 jobs, much higher than predicted, and the rate of unemployed fell to 8.3%. While this is certainly good news, there is still plenty or volatility in the economy to create worry and fears of a double-dip recession, as was seen when December's jobs report was released with 200,000 jobs added. However, this time the news is almost unequivocally positive. All major sectors -- agriculture, manufacturing, etc. -- posted better than expected numbers and it's becoming less and less likely that the long-term unemployed are dropping out of unemployment since finding a job is becoming easier and easier. This fact created much trepidation over the past year. The falling unemployment rate was met with incredulity by many. They were argued the numbers were inaccurate because people were not finding jobs, they simply had given up hope. Not this time around though.

Analysts expected January would fair about as well as December, with only the modest sum of 200,000 jobs created again. But the new figures released Friday show an almost 25% increase in the numbers predicted. And this is good news for everybody -- almost.

The Republican Presidential candidates have been berating President Obama on the campaign trail, excoriating his "failed" policies, arguing that the President has done nothing to bring America back out of the Great Recession (never mind an obstructionist Congress, which has yet to pass any jobs legislation since winning back the House, and several Senate seats in 2010). But this argument only holds up as long as the economy continues to move along sluggishly. January's jobs report makes this argument into Swiss cheese and Republicans are already on the defensive.

For months they've talked of failed policy, but now they're changing their tune. Now they argue that it's not so much President Obama's policies have failed, but had a Republican been in office, the economy would have rebounded sooner. With a Republican President, they contend, job growth would have been far more robust, and that with Obama in office, says current front runner, Mitt Romney, "[He] has not helped the process. He's hurt it." If these numbers do continue at this steady clip, Gov. Romney finds himself in an awkward position trying to defend that statement. And even if Obama only gets one or two more months of job growth, that's put him at 24 months, 2 years, half of his presidency at least of job growth in the country. Coming out of the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression, that's not a bad record to hold. In contrast, the last administration created only 3 million jobs in 8 years, and there were two recessions, covering 22 months, during the 96 months George W. Bush was in office. President Obama has seen more job growth under his 3 years in office than Bush saw over the span of 8 years. Say what you want about his ideals, his positions, his place of birth. The President has done some remarkable work in the face of staunch political opposition and the deep crater of a country he inherited.

Elitists Vs. The 1%

I was reading through Paul Krugman's piece today in the New York Times and was struck by a sudden realization. We hear quite a bit in the media about these "elitists" who are these privileged, upper class, intellectuals that have ruined the country in numerous, countless ways. Now, there are "Right Wing Elitists" such as former President George W. Bush. And then there are "Left Wing Elitists" such as our current president, Mr. Obama. But I believe there is a discordant variation of the way the media portrays these two "different" groups.

If you were to Google "Michelle Malkin elitist" you'd find a few links to her blog and the above image will come up. These blog entries chastise the President for his apparent hypocrisy of pointing out other elitists while trying to play himself off as an average American. And we hear all the time on Fox News of "liberal elites" who are subverting the country and have taken it over(!) already. Just refer back to Glenn Beck's satirical, conspiracy-theorist run on Fox for plenty of reference material. And these elitists must be stopped at all costs from further damaging the country.



What we have from the other side of the aisle is a fixation on the 1%, the wealthiest Americans who have siphoned money for the last 30 years from the middle and lower classes, who have bought elections, and silenced the press and freedom of speech. But these are the "job creators" and hence are sacrosanct in GOP rhetoric. And therein lies the hypocrisy of the Right's defense of the 1% in light of the Occupy Wall Street protests. The right cannot stand that a contingent of the population is protesting the abuses of the wealthy, but it is the wealthy 1% who are the "elitists" the right seems to believe have destroyed the fabric of America. They can't have it both ways. Either the elites are helping the country by creating jobs, or the elites are hurting it by fundamentally stripping away our freedoms and luring us into a socialist state. The GOP needs to come to this same realization: elitists are the 1%. The funny thing is: I tend to agree with the assessment that elites have thrusts this country into a tailspin of corruption and greed.

Clinton Did It

Yesterday, Paul Ryan (R-WI), the GOP's next up-and-coming cretin released his Republican budget plan to reduce the deficit and reign in government, because government spending is out of control, or at least it has been since 2008 when George W. Bush left office (that's a strange coincidence). It'd be nice to think that Representative Ryan were sincere in his recommendations to reduce spending and balance the budget, but when he marks 2008 as a good point to return and then strictly stabilize spending, it's only political posturing. GWB increased the federal budget by 104%. In comparison, Pres. Bill Clinton increased the federal budget by only 11%. If Rep. Ryan were truly sincere about reducing the government, he might choose a better marker than the notoriously poor fiscal policies of George W. Bush. But besides this glaring omission from Ryan's reasoning, let's examine a few other interesting points, perhaps treating Rep. Ryan to a little history lesson in the meantime.

15 years ago, Pres. Bill Clinton balanced the budget and created a surplus. He did it with common sense fiscal austerity, not the extremely dangerous musings of the Tea Party-elected freshman in the House. Tthese people cry that cutting Planned Parenthood and NPR (just to name two examples) will magically fix our budget crisis it's almost laughable. But then you have polls released that show Americans think the government spends nearly $200B a year on such programs and you have to wonder how dumb this country actually is. But Clinton balanced the budget with those programs still wholly intact. Pres. Clinton did not make sweeping changes to Social Security or Medicare. He did raise taxes, but only 4.6% on the highest earners in the country. And in spite of Republicans' continued arguments that tax cuts lead to more jobs and tax increases lead to fewer ones, the economy boomed. Maybe Mr. Ryan should have just taken up a chair next to the former president to learn a thing or two.

Secondly, piggy-backing off the comment that Pres. Clinton created a surplus prior to leaving office, is that the current deficit was largely created by only two factors: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003. Yet Rep. Ryan likes to talk up that "entitlement" programs have been the main driving force behind our deficit problems, which just makes no sense mathematically.

And lastly, it should be noted that Pres. Obama has increased the federal budget. For a Democrat, that's not terribly surprising. But Rep. Ryan and all the other GOP windbags pout endlessly about some huge socialist agenda implemented by the President. Yet again there selectivist memory about history has quickly forgotten that the President increased spending so quickly because the country was on the verge of a depression and money needed to be poured into the economy or else it would have failed completely. And again, it should be said that George W. Bush watched idly as the housing bubble inflated and burst, without action- except of course to reward the companies that inflated the bubble. It would be nice to take Rep. Ryan's budget proposal seriously, but it'd just fill me with a lot of hot air.

A "Prayer" to End War

Several months after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, George W. Bush told Palestinian leaders at a Palestinian-Israeli summit that God told him to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan, and that he must end the tyranny in Iraq. The former president told them this statement in private, which was later disclosed for a BBC interview with one of the Palestinian leaders. This message was never overtly expressed in the reasoning leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Instead we were fed lies and mistruths of Iraq's possession of WMDs, despite all evidence proving there were none. Since the initial invasion, theories have swirled of whether these tales of WMDs were actually to paint legitimacy into a more sinister, totalitarian effort to secure oil fortunes, or that our deep theological differences was used as a prong to push the administration into conflict- a modern day Crusades. While one of these two reasons might be a better excuse for entering a conflict with the Middle East rather than lying about none existent weapons, neither justifies, in our modern world, military action. In fact, both are incredibly dangerous rationalizations. But the former president implicitly expressed such a sentiment to the Palestinians.

I'm not going to argue the case of criminal charges being brought against the former administration. President Obama has wrongly decided that no further inquiries into the invasion of Iraq will take place, and thus no accountability shouldered. But what I want to delve into here is the numerous "prayers" I see everywhere for an end to war. Don't freak out; I'm not about to start justifying or war-mongering in any sense, and will be first on line for a global peace treaty (I know, liberal idealism...). But what strikes me is that individuals reach out to God, a god, the God (I'm not sure) to end wars, while, as far as I can tell, it is God telling his followers to do the exact opposite. Deuteronomy 7:2: "and when the Lord your God delivers [seven nations greater and mightier] over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them." [Emphasis not added.] I'll avoid redundancy and just say the Bible offers a great many passages similar to this. The Torah: the same (obviously); the Quran: equally guilty of condoning violence as a means to an end.

And what is this end? Theological dominance; the utter destruction of competing religions (or simply competing beliefs) by the use of the sword. Why are we praying to God to end war? The only outcome is to wipe out all "non-believers," those who do not strictly follow one religion's beliefs. Praying for God to end war begets only more war, more bloodshed. The Crusades lasted nearly 200 years. I imagine many military generals at the time praying for an end to the fighting, but relinquishing their attacks only after the deaths of their enemies to regain the "Holy Land." I could see similar rationalizations offered during the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of Jews during World War II, and rattling around in George Bush's head prior to the invasion of Iraq. Of course they don't want to fight, but if someone disagrees with their faith, they're left no choice. Right? "It's not my fault officer, she made me hit her..." If God is listening and responding to prayers, isn't the answer going to be "defeat and utterly destroy" whomever is opposed? Deuteronomy 7:2 is a passage at its core of intolerance, notably God's. It's this perspective of God, the one touted by the Westboro Baptist Church, which is often erroneously brought forward when a particular belief of the church finds opposition.

Is war a constant of the universe? Competing organisms ranging from animals to plants, to microscopic bacteria are pitted in a seemingly endless battle to survive. Is war and fighting ingrained in the very fabric of all living organisms? Each cell composing our bodies fight daily to live. We are a mass of striving cells overpowering weaker ones for sustainability. Does the collective of these tiny organisms signal hostility to our brains, a feeling of threat, and trigger a defense mechanism? Have we evolved into hopelessly bellicose beings? No. Can religion end war? Perhaps. But are prayers of peace really any good when the being we are praying too would just as soon see billions perish? Maybe those who pray should send a prayer to God of tolerance, in part for Himself, but more for the raging wave of intolerance rushing towards the sandy shores.

Prayer is the hope of intervention by some divine force capable of doing what we feel we cannot, or providing answers to the questions we feel elude us. The power of tolerance is not something that should elude any individual, nor by necessity need divine intervention to achieve. Tolerance is a power within each and every human to treat another with mutual respect; we all contain the capacity of kindness and love that is not granted by God, but is intrinsically, inherently part of our being. We've never needed a book to teach us this.