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.
Tensions are running high between the United States and Iran right now, maybe a bit more than usual. That's the thing though, it's usual these days. Ever since the last president invaded Iraq to rid that regime of its' imagined weapons of mass destruction, the Middle East has become increasingly destabilized. Iraq, for all its faults, at least kept the far more radical Iranian government in check. But with Saddam Hussein's overthrow, Iran was left with few obstacles to grab a more prominent position in the Middle East and the world. And now we're in the midst of a struggle with Iran over nuclear weapons. They want nuclear capability and contest they do not seek a nuclear weapon. The United States, much at the behest of Israel, seeks to keep them from obtaining any sort of nuclear weapon, while simultaneous diplomacy is working to not over extend our influence in a wary Middle East and allow them nuclear capacity for energy if they so choose.
Virtually all of the Iran stories of late have contained some version of this sort of rhetorical sophistry. The news “hook” in most all of these stories is that intelligence reports reveal Iran is “willing” to attack us or go to war – but then there’s usually an asterisk next to the headline, and when you follow the asterisk, it reads something like, “In the event that we attack Iran first.”
As Glenn Greenwald points out, it's the media (and the Senate) this time frantically beating the drums of war with Iran, not the Presidential administration. Erin Burnett over at CNN seems to me the worst offender. It's Sunday morning as I write this. Of the stories currently listed on the front page of her blog, she has not 1, not 2, but 3 out of 5 stories rabble rousing the public to believe Iran is some sort of serious threat (and why-oh-why is Rudy Guiliani still talking).
The main problem is that Iran is in no way a major threat to the United States, or even to Israel. As both Taibbi and Greenwald point out, James Clapper, head of US Director of National Intelligence, has explicitly stated that he does not believe Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, in line with thinking Iran abandoned its' nuclear weapons program back in 2003. Even Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary, said, "The intelligence does not show that they've made the decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon."
So why the drowning media coverage? For one, the media likes war. It's something that can be followed and reported 24-7. War offers filler, and the Republican presidential debates can only fill so much time!
Second, the reporting is also partly to blame on the public (and again, the Republican candidates share some culpability here). The presidential candidates have all talked-up the Iranian threat and how their government can under no circumstances be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. They have called President Obama weak for his diplomatic approach, even though, as we've established, the threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is very slim right now. But the problem is that people actually watch these debates and they begin to think Iran actually does have the capacity for nuclear arms and to strike American soil. In fact, nearly 50% of the country currently believes we should use military force to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is the same war-weary public that wants to end the conflict in Afghanistan. This is the ouroboros. The media schedules debates, where they question the candidates' stance on Iran's nuclear program. The candidates then tout their puissance on the issue, how threatening Iran is, and how the United States must stand by Israel. The public then thinks Iran is a serious threat, and the next time the media does a poll, more people are suddenly in favor of military action. The media pretends the issue is dire. They ask more about it and frighten ever-more people.
