It is seven days until the election. All the polls suggest a close election in the popular vote, but a landslide in the Electoral College. The polls are also encouraging in terms of numbers of seats to be picked up by Democrats, but Republicans have far from given up. They have tried so many tacks until now; they have tried lies, smears, McCarthyite guilt by association and now according to the Huffington Post even a distribution of a leaflet telling Democrats in Virginia that voting for them has been moved to Wednesday, November 5th.
After eight years of redistributing wealth upward to the top 2% of the electorate and nationalizing the banking system, they try to scare voters by charging that Obama will redistribute wealth from working Americans to a bunch of loafers, knowing full well none of this is true. They have seized on Obama’s promise to lower taxes for 95% of taxpayers when only 62% of households pay any income taxes. http://einshalom.com/archives/985 and they claim that this means that the remainder would actually get subsidies. What they are talking about sounds like a radical new scheme but it in fact is well imbedded in our tax code. It is called the earned income tax credit. It is such a radical idea that it was enacted during the Republican Administration of Richard Nixon and was supported by that apostle of the free markets Milton Friedman. The current credit has been expanded three times--once in 1986 during the Reagan Administration, again in 1993 under George Bush I, and again in 2001 in the Clinton Administration.
The idea of another expansion in an Obama Administration is hardly a radical idea but these naysayers try to make it appear so. Of course non-earners are not eligible because people without an income have no basis to file tax returns so this is not welfare for non-workers but an aid to the working poor.
They know that what Obama is talking about is reversing the trend of Americans working longer and harder with less and less reward for their labors. Since under Obama taxes will go down for all who make under $200,000 it is ludicrous to tell people at McCain rallies that they will be targeted, unless of course McCain has managed to assemble people at his rallies who make over $200,000. That may be true at his fundraisers, but it is unlikely at rallies of tens of thousands.
They also misrepresent the impact and the cost of the Obama tax plan a compared to the McCain one. The Washington Post has made a comparison. I set it forth below:
“According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.”
The Washington Post has tables that illustrate the enormous differences. They are worth studying closely.
As can be seen, McCain’s plan, like Bush’s, gives more and more to the wealthiest while Obama gives relief to the vast majority of the non rich Americans.
Even more interesting is the cost to the treasury of the respective plans. According to the Tax Policy Center while “both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.
Thus as can be evident McCain’s plans are more expensive and favor the rich. Haven’t we had enough of these kinds of policies?
Not surprisingly as more and more voters understand the priorities of the candidates they are flocking to Obama and the Democrats in the House and the Senate.
But now in the closing days of the campaign we hear the final plea. We must not allow Democrats to win a victory that would actually be big enough to allow them to govern. During this past Congress, when Democrats after years in the wilderness, finally achieved a Majority Republicans made it a matter of party policy to routinely filibuster almost all bills put forth by Democrats. The media has given the impression that it is a Senate requirement that 60 votes are needed to pass legislation in the Senate but that is far from true. Until now filibusters were relatively rare and were used primarily to block civil rights legislation. Now, however, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters so far in this first year of the 110th Congress. Compare this to 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88, and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed.
This is a deliberate calculated successful attempt to prevent the majority from doing the peoples business. It is deliberate action to enforce gridlock. And then during the campaign the have the nerve to denounce the Congress for getting nothing done.
The opposite is true. Democrats must be given large enough majorities to govern. If they have the power, responsibility will go with it. Gridlock cannot solve the recession, or the financial crisis or the health care crisis or any of the other problems that Democrats will inherit.
If we want our problems addressed we must not only get a new hand on the tiller we must have a captain with a crew so that they can steer the ship of state.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Are Deficits Good?
Are deficits good? Are they bad? Don’t they matter as Vice-president Cheney said some time ago?
Is increasing taxes good? Is increasing taxes bad? Is decreasing taxes good or bad?
My answer to all these questions is, it all depends.
By and large deficits are undesirable because they are a burden on the budget since interest must be paid on the debt, thereby placing a further burden on the budget in the form of an uncontrollable expenditure. During the last few years the payments on the debt have been the third highest item after Defense and Health and Human Resources. This year the US has paid $451 billion or almost a half trillion dollars in interest and the year is not yet ended. The National debt has gone over $10 trillion. According to the Wall Street Journal the budget deficit for fiscal 2008 will be $407 billion or more than double the deficit for 2007. In January 2004 President George W. Bush pledged to cut the annual deficit, which was $412 billion in fiscal 2004, in half within five years.
Instead as can be seen the deficit has ballooned.
McCain has pledged to balance the budget by 2012, which is probably even more hot air than Bush’s pledge was, when one considers that McCain wants to extend the tax on the super-wealthy and cut corporate taxes, as well as continue the war in Iraq. Total costs for the war from 2001-08 could top $800 billion, according to federal estimates.
It seems absurd for McCain to promise to balance the budget without ending the war, yet he has indicated a willingness to stay in Iraq for up to fifty or even 100 years, provided there are no American casualties, without ever considering the economic costs, which Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and self-described opponent of the war, puts at $1 trillion to $2 trillion, including $500 billion for the war and occupation and up to $300 billion in future health care costs for wounded troops.
So far the only expenditure McCain has identified for cost cutting is earmarks, which while desirable only amounts to $7.4 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, hardly an amount that would make a dent in our budget deficit.
But all these figures are simply background to my initial question are deficits good or bad. The answer is found in the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes to which I subscribe. During good economic times we should have a balanced budget. When the economy slows or goes into recession we must pump prime it and deficits are the way to do this.
To be sure when the Clinton Administration took office they inherited from twelve years of Republican misrule a failing economy and a $290 billion deficit and Clinton proposed raising taxes on the wealthy which would appear to have been the wrong prescription for a failing economy. But to a large extent the economy was handicapped by very high interest rates and Alan Greenspan then the Chairman of the independent Fed was not prepared to lower them unless the budget was in balance. Clinton correctly reached the conclusion that lower interest rates were vital to an economic recovery. His tax increase passed in the Congress on a tie vote with Vice President Gore casting the tiebreaker in favor of the tax increase. The result was a booming economy and a $100 billion surplus that was expected to quadruple in the decade ahead. Everybody was better off even the people whose taxes were being raised, because they ended up with more in their pockets after taxes than they had before the tax increase. There was even an expectation that before long the National Debt accumulated since the founding of the Republic would be wiped out. In other words a good tax increase.
The situation now is opposite. Interest rates as set by the Fed are at an all time low and so no lowering of interest rates can be effective in stimulating the economy. Therefore the only thing possible is to either lower taxes or increase spending, or a combination of the two, either of which would further increase the deficit and the debt. That is one of the main reasons that creating the deficit during a period of relative prosperity was so reckless, for it now means we need a deficit on top of an existing deficit. Whether, as McCain claims, we should further lower taxes on the rich to stimulate the economy depends on whether you are an apostle of Supply Side economics, as Bush, McCain and most Republicans are. This holds to the theory that if more money is made available to the producers in the economy they will buy more equipment, which will have to be made by others, thus creating a chain effect that will stimulate the economy. The fallacy in this theory is that no matter how much money is placed into the hands of producers, they will not increase their production capacity unless there is demand for its output. In order to increase demand, money must be put into the hands of consumers. To a limited extent this can be done by cutting their taxes, and Obama has proposed this, but the vast majority of Americans already have a fairly low tax exposure, and in a recession as more become unemployed and under-employed they have even less tax exposure. So this has a limited effect. A quicker and more satisfactory way of doing this is by directing money their way in the form of expenditures. This can be done in a variety of ways, some of which will have immediate effect and some will take effect at a later time. Thus increasing the duration of unemployment insurance has an immediate effect. Offering consumers bankruptcy protection, as corporation have when they cannot meet their debt obligations, has an immediate effect, and would ameliorate the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Lending money to states, who have lost much of their tax revenue as a result of the economic downturn would have an immediate effect, preventing the laying off of large numbers of state employees and the drastic cutting of social programs to people who can not be consumers without such aid. Somewhat slower in effect but crucial to the long term prosperity of the US economy is repairing and rebuilding our infrastructure, which has been neglected for too long, resulting in one bridge having fallen down and many others in danger of doing so. Our ports, crucial to our prosperity in a globalized economy are inadequate to the task of handling huge quantities of container cargo and the vital port of New Orleans desperately needs repair and upgrading. The US should take a leaf from the activities of the Dutch, whose port at Rotterdam is a paragon of efficiency and modernity. In a few years the Panama Canal will have been enlarged, allowing much larger container ships to ply these waters. Our ports must be ready to accommodate these greater loads.
No matter the cost, a new energy policy cannot wait. As has been pointed out we are now sending $700 billion dollars to import our energy supplies, a staggering drag on our economy even if it turns out to be half that. For us to drill our way out of it is nothing less than a myth. We do not have anywhere near enough reserves, and even if we allowed drilling everywhere, no matter what the ecological cost, it would still be a drop in the bucket, and would not come on stream for ten years or more. Nuclear energy could contribute a significant supply, but here too we are talking in excess of ten years and it is expensive. Especially now that the price of oil has come down, other forms of energy are no longer competitive. To make them competitive means giving subsidies to such alternative energy sources, which will further impact our deficit. The energy sources with the best potential are wind and solar energies, and we must be prepared to encourage their development by subsidizing their development and, if necessary, their use.
Health care reform cannot wait any longer. Our health care system is costing more and delivering less.
Reform will save enormous amounts further down the line and give people the care they need at a cost they can afford.
These and other needs of the country are not expenditures. They are investment that will repay us many times over.
One of the tragedies of ’29 was that there was orthodoxy that budgets must be balanced. We must not make that mistake again. The media seems to be fixated on this idea, and asked the candidates over and over what they would cut in view of the growing deficits. There are undoubtedly many places to cut where programs are not effective. A major saving in spending will be a dividend of the drawdown in Iraq. This drawdown may very well be the direct result of the Iraqis insisting on the end of the occupation. But the needs of our people and of our economy must be met. We cannot, we must not, cut the budget of the FDA or OSHA or toy inspections. By following policies that are consumer oriented, we will trickle the wealth upward instead of downward, and we will grow the economy, until we once again arrive at a balanced budget.
The discredited Supply side economics must see their well-deserved demise.
Is increasing taxes good? Is increasing taxes bad? Is decreasing taxes good or bad?
My answer to all these questions is, it all depends.
By and large deficits are undesirable because they are a burden on the budget since interest must be paid on the debt, thereby placing a further burden on the budget in the form of an uncontrollable expenditure. During the last few years the payments on the debt have been the third highest item after Defense and Health and Human Resources. This year the US has paid $451 billion or almost a half trillion dollars in interest and the year is not yet ended. The National debt has gone over $10 trillion. According to the Wall Street Journal the budget deficit for fiscal 2008 will be $407 billion or more than double the deficit for 2007. In January 2004 President George W. Bush pledged to cut the annual deficit, which was $412 billion in fiscal 2004, in half within five years.
Instead as can be seen the deficit has ballooned.
McCain has pledged to balance the budget by 2012, which is probably even more hot air than Bush’s pledge was, when one considers that McCain wants to extend the tax on the super-wealthy and cut corporate taxes, as well as continue the war in Iraq. Total costs for the war from 2001-08 could top $800 billion, according to federal estimates.
It seems absurd for McCain to promise to balance the budget without ending the war, yet he has indicated a willingness to stay in Iraq for up to fifty or even 100 years, provided there are no American casualties, without ever considering the economic costs, which Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and self-described opponent of the war, puts at $1 trillion to $2 trillion, including $500 billion for the war and occupation and up to $300 billion in future health care costs for wounded troops.
So far the only expenditure McCain has identified for cost cutting is earmarks, which while desirable only amounts to $7.4 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, hardly an amount that would make a dent in our budget deficit.
But all these figures are simply background to my initial question are deficits good or bad. The answer is found in the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes to which I subscribe. During good economic times we should have a balanced budget. When the economy slows or goes into recession we must pump prime it and deficits are the way to do this.
To be sure when the Clinton Administration took office they inherited from twelve years of Republican misrule a failing economy and a $290 billion deficit and Clinton proposed raising taxes on the wealthy which would appear to have been the wrong prescription for a failing economy. But to a large extent the economy was handicapped by very high interest rates and Alan Greenspan then the Chairman of the independent Fed was not prepared to lower them unless the budget was in balance. Clinton correctly reached the conclusion that lower interest rates were vital to an economic recovery. His tax increase passed in the Congress on a tie vote with Vice President Gore casting the tiebreaker in favor of the tax increase. The result was a booming economy and a $100 billion surplus that was expected to quadruple in the decade ahead. Everybody was better off even the people whose taxes were being raised, because they ended up with more in their pockets after taxes than they had before the tax increase. There was even an expectation that before long the National Debt accumulated since the founding of the Republic would be wiped out. In other words a good tax increase.
The situation now is opposite. Interest rates as set by the Fed are at an all time low and so no lowering of interest rates can be effective in stimulating the economy. Therefore the only thing possible is to either lower taxes or increase spending, or a combination of the two, either of which would further increase the deficit and the debt. That is one of the main reasons that creating the deficit during a period of relative prosperity was so reckless, for it now means we need a deficit on top of an existing deficit. Whether, as McCain claims, we should further lower taxes on the rich to stimulate the economy depends on whether you are an apostle of Supply Side economics, as Bush, McCain and most Republicans are. This holds to the theory that if more money is made available to the producers in the economy they will buy more equipment, which will have to be made by others, thus creating a chain effect that will stimulate the economy. The fallacy in this theory is that no matter how much money is placed into the hands of producers, they will not increase their production capacity unless there is demand for its output. In order to increase demand, money must be put into the hands of consumers. To a limited extent this can be done by cutting their taxes, and Obama has proposed this, but the vast majority of Americans already have a fairly low tax exposure, and in a recession as more become unemployed and under-employed they have even less tax exposure. So this has a limited effect. A quicker and more satisfactory way of doing this is by directing money their way in the form of expenditures. This can be done in a variety of ways, some of which will have immediate effect and some will take effect at a later time. Thus increasing the duration of unemployment insurance has an immediate effect. Offering consumers bankruptcy protection, as corporation have when they cannot meet their debt obligations, has an immediate effect, and would ameliorate the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Lending money to states, who have lost much of their tax revenue as a result of the economic downturn would have an immediate effect, preventing the laying off of large numbers of state employees and the drastic cutting of social programs to people who can not be consumers without such aid. Somewhat slower in effect but crucial to the long term prosperity of the US economy is repairing and rebuilding our infrastructure, which has been neglected for too long, resulting in one bridge having fallen down and many others in danger of doing so. Our ports, crucial to our prosperity in a globalized economy are inadequate to the task of handling huge quantities of container cargo and the vital port of New Orleans desperately needs repair and upgrading. The US should take a leaf from the activities of the Dutch, whose port at Rotterdam is a paragon of efficiency and modernity. In a few years the Panama Canal will have been enlarged, allowing much larger container ships to ply these waters. Our ports must be ready to accommodate these greater loads.
No matter the cost, a new energy policy cannot wait. As has been pointed out we are now sending $700 billion dollars to import our energy supplies, a staggering drag on our economy even if it turns out to be half that. For us to drill our way out of it is nothing less than a myth. We do not have anywhere near enough reserves, and even if we allowed drilling everywhere, no matter what the ecological cost, it would still be a drop in the bucket, and would not come on stream for ten years or more. Nuclear energy could contribute a significant supply, but here too we are talking in excess of ten years and it is expensive. Especially now that the price of oil has come down, other forms of energy are no longer competitive. To make them competitive means giving subsidies to such alternative energy sources, which will further impact our deficit. The energy sources with the best potential are wind and solar energies, and we must be prepared to encourage their development by subsidizing their development and, if necessary, their use.
Health care reform cannot wait any longer. Our health care system is costing more and delivering less.
Reform will save enormous amounts further down the line and give people the care they need at a cost they can afford.
These and other needs of the country are not expenditures. They are investment that will repay us many times over.
One of the tragedies of ’29 was that there was orthodoxy that budgets must be balanced. We must not make that mistake again. The media seems to be fixated on this idea, and asked the candidates over and over what they would cut in view of the growing deficits. There are undoubtedly many places to cut where programs are not effective. A major saving in spending will be a dividend of the drawdown in Iraq. This drawdown may very well be the direct result of the Iraqis insisting on the end of the occupation. But the needs of our people and of our economy must be met. We cannot, we must not, cut the budget of the FDA or OSHA or toy inspections. By following policies that are consumer oriented, we will trickle the wealth upward instead of downward, and we will grow the economy, until we once again arrive at a balanced budget.
The discredited Supply side economics must see their well-deserved demise.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Bush's Third Term
The Obama campaign keeps warning that John McCain is running for a third Bush term. I have concluded that as bad as that would be, a third Bush term would not be as bad as a McCain/Palin administration. Some of you might wonder how I could make such assertion, but when we look at the record we see that Bush in the waning days of his Presidency, and in an effort to save something of his legacy, has begun to moderate his confrontational foreign policy. After years of denouncing Clinton’s diplomatic approach to North Korea, which yielded increasing concessions by that dangerous regime, and after spending seven years of his Presidency with nothing but belligerency toward that nuclear power, even calling them one of the “axis of evil”, Bush has been resorting to diplomacy. His previous policy resulted in North Korea exploding a nuclear device in 2006. The new diplomatic stance has resulted in North Korea agreeing to resume disabling a plutonium plant and allowing some inspections to verify that it had halted its nuclear program as promised months earlier. John McCain who had earlier criticized the diplomatic effort, quickly expressed concern. (NY Times October 12, 2008)
Barack Obama has called for negotiations without preconditions with Iran as having more promise of getting results than simply making threats. The preconditions which Bush had demanded were that Iran stop reprocessing plutonium before we would talk to them, which of course would mean that Iran would have conceded the very thing which negotiations are supposed to accomplish. The Bush Administration has heeded Obama’s call for unconditional talks and sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the Iranians. (cnnpolitics.com July 16, 2008)
McCain has denounced such an approach and continues to insist on no talks until our conditions are met first. He thinks bombing Iran is a joke and sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of Barbara Ann. His running mate Sarah Palin and the person who would become Commander in Chief with her finger on the atomic button if anything should happen to McCain, said in her first interview since becoming the Republican nominee for vice president that the U.S. might have to go to war with Russia under certain circumstances. (The Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2008)
If the election were to be between a third Bush term and McCain I would vote for Bush. Thank God that is not the choice I, or anyone else, has to make. Yes, the economy and McCain total lack of comprehension as to what got us into this mess or how to get us out of it is what is on most people’s mind and national security is supposed to be McCain’s strong suit. But if anything, I find him and the woman he has chosen to be his running mate even scarier on defense policy than on the economy. But what have they offered us on the economy. They decided to change the subject. With the Standard and Poor having dropped 37.7% as of October 11 from the beginning of this year (even more since its last high) and having dropped 18.2% just the week of October 6th McCain took to a campaign of slander, with Palin accusing Obama of “hanging around with terrorists.” (October 4, 2008 Associated Press) Of course aside from the fact that Obama’s connection to William Ayers, a 1960s radical, is tenuous at best, they are trying to give the impression that Obama has a connection to what they call “Islamist terrorists” or specifically Al QAEDA, which of course fits into the underground slander, which claims Obama is a Muslim, when they know he is a Christian, and the use of Obama’s middle name, Hussein.
That didn’t seem to work and, lo and behold McCain switched tactics again. The Washington Post of October 11, 2008 reported:
“At the end of perhaps the most charged and negative week of the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain sought to tone down his rhetoric toward Sen. Barack Obama even as his running mate, allies and his own advertising continued to attack the character of the Democratic nominee.
“On Friday, McCain urged a crowd of skeptical supporters at a town hall forum in this Minneapolis suburb to be respectful of his rival for the presidency despite their deep policy differences with Obama.
“The Republican nominee drew a cascade of boos from the crowd when he called Obama ‘a decent person’ and told an expectant father that he does not have to be scared if he is president of the United States.
"We want to fight and I want to fight, but we will be respectful," McCain said, again prompting loud boos when he declared that he admires Obama's accomplishments. "I want everyone to be respectful, and let's be sure we are. . . . That doesn't mean you have to reduce your ferocity. It's just got to be respectful."
“At one point in the event, McCain grabbed back the microphone from an elderly woman who had begun to say that she didn't like Obama because he is an Arab. “ No, ma'am. No, ma'am," McCain said. ‘He's a decent family man, a citizen who I just happen to have serious differences with on fundamental questions."
“His comments came a day after an angry crowd at a Wisconsin rally shouted epithets about the Democratic nominee, pumped their fists angrily in the air and catcalled repeatedly when Obama's name was mentioned. Several called him a "socialist," and many flipped their middle finger as a press bus drove by.
“McCain appeared determined to respond Friday, saying that he respects Obama and only quieting the boos by saying "if I didn't think I would be one heck of a better president, I wouldn't be running."
“But throughout the day, McCain's allies and advertising unleashed a flurry of attacks on his rival's ethics, touting Obama's ties to a Vietnam War-era radical and accusing him of being connected to a group accused of engaging in voter fraud.
“He launched a tough new television ad linking Obama to William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed U.S. facilities in protest of the Vietnam War. The narrator in the ad says Obama "lied" about his relationship with Ayers and accuses the Democrat of "blind ambition, bad judgment." (For those who might want to hear McCain’s actual words defending Obama click here)
My first reaction upon seeing this video clip was to react positively and to say to myself, “Finally the old McCain is back, he may have the wrong policy prescriptions, but he is showing integrity” but then I realized that this is just another zig-zag in a McCain who will do anything to keep his chances of the Presidency alive. The smear was backfiring. The crowd, which he was addressing, was small and the media audience would be large. Maybe, just maybe, this might get him some independent voters. It is just another campaign tactic in the erratic and indecisive McCain campaign.
Jewish voters in Florida having been flooded with smears leaving many of them believing that Obama is a Muslim, which he is not, that he is an Arab, which he is not, that he is anti-Israel, which he is not. If McCain is sincere about his newfound integrity let him go to Florida and address elderly Jewish voters down there and tell them the truth. It may not get him elected, but at least he will have regained some measure of his integrity.
These Jewish voters as well as other voters may be interested in an article that appeared in the NJ Jewish Standard of October 10, 2008, which has the headline, “FOR SECOND TIME IN A MONTH, GOP THWARTS IRAN SANCTIONS” and goes on to say, “WASHINGTON – Republicans in the U.S. Senate have sunk anti-Iran sanctions for the second time in less than a month, drawing allegations that they are putting politics ahead of the need to confront Tehran’s nuclear program.
“Senate Democrats made one final bid last week to pass legislation that would tighten sanctions aimed at getting Iran to stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Among other things, the stalled measure would facilitate efforts to divest from the Islamic Republic.
“Republicans blocked it the evening of Oct. 2, leading Democrats once again to suggest that the GOP was playing politics by obstructing legislation championed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
“We’ve tried to get this done in this body; there’s been objection by the Republicans. That’s unfortunate,” said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader. He made his comments after Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) exercised his prerogative to obstruct the legislation.
“Senate Republicans continue to block anti-Iran sanctions introduced by Democrats, including U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd."
So much for Obama being soft on Iran or anti Israel.
Barack Obama has called for negotiations without preconditions with Iran as having more promise of getting results than simply making threats. The preconditions which Bush had demanded were that Iran stop reprocessing plutonium before we would talk to them, which of course would mean that Iran would have conceded the very thing which negotiations are supposed to accomplish. The Bush Administration has heeded Obama’s call for unconditional talks and sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the Iranians. (cnnpolitics.com July 16, 2008)
McCain has denounced such an approach and continues to insist on no talks until our conditions are met first. He thinks bombing Iran is a joke and sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of Barbara Ann. His running mate Sarah Palin and the person who would become Commander in Chief with her finger on the atomic button if anything should happen to McCain, said in her first interview since becoming the Republican nominee for vice president that the U.S. might have to go to war with Russia under certain circumstances. (The Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2008)
If the election were to be between a third Bush term and McCain I would vote for Bush. Thank God that is not the choice I, or anyone else, has to make. Yes, the economy and McCain total lack of comprehension as to what got us into this mess or how to get us out of it is what is on most people’s mind and national security is supposed to be McCain’s strong suit. But if anything, I find him and the woman he has chosen to be his running mate even scarier on defense policy than on the economy. But what have they offered us on the economy. They decided to change the subject. With the Standard and Poor having dropped 37.7% as of October 11 from the beginning of this year (even more since its last high) and having dropped 18.2% just the week of October 6th McCain took to a campaign of slander, with Palin accusing Obama of “hanging around with terrorists.” (October 4, 2008 Associated Press) Of course aside from the fact that Obama’s connection to William Ayers, a 1960s radical, is tenuous at best, they are trying to give the impression that Obama has a connection to what they call “Islamist terrorists” or specifically Al QAEDA, which of course fits into the underground slander, which claims Obama is a Muslim, when they know he is a Christian, and the use of Obama’s middle name, Hussein.
That didn’t seem to work and, lo and behold McCain switched tactics again. The Washington Post of October 11, 2008 reported:
“At the end of perhaps the most charged and negative week of the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain sought to tone down his rhetoric toward Sen. Barack Obama even as his running mate, allies and his own advertising continued to attack the character of the Democratic nominee.
“On Friday, McCain urged a crowd of skeptical supporters at a town hall forum in this Minneapolis suburb to be respectful of his rival for the presidency despite their deep policy differences with Obama.
“The Republican nominee drew a cascade of boos from the crowd when he called Obama ‘a decent person’ and told an expectant father that he does not have to be scared if he is president of the United States.
"We want to fight and I want to fight, but we will be respectful," McCain said, again prompting loud boos when he declared that he admires Obama's accomplishments. "I want everyone to be respectful, and let's be sure we are. . . . That doesn't mean you have to reduce your ferocity. It's just got to be respectful."
“At one point in the event, McCain grabbed back the microphone from an elderly woman who had begun to say that she didn't like Obama because he is an Arab. “ No, ma'am. No, ma'am," McCain said. ‘He's a decent family man, a citizen who I just happen to have serious differences with on fundamental questions."
“His comments came a day after an angry crowd at a Wisconsin rally shouted epithets about the Democratic nominee, pumped their fists angrily in the air and catcalled repeatedly when Obama's name was mentioned. Several called him a "socialist," and many flipped their middle finger as a press bus drove by.
“McCain appeared determined to respond Friday, saying that he respects Obama and only quieting the boos by saying "if I didn't think I would be one heck of a better president, I wouldn't be running."
“But throughout the day, McCain's allies and advertising unleashed a flurry of attacks on his rival's ethics, touting Obama's ties to a Vietnam War-era radical and accusing him of being connected to a group accused of engaging in voter fraud.
“He launched a tough new television ad linking Obama to William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed U.S. facilities in protest of the Vietnam War. The narrator in the ad says Obama "lied" about his relationship with Ayers and accuses the Democrat of "blind ambition, bad judgment." (For those who might want to hear McCain’s actual words defending Obama click here)
My first reaction upon seeing this video clip was to react positively and to say to myself, “Finally the old McCain is back, he may have the wrong policy prescriptions, but he is showing integrity” but then I realized that this is just another zig-zag in a McCain who will do anything to keep his chances of the Presidency alive. The smear was backfiring. The crowd, which he was addressing, was small and the media audience would be large. Maybe, just maybe, this might get him some independent voters. It is just another campaign tactic in the erratic and indecisive McCain campaign.
Jewish voters in Florida having been flooded with smears leaving many of them believing that Obama is a Muslim, which he is not, that he is an Arab, which he is not, that he is anti-Israel, which he is not. If McCain is sincere about his newfound integrity let him go to Florida and address elderly Jewish voters down there and tell them the truth. It may not get him elected, but at least he will have regained some measure of his integrity.
These Jewish voters as well as other voters may be interested in an article that appeared in the NJ Jewish Standard of October 10, 2008, which has the headline, “FOR SECOND TIME IN A MONTH, GOP THWARTS IRAN SANCTIONS” and goes on to say, “WASHINGTON – Republicans in the U.S. Senate have sunk anti-Iran sanctions for the second time in less than a month, drawing allegations that they are putting politics ahead of the need to confront Tehran’s nuclear program.
“Senate Democrats made one final bid last week to pass legislation that would tighten sanctions aimed at getting Iran to stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Among other things, the stalled measure would facilitate efforts to divest from the Islamic Republic.
“Republicans blocked it the evening of Oct. 2, leading Democrats once again to suggest that the GOP was playing politics by obstructing legislation championed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
“We’ve tried to get this done in this body; there’s been objection by the Republicans. That’s unfortunate,” said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader. He made his comments after Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) exercised his prerogative to obstruct the legislation.
“Senate Republicans continue to block anti-Iran sanctions introduced by Democrats, including U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd."
So much for Obama being soft on Iran or anti Israel.
Monday, October 06, 2008
“Country First”
“Country First”, “Country First” is the slogan of the McCain campaign. It is, of course, a way of attacking his opponents patriotism by implying that Obama does not put his country first, - a shameful slander that the old McCain might have disavowed. But what about McCain putting his country first? Is it putting the country first, when the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of 1930, prompts a display of posturing the likes of which has not been seen in a long time?
Shortly after Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, asked Congress for authority the invest $700 billion to buy distressed mortgage backed securities, McCain announced that he was suspending his Presidential campaign and returning to Washington to help solve the crisis. This was shortly after Obama telephoned McCain and suggested that they keep Presidential politics out of the crisis and issue a joint statement. McCain during this conversation never mentioned his intention to do anything unilateral, and tried to blind-side Obama by his announcement of campaign suspension. He then contacted the President and asked him to invite Obama and himself to a Washington conference. All this time McCain never let it be known what his position was on the treasury plan. At the conference McCain sat silently and contributed nothing, and none of his campaign commercials were withdrawn. He then totally reversed course, and rushed back to Oxford, Mississippi to attend a debate, which he had announced he would not attend. All this time he never set forth his position on the crisis, and never publicly urged his Republican brethren to vote one way or the other.
When the bill came up in the Senate, Obama took the floor and urged his colleagues to vote for the bill, without posturing or looking for photo-ops. McCain said nothing and voted for the bill. Is all this posturing, while playing it safe for as long as possible, putting “Country First”? If he was working behind the scenes to get Republican support for this unpopular bill, how come 2/3 of Republicans in the House voted against it?
And then there is Sarah Palin. Did McCain pick her as part of putting “Country First”? Was she really the best qualified person in the US to ascend to the Presidency in case McCain, who would be 76 by the time his first term ends and who has had a history of cancer, were to die or be incapacitated while in office? Or did he pick her because with her extreme right wing views she would stir up the base, which she has, you betcha. If he wanted someone with the executive experience of being a governor, he could have chosen from 22 Republican governors. Was Palin the best qualified of all these Republican governors?
McCain, the maverick, who will bring us the change we need! What happened to his maverick positions?
He sponsored the immigration bill that would have created a path for undocumented aliens to citizenship but when that interfered with his getting the Republican nomination he announced that he wouldn’t vote for his own bill.
He denounced the Bush tax cut as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and an irresponsible reduction in tax receipts, which would cause huge deficits, but when his predictions proved to be accurate, he reversed course and now denounces Obama for not wanting to extend those tax give aways.
He falsely accuses Obama of wanting to tax the middle class when he knows that Obama is pledged not to raise taxes one dime on anyone making less than $250,000, while he himself is advocating taxing the value of the Health Insurance working Americans get from their employers.
He sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act but now promises to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who are likely to hold it to be unconstitutional.
When he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, Senator John McCain denounced religious right leader Jerry Falwell as an ''evil" force whose message of ''intolerance" hurt the GOP and America. When he sought the Presidential nomination in 2008 he delivered the commencement address at Falwell's evangelical Christian college and of course Sarah Palin is another sop to those forces of intolerance. You betcha!
But one thing McCain was always consistent about and that was his opposition to regulation until now when he belatedly has decided that this is not a politically advantageous position. Now he will bring change and the regulations we need. Has he seen the light or is this more of his opportunism?
All this apparently hasn’t fooled enough people, for McCain’s campaign is floundering. He has fallen behind in the polls and has pulled his campaign out of Michigan. Apparently it is time for a new strategy. It isn’t going to be, “Drill Baby, Drill” any more. It’s going to be Slander Baby, Slander.
It is going to be about a man that Obama barely knows, who gave a $200 contribution to the Obama re-election fund, and who served with Obama on an eight-person Board of an anti-poverty group between 1999 and 2002, who is now distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago, but who was a member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974 when Obama was a child.
They are going to lie about Biden, claiming that he said that the amount of taxes you pay determines your patriotism, when they know that Biden said no such thing. Here is what the United Press International reported Biden said:
““WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 (UPI) -- Democratic vice presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Joe Biden said Thursday that people earning more than $250,000 should "be patriotic" and pay more taxes.
“During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Biden, D-Del., said anyone making more than $250,000 would pay more in taxes if his running mate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is elected president.
“The Democratic economic platform asks the wealthiest Americans to pay higher taxes -- while pledging tax cuts for the middle class and lower-income Americans -- to pay for healthcare and other initiatives.
"It's time to be patriotic," said Biden. "Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut. And ... they're still going to pay less taxes than they paid under Reagan."
They are going to resurrect the story of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who Obama broke with quite some time ago.
They will look for anything that can be used to smear.
Smear baby, Smear!
How sad that McCain, a man who once prided himself about being above such tactics, has come to this.
Shortly after Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, asked Congress for authority the invest $700 billion to buy distressed mortgage backed securities, McCain announced that he was suspending his Presidential campaign and returning to Washington to help solve the crisis. This was shortly after Obama telephoned McCain and suggested that they keep Presidential politics out of the crisis and issue a joint statement. McCain during this conversation never mentioned his intention to do anything unilateral, and tried to blind-side Obama by his announcement of campaign suspension. He then contacted the President and asked him to invite Obama and himself to a Washington conference. All this time McCain never let it be known what his position was on the treasury plan. At the conference McCain sat silently and contributed nothing, and none of his campaign commercials were withdrawn. He then totally reversed course, and rushed back to Oxford, Mississippi to attend a debate, which he had announced he would not attend. All this time he never set forth his position on the crisis, and never publicly urged his Republican brethren to vote one way or the other.
When the bill came up in the Senate, Obama took the floor and urged his colleagues to vote for the bill, without posturing or looking for photo-ops. McCain said nothing and voted for the bill. Is all this posturing, while playing it safe for as long as possible, putting “Country First”? If he was working behind the scenes to get Republican support for this unpopular bill, how come 2/3 of Republicans in the House voted against it?
And then there is Sarah Palin. Did McCain pick her as part of putting “Country First”? Was she really the best qualified person in the US to ascend to the Presidency in case McCain, who would be 76 by the time his first term ends and who has had a history of cancer, were to die or be incapacitated while in office? Or did he pick her because with her extreme right wing views she would stir up the base, which she has, you betcha. If he wanted someone with the executive experience of being a governor, he could have chosen from 22 Republican governors. Was Palin the best qualified of all these Republican governors?
McCain, the maverick, who will bring us the change we need! What happened to his maverick positions?
He sponsored the immigration bill that would have created a path for undocumented aliens to citizenship but when that interfered with his getting the Republican nomination he announced that he wouldn’t vote for his own bill.
He denounced the Bush tax cut as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and an irresponsible reduction in tax receipts, which would cause huge deficits, but when his predictions proved to be accurate, he reversed course and now denounces Obama for not wanting to extend those tax give aways.
He falsely accuses Obama of wanting to tax the middle class when he knows that Obama is pledged not to raise taxes one dime on anyone making less than $250,000, while he himself is advocating taxing the value of the Health Insurance working Americans get from their employers.
He sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act but now promises to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who are likely to hold it to be unconstitutional.
When he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, Senator John McCain denounced religious right leader Jerry Falwell as an ''evil" force whose message of ''intolerance" hurt the GOP and America. When he sought the Presidential nomination in 2008 he delivered the commencement address at Falwell's evangelical Christian college and of course Sarah Palin is another sop to those forces of intolerance. You betcha!
But one thing McCain was always consistent about and that was his opposition to regulation until now when he belatedly has decided that this is not a politically advantageous position. Now he will bring change and the regulations we need. Has he seen the light or is this more of his opportunism?
All this apparently hasn’t fooled enough people, for McCain’s campaign is floundering. He has fallen behind in the polls and has pulled his campaign out of Michigan. Apparently it is time for a new strategy. It isn’t going to be, “Drill Baby, Drill” any more. It’s going to be Slander Baby, Slander.
It is going to be about a man that Obama barely knows, who gave a $200 contribution to the Obama re-election fund, and who served with Obama on an eight-person Board of an anti-poverty group between 1999 and 2002, who is now distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago, but who was a member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974 when Obama was a child.
They are going to lie about Biden, claiming that he said that the amount of taxes you pay determines your patriotism, when they know that Biden said no such thing. Here is what the United Press International reported Biden said:
““WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 (UPI) -- Democratic vice presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Joe Biden said Thursday that people earning more than $250,000 should "be patriotic" and pay more taxes.
“During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Biden, D-Del., said anyone making more than $250,000 would pay more in taxes if his running mate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is elected president.
“The Democratic economic platform asks the wealthiest Americans to pay higher taxes -- while pledging tax cuts for the middle class and lower-income Americans -- to pay for healthcare and other initiatives.
"It's time to be patriotic," said Biden. "Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut. And ... they're still going to pay less taxes than they paid under Reagan."
They are going to resurrect the story of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who Obama broke with quite some time ago.
They will look for anything that can be used to smear.
Smear baby, Smear!
How sad that McCain, a man who once prided himself about being above such tactics, has come to this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
