The President’s re-election

I recently had dinner with some good friends and they greeted me with the exclamation: “Aren’t you elated that Obama won.” I looked at them and said: “I am relieved, but not elated.”

I am relieved because while it is true that we would have avoided the fiscal cliff if Mitt Romney had been elected, which was the rationale for the endorsement of Romney by the Des Moines Register, who posed the question as, “Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals?” meaning avoiding the cliff, and concluded: “When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate…”

Of course, for Romney there would have been no need to compromise. He would have embraced the program of the Tea Party, with only a Democratic Senate (which was in doubt until the results came in) standing between him and his cohorts gaining a complete victory.

The likelihood of falling off the cliff has certainly increased as a result of the Presidents re-election. But the result of capitulation, while possibly less frightening in the short run, would have dire consequences in the long run, as I outlined in my blog posting entitled "The Election." The consequences of just the domestic sequester staying in place is ably outlined in an article in the New York Times entitled "White House Details Potential Effects If Automatic Budget Cuts Go Through" which I urge the reader to read.

So we are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Holding firm risks going over the cliff, i.e. if automatic spending cuts go into force and all the Bush-era tax cuts expire, then according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the nation would slip into recession next year and unemployment would rise to 9.1 percent, from October’s rate of 7.9 percent. But simply canceling those deficit-reduction measures would risk a financial crisis that would make matters worse …” according to this watch dog. See here.

And looming just behind the fiscal cliff is the debt ceiling. The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the U.S. probably will hit its $16.4 trillion borrowing limit by the end of the year, at the same time that Congress will be grappling with the automatic tax hikes and large government spending cuts scheduled to kick in Jan. 1. See here. Republicans, as they did last year, are talking again about refusing to raise it, which would force the US into default and bring into serious question its invaluable credit worthiness. Last time around even the threat of default caused Standard and Poor's to lower the rating for the US from AAA to AA+ See this CNN Money article wherein Standard and Poor's is quoted as giving the reason for the downgrade as: “The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed."

The lower rating fortunately had no effect on the markets, with US securities remaining in large demand and continuing to sell at interest rates at all time lows.

But then there was no default, only the threat of one.

In any case with these frightening potential developments, is it any wonder that I find myself less than elated? I will be elated when the President succeeds in navigating these currents and works out a compromise that very substantially increases revenue, while protecting our safety net, not from some cost saving reforms, which are inevitable, but from having them undermined. I do not find Paul Krugman’s argument as set forth in his November 11 column  persuasive. Krugman says: “Contrary to the way it’s often portrayed, the looming prospect of spending cuts and tax increases isn’t a fiscal crisis. It is, instead, a political crisis brought on by the G.O.P.’s attempt to take the economy hostage.”

I take it from this that Krugman would be perfectly happy for taxes not to go up, even on the very rich, as the President wants, because while he doesn’t specifically say so, he argues that the larger the deficit the better. Of course, what he really wants is for there to be no changes in Medicare and Social Security, writing in his column of November 15 entitled: "Life, Death and Deficits":  “… right now the most dangerous zombie is probably the claim that rising life expectancy justifies a rise in both the Social Security retirement age and the age of eligibility for Medicare.” He makes some cogent arguments to support this, but fails to propose any reasonable alternatives, such as having a different retirement age for the relatively affluent and well-educated, and a different one for Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution, who aren’t living much longer. (He doesn’t cite any actuarial tables) and does not even propose closing the Social Security budget gap by raising the Social Security tax ceiling for the affluent.

As for Medicare he argues against raising the eligibility age with which I agree, and argues that the way to control costs is to “… give Medicare the ability to bargain over drug prices. Let the Independent Payment Advisory Board, created as part of Obamacare to help Medicare control costs, do its job instead of crying “death panels.” With which I also agree, but in making these arguments isn’t he implicitly recognizing that we can’t just ignore deficits.

But as can be seen from the above, the re-election of Obama has not magically solved our problems. We have a tendency to think, as we did four years ago, that as long as we elect a good man/woman to the Presidency, we have solved the nation’s problems. That is true only in the fantasy world that so many on the Left in our nation inhabit.

The fact is that in order for the President to be in a strong bargaining position with Republicans, he must signal a willingness to go over the cliff if Republicans are too intransient. Or as John Cassidy writes in the New Yorker: 

“Fiscal discipline, equity, and economic experience all point toward a return to the top tax rates of the Clinton era. In order to get there, though, Obama is going to have to demonstrate that he is willing to leap off the fiscal cliff, and that he isn’t bluffing. Anything short of an ironclad commitment to let all the Bush tax cuts, including the ones that affect the middle class, expire on December 31st if an agreement isn’t reached, will be exploited by the Republicans, who otherwise don’t have many cards to play. 

“Basically, this is an exercise in brinksmanship—the logic of which is well understood. If Obama’s threat is perceived to be credible, he almost certainly won’t have to go through with it. But if the Republicans think he is likely to back down—as he did in 2010, when he initially opposed extending the Bush tax cuts—they will stonewall, figuring that the White House, at the last minute, will offer them a compromise along the lines Boehner is suggesting. Don’t forget, this is a G.O.P. that hasn’t agreed to a rise in tax rates for more than twenty years. In the current House of Representatives, all but six of the two-hundred-and-forty-two Republicans have signed Grover Norquist’s pledge “to oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses.”

Whether the President needs to be that demanding and that uncompromising is open to question, but that he must signal a willingness to take the plunge is an absolute sin qua non to successful negotiations. But that means that we run the danger of, as the CBO has stated, of the nation slipping into recession next year with unemployment rising to 9.1 percent, from October’s rate of 7.9 percent. That is why I am not elated at the outcome of the election. We are far from out of the woods.

Of course, if the House of Representatives had gone Democratic, we would have a totally different landscape, and then I would have been elated. But despite the fact that Democrats “won one million more votes than Republicans” for the House, they did not win a majority due to very effective gerrymandering. This, in my view, represents a clear violation of the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution, which says: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” However the US Supreme Court in 2003 in Vieth v. Pennsylvania upheld by a vote of 4 to 4 a lower court ruling that gerrymandering was not unconstitutional. The four justices holding gerrymandering constitutional were Scalia, Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed that no justiciable standard existed and affirmed the district court’s opinion, joined in dismissing the claim, but would not go so far as to say all partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, David Souter (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg), and John Paul Stevens dissented from the plurality, with each dissent proposing a new test for federal courts to adjudicate partisan gerrymandering.

And so we have the ridiculous situation where Democrats gain more than a million vote majority in the House, but Republicans gain far more seats and we end up with a political crisis.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

The Trojan Horse – Comments II (continued)

In my last post "The Trojan Horse – Comments II" I responded to only half of Leonard Levenson’s comment. My earlier response can be found by clicking on the title shown in brown above. Leonard Levenson’s full comment can be found here.

I will here continue with my response showing his arguments in quotations and my responses in the body.

Before negotiations got a full head of steam he made a public announcement that the 14th Amendment argument was not a winning argument. You say the public would not have supported such a move. The public is interested in results...not the niceties of the literal adherence to arcane provisions in the constitution. A strong argument by him to Boehner that he was prepared to use the 14th Amendment would have gotten him enormous public support and put the fear of god in the Republicans. Compared to the outrages to the constitution by Bush such as the institution of torture as official Government policy and Bush's bill signing declarations, Obama's threatened use of the 14th amendment have had the seriousness of spitting on the sidewalk in a Draconian Penal Code.

It would have been downright stupid for the President to announce in advance that he would rely on the 14th amendment, if the debt ceiling were not raised. That would have let Republicans completely off the hook. Negotiations would have come to a halt. Michelle Bachman would have announced her vindication, proving that she was right all along that failure to raise the debt ceiling would not resulted in default, and the President would have been on the defensive charged with abusing his office by ignoring the will of Congress in order to “continue his spending spree”. Thus a situation where the public was increasingly hostile to Republicans in general and the Tea Party in particular, would have been completely turned around.

Yes, the 14th amendment could have been used with the public's support, if the negotiations had broken down, default had occurred, the stock market had crashed, the economy was in shambles, and the President was acting in an emergency under the 14th amendment. But this was to be avoided at almost all costs, because by that time the economy would have been so damaged as to almost irreparable, something to be avoided at almost all costs.

Obama is a good man but naive in his belief that he could work with the Republicans. If he could make that realization today there might be hope for his Administration. But I fear that he has yet to learn how to play hardball, a skill that the Republicans excel at. Right now we need a nasty, hard-biting, backroom, dirty, skilled politician... not a Constitutional Law Professor. We need a Johnson, a Roosevelt, or a left wing Bush. Instead we have a Woodrow Wilson who couldn't sell ice in the Sahara.

Rah, Rah, --- but the fact is that Obama is a brilliant negotiator, who understands that there is a time for partisan rhetoric and a time to be low key. Yes, I too was disappointed with his inaugural address as Drew Weston complained in the New York Times. But Weston was nit picking almost three years after the fact when it had become fashionable to criticize the President. The President must be judged by results in a political climate unequaled in memory, and as I have pointed out the results would have been impressive even in a less hostile climate. That is what counts.

It should also be noted that in our system of government obstruction is much easier than positive accomplishments.

Lastly, perhaps you can explain why we still do not have relations with Cuba...a largely executive function;

I think Levinson knows why! For the same reason that the hero of the base, (I will be damned if I know why.) John F. Kennedy set this policy in motion. And every President since (I count eight) has continued this policy. Why does Levenson task this President for not doing what nine other Presidents have not done? That shows an unreasoned search for things to criticize.

why we still have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, and Europe plus Military advisory personnel in virtually every right wing country on Earth. When do we learn that supporting Corrupt Governments fighting populist insurgent uprisings can never be successful? How many Vietnams do we have to go through in one lifetime? Do we really need an active military strength of 1.6 million and 200,000 in Europe, 70,000 in S. Korea and Japan, 475 in Honduras and 988 on Diego Garcia? Who are we afraid of? Distribution of our troops is a presidential function as is the size of our army.

That is a lot of lumping. South Korea, Japan, and Europe are Corrupt Governments fighting populist insurgent uprisings? “The size of our army” is a Presidential function? Not since the last time I read the US Constitution! Section. 8. “ The Congress shall have the Power… Clause 12: To raise and support Armies…”

Even in Afghanistan the Taliban can hardly be called a “populist insurgent uprisings.” And as for the rest, our troops have been spread to many countries since the WW II. Just like that – this President is supposed to magically make everything all right with the world. That is a fairy tale world. That is a world of magic wands that should be waved. It just is not the real world. And why didn’t Levenson raise this Banner when all the other Presidents were in office, counting how many since the end of Vietnam? Lets get real!

Would I rather have a Republican in the White House than Obama? Perhaps, if Abe Lincoln were reincarnated! But that doesn't mean we should stop pushing Obama to see reality.

I think it’s the other way around. Obama is very much in touch with reality. It is his critics, as I have demonstrated at length, who are out of touch with reality.

Nor should he believe that the Left has no place to go. We will always vote for him but we may not work for him with the old passion and enthusiasm so important in a campaign nor contribute our money.

It is all the same. Anything less than the most vigorous support of our President would risk turning the country over, not just to Republicans as we used to know them, but to the most extreme, radical and irresponsible bunch that have ever, (or at least since the Great Depression) threatened the welfare of our people. That threat alone should bring more vigor than ever before, This bunch makes G.W. Bush look like a responsible statesman. I contend that we have a President we should be enthusiastic about and one who has under the most difficult circumstances, compiled a record that other Democratic Presidents would have envied, but the threat of Tea party dominance should be enough to sound the bugle.

Since publishing my first installment of The Trojan Horse – Comments II I heard from Levenson again. He wrote:

Thank you for sharing your views with me with regard to Obama. You cannot be serious when you say that my views "represent a closing of one's eyes to facts which contradict preconceived ideas....” I had no greater political desire than to have Obama succeed. I contributed more money and work to his campaign than any other presidential campaign I worked on....including the Nixon McCarthy debacle. My views evolved after 2 1/2 years and evolved very reluctantly.

I will not respond to all of your comments other than to say that my vote (1 time) for Reagan is not a very powerful argument against the validity of my criticism of Obama. Additionally, I do not deny that Obama has been responsible for many worthwhile accomplishments such as the Health Care bill. But even the Health Care Bill must be looked at realistically. For example, most of its important provisions do not take effect until 2014 which make it vulnerable to repeal before its virtues can be shown to the public.

Let me conclude by suggesting that all those that criticize Obama are not his enemies but are merely trying to push from the Left so that he realizes that there is a constituency there that requires his attention.

To which my response was:

First, I probably owe you an apology for referring to your vote for Reagan. That was a cheap shot.

When you say that I can't be serious when I say that your views, (and more importantly the views of the pundits and the many who share your views) "represent a closing of one's eyes to facts which contradict preconceived ideas...." I refer to preconceived ideas of what Obama could be expected to accomplish and how. What I refer to as expecting that he had a magic wand. This is not at all at variance with your having been very enthusiastic about Obama and having worked your tail off for him. It fits right in with it.

What I am saying is that having worked so hard you had totally unrealistic expectations of what he could do, and when those expectations were dashed you became angry. Again I am speaking less about you individually, but rather the many for whom you speak.

On the Health Care law there is no chance of it being repealed even if Obama were to lose since any attempt at repeal would be subject to a filibuster. I can't answer why many of its effects were delayed until 2014 without spending more time than I am prepared to do, but I am sure that its authors felt that it was vital that other aspects had to be in place before others could go into effect. There has to be a modicum of trust that the people who made these decisions knew what they were doing. The greatest danger to the bill is the US Supreme Court, but that is something that no one can avoid.

The base, and you are part of that base, basically wanted Obama to take on the Right and not compromise. Maybe that would have been satisfying, but nothing would have been accomplished, and I mean nothing. Not the stimulus, not health care and very few of the many accomplishments I list.

You say: "I do not deny that Obama has been responsible for many worthwhile accomplishments" but that is exactly what you did in your last presentation to which I was responding.

Tell me, if you can, why are his Left wing critics so anxious to besmirch him that they are even resorting to outright lies about the compromise on the budget, which I think was a very favorable one if one looks at the details.

And I received a very satisfactory reply:

No apology is necessary for your reminding me of my Reagan vote. In fact, I found it funny. Of all the ad hominem attacks you could have used against me, the worst was "he voted for Reagan.” Words like "corrupt,” "stupid,” "racist" or "bigot" would not have hurt as much as saying that I voted for a Republican.

You may have a point when you suggest that my anger at Obama is really disappointment at the lack of progress that I hoped for. Perhaps no Democrat could have made any substantial progress against the know nothing Republicans. I think I would have preferred a battle royale (even a losing one) than accepting a weakened Health care Bill, an inadequate deficit reduction bill and the many other compromises, which Obama probably was forced to make.

Before I close I need to take cognizance of one other attack. It came from Herb Reiner of Clifton, NJ, but more important it was repeated in the New Yorker in an article by John Cassidy where he wrote: “In retrospect, the White House erred last December in not demanding a raise in the debt ceiling as the price of extending the Bush tax cuts.“ Well, in retrospect, like hindsight is always 20/20. So why pile on another criticism. But let us examine it. What good would it have done? These things always go to the deadline. Asking sooner would either have produced an extension too short or no extension until default was imminent. But what makes it even more ridiculous is that the Administration in fact did ask for an increase, not in December, but in January (Close enough). See here for Tim Geithner's letter to Harry Reid.

Why don’t these pundits at least check their facts before spilling ink on paper and ranting about things they don’t begin to understand? It does not serve the cause they pretend to serve and it does not even serve them when people finally begin to understand how much nonsense they have subjected them to.

The Trojan Horse – Comments II

I have received another comment to my post: "The Trojan Horse - Comments." It came from Leonard Levenson Esq. of Manhattan, whose relatively long dissertation can be found in full here

I am reproducing his arguments in quotations with my responses below.

Levenson’s response is exactly what I have been railing against. It represents a closing of one’s eyes to facts that contradict one’s preconceived notions, which are planted by our “wonderful media and their pundits,” who have even less interest in facts or even logic.

I set forth in my earlier posts, a huge number of major accomplishments by the President and his Administration, some of which Levenson may been have been aware of, and many of which he may have forgotten or never knew. But instead of saying thank you for reminding me, I get “they are minor.”

I was an early and enthusiastic supporter of Obama but like eroding drops of water on granite, his record is eroding my enthusiasm for him. I do not doubt the sincerity of his social views but he has been ineffective in implementing the important changes that concern me.

I have been trying to understand the irrational hatred of our President by those who should be hailing his great accomplishments. I can only come up with one theory that makes any sense. I conclude that in the great enthusiasm that the candidacy of Barack Obama engendered, caused a delinking from reality. As I wrote in my sardonic post of November 2009 entitled Obama Walks on Water," the public has discovered that Obama does not “Walk on Water” and has “no magic wand.” Apparently neither the punditry, nor the “liberal public” has even now been able to come to terms with the fact that the President has no magic wand. They are angry because they feel that he has refused to wave it.

You mention many of his accomplishments but they were largely minor.

Minor? Only someone determined to belittle the President could call the enumerated accomplishments minor.

Universal Health Insurance, which Presidents of both parties have been trying to enact since Truman, and which Clinton spectacularly failed to accomplish is minor? If the Supreme Court Strikes it down, will it show that Obama isn’t strong enough?

Getting rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," was a minor accomplishment? It sure was important when it was not yet accomplished!

The stimulus package, which together with the rescue of Chrysler and GM, which probably saved a million jobs, and the bank rescue package, without question, saved this country from a ’29 depression. That is minor? Yes, it should have been bigger, and it should have had fewer tax cuts and more spending in it. But does anybody really think that such a package could have attracted the votes of the two Senators from Maine, without whose votes nothing would have passed.

Schip legislation giving health coverage to millions of children is minor? Tell that to the parents of those children!

What kind of economy would we have if our unemployed did not have unemployment insurance extended again and again? How much worse would it be both for them and the economy?

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act wasn’t important? Tell that to the millions of women who now have the ability to fight back against pay discrimination.

Or the new fuel standards, which is the first time in decades that they have been raised and which will be a major factor in reducing our dependence on foreign oil, in reducing the cost of gas for hard working Americans, and last but least, play an important part in slowing global warming.

Eliminated expensive co pays for birth control, which will for the first time make pre-natal services available for poor women. Minor? Tell that to Planned Parenthood, who hailed it as a major achievement. Tell it to the millions of women who will for the first time have access to such services.

I could go on and on. But, only someone anxious to belittle our President, and join the Tea party in doing so, could call these achievements minor.

But I really can’t blame Levenson, or others who have begun to speak like him, for the so-called liberal punditry, rules the day, though I hope they will rue it one day. But the punditry is so anxious to besmirch Obama that they even have begun to lie like Republicans, and to stay on message in the best style of Karl Rove.

You mention a 9.3% unemployment rate but neglect to mention those who have stopped looking for work and those who are limited to marginal part time work. When these are counted the unemployment rate increases to 17%.

Yes, that is true, but it is still valid for comparison purposes, for the ’29 depression with an unemployment rate of 37% or 38% also didn’t take into account these other casualties, nor did Reagan’s (who Levenson voted for) unemployment rate of 10.3% take these others into account. But whatever the figures are, unless you buy the Romney argument that Obama inherited a bad economy and made it longer and worse, these figures should be used against the Republicans, not against our President. Or does Levenson disagree? (See: Discussion of stimulus package above.)

You mention the Kagan and Sotomayor nominations, but hundreds of District Court and Appellate courts seats remain unfilled. Admittedly, the Republicans are obstructing votes on many Obama nominations but a Clinton, with a majority in the Senate would have pushed them through.

The fact is, he didn’t push them through. From American Progress: “At the beginning of 1998… Senate conservatives were systematically blocking President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees, William Rehnquist, warn(ed) ‘vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice.’"

You forget to mention his EPA failure to enforce regulation to prevent oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico.

It wasn’t his failure, and it wasn’t his U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (Not EPA). It was Bush’s. It takes time to change direction of an agency, particularly where the Senate refuses to approve your appointments, leaving the old people in place. In addition it is far from clear that the permit should not have been granted, given the facts that were known (or unknown) at the time the permit was issued.

You also neglect to mention his Justice Departments Civil rights failures.

It is impossible to answer all of these slanders without turning this into a book. Therefore allow me to only address just one, which I will highlight in italics.

For example, it is his Justice department under Eric Holder that has supported positions not much different from those of the Bush administration on Civil rights. He has consistently taken positions before the Supreme Court to limit the rights of individuals who were wrongfully imprisoned under Bush era terrorist statutes. He has pushed for limiting or eliminating their right to sue the US Government for the torture of imprisoned "terrorists' even after a clear showing that they were not terrorists. He has severely limited the Guantanamo prisoners effective right to counsel, the right to apply for Writs of Habeas Corpus in Federal courts, has refused (by folding to right wing pressure) to allow these prisoners to be housed in the US where they have easier access to lawyers and he has supported the continued use of Military Commissions rather than civilian courts.

In December 2010, over his objections, the Congress passed a bill forbidding the military to spend its money to transfer detainees from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States, even for trials. It wasn’t Obama; it was a cowardly Congress. But if one wants to slander someone, one always finds a way.

With regard to the economy, he gave up, almost without a fight, any thought of raising taxes in his negotiations with Boehner.

Nothing could be more at variance with the facts. What was his leverage for getting Republicans, not Boehner, to agree to tax increases? Threatening them with defaulting? What? I said not Boehner because Boehner did in fact agree to 1 trillion in tax increases, to balance 3 trillion in cuts, and then couldn’t sell it to his caucus. But what threat was Obama supposed to use? Go to hell, don’t raise the debt ceiling? Well, that might have produced default, but not increased taxes. Did Levenson really think about it, with such glib talk?

The reality (but who cares about that) (And I am also getting tired of defending baseless complaints) is that we will give you more cuts, if you give us additional revenue. But why should Obama have been against cuts. There are many that he, Levenson, and I should have favored. So the next approach is what kind of cuts can we agree on, and one understands that without revenue enhancement it will not be 4 billion, which it really should be. I said that the deficit crisis was a hoax to try to use it to gut entitlements; but the deficit it is nevertheless real and a danger in the long run. So we negotiate for cuts that don’t go into effect during the next two years, we make half of them in the military, and we take entitlements, which really do need addressing, off the table.

What the President got was a fantastic deal, which is why all the Tea Party and all the Presidential candidates have declared against it. Nobody on the Left has given any valid reason to oppose it.

The attempt by the Left, to demagogue this issue by lying, and in the style of Karl Rove “Staying on Message” is disgusting and should be rejected by all who are true liberals. See my post entitled: "The Trojan Horse" where I expose the lies, and write:

…Campaign for America’s Future…

A new undemocratic "Super Committee" is charged with finding $1.5 trillion in savings – from cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements and/or in increased revenues. If a majority agrees, the proposals will be “fast tracked” to passage in Congress—without our elected representatives able to amend their plans.

But these are boldfaced lies. As CNN Money reports in a piece titled “Debt Ceiling: What the deal will do":

The cuts will be “evenly divided between defense and non-defense spending.

Exempt from this round of cuts, however, will be programs that aid low-income Americans… These include Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits and pensions, food stamps and Supplemental Security Income.

While Medicare would not be exempt, the framework would restrict cuts to no more than 2% of the program's cost. And the cuts that occur would not affect Medicare benefits nor would they increase seniors' costs, …

Half the cuts have to come from defense. What is wrong with that?

Or Progressive Change Campaign Committee:

Congress voted for a deal that will cut trillions from important programs like Head Start, asks nothing of the rich, and makes likely future cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

But what about facts? Writes the Wall Street Journal:

The deal included enough money for Head Start, the preschool program for low-income children, to keep enrollment from dropping, and for Pell Grants to maintain the current $5,500 annual maximum award to low-income college students. Republicans had wanted to cut Head Start and proposed freezing the Pell program, which would have cut the maximum grant size.

Why do I have to repeat myself? Is it because that which doesn’t fit the narrative is to be ignored and the lies just repeated?

What is the Left up to? What is their agenda? And I call them the Left advisedly, because they do not deserve the appellation of “liberal” which term I claim for the President and myself.

But since this post is getting entirely too long, I ask both my readers and Leonard Levenson for their patience. I will revert to this in my next posting, where I will address the remaining arguments, and discuss other lies and slanders that have crept into the scribblings of the punditocracy.

The Trojan Horse

In my last blog post entitled: "The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part V)" I concluded with: “Next time: What can and should we do about the deficit and the imminent insolvency of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Where can we and should we cut?” and I will address that issue in due course, but I have become increasingly concerned with those people, and those organizations, which are ostensibly part of the liberal alliance, but have increasingly become a Trojan horse, undermining that alliance, and lending subtle support to the enemies of fact based reason.

I have now concluded that one of the worst of the quislings turns out to be Paul Krugman, who for reasons that I can not fathom, (maybe he sought an appointment from the Administration and didn’t get it) has tried to destroy the Obama Presidency almost from its inception. What makes him so dangerous is that he projects an image of liberalism, while undermining the cause he pretends to support. I have only recently focused on this, but an examination of his columns bears this out.

For example, one year after the President was inaugurated, on January 17, 2010 Krugman blasted the President. What does he attack him for? He criticizes Obama for not attacking Bush enough. Obviously, someone who wants to support the President, and who feels that the blame lies with Bush, would simply point that out and criticize Bush. But that is not Krugman’s way. His attack is not on Bush. It is on Obama for not doing enough of what the punditry needs to do for him. Krugman writes:

Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.

For Krugman’s article see here.

Not only is this a strange way to help a Democratic liberal Administration, but it doesn’t even have truth on its side. Renew America, a Right wing blog points out:

Washington Post reporter Scott Wilson wrote a piece that noted that, "Obama has reminded the public at every turn that he is facing problems "inherited" from the Bush administration... In June, even the New York Times was reporting that the main tactic that the Obama administration was using to avoid blame was in "blaming the guy who came before." and the article gives other examples.

Krugman in this column, as in so many others, also criticizes the President for his policies, but I point to this aspect, because it is so egregious and so unfair. Since then Krugman has rarely had a good thing to say about the President, some of it a matter of opinion, and some of it just plain false.

In fairness to Krugman, he sometimes talks sense. In a column published on July 28th he writes:

But making nebulous calls for centrism, like writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties, is a big cop-out — a cop-out that only encourages more bad behavior. The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse.

Amen! But does he take his own advice. NO! Three days later, on July 31 his column is headed “The President Surrenders." Krugman blasts Obama for working out a deal that avoids the first American default in American history. He seems to already have forgotten his earlier column that we should blame the hostage takers. Now he goes after the one who in the interests of the American economy, indeed the world economy, has paid a ransom. But worse of all he ignores that the President negotiated about as good a deal as was possible under the circumstances, and worst of all to support his attack he lies.

I know my readers are busy. Some have to spend their time earning a living. Others prefer TV, golf, or tennis, or reading fiction. But if you want to be informed, this time, above all other times, you must read the references by double clicking on the links. Above I give you a link to the “President Surrenders” in its original form. If you will go here you will find that article set forth again, with my comments on it in red. Please take the time to read it. Without doing so you can’t get the flavor of the deception.

The media has done a very poor job of reporting what was in the compromise, and Krugman and the left have done an incredible job of demagogic it. For a pretty good summary of what was in it see: CNN Money's “Debt Ceiling: What the deal will do.”

CNN Money reports:

Exempt from this round of cuts, however, will be programs that aid low-income Americans… These include Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits and pensions, food stamps and Supplemental Security Income.

While Medicare would not be exempt, the framework would restrict cuts to no more than 2% of the program's cost. And the cuts that occur would not affect Medicare benefits nor would they increase seniors' costs, …

I wish that Krugman were alone in this demagoguery from the left, but here are some of the e-mails I have received, e.g. from Campaign for America’s Future I received this:

A new undemocratic "Super Committee" is charged with finding $1.5 trillion in savings – from cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements and/or in increased revenues. If a majority agrees, the proposals will be “fast tracked” to passage in Congress—without our elected representatives able to amend their plans.

They forgot to mention that half the cuts must come from the Defense Department and as to the rest, see CNN above.

Or from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee:

Congress voted for a deal that will cut trillions from important programs like Head Start, asks nothing of the rich, and makes likely future cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

But what about facts?

The Wall Street Journal wrote in April 2011:

The deal included enough money for Head Start, the preschool program for low-income children, to keep enrollment from dropping, and for Pell Grants to maintain the current $5,500 annual maximum award to low-income college students. Republicans had wanted to cut Head Start and proposed freezing the Pell program, which would have cut the maximum grant size.

What is going on? Are these organizations just misinformed or do they think they can energize their base with lies and get more contributions. Not from me!!!!

Hostage Taking at Home and Expansionism Abroad

I am back!

I have watched with dismay the developments in the US and abroad and find it increasingly difficult to remain silent.

Since I last expressed my views in my blog on August 19, 2010 in a post entitled “Bigotry” things have gone from bad to worse.

A minority has gained control of the House of Representatives, and even though they don’t control the Senate or the Presidency, they feel that the are entitled to impose their will on the American people. How do they hope to do that? By taking United States of America hostage. What do I mean by this? I mean that they are saying that unless their radical agenda is adopted which would among other things abolish Medicare for the elderly, and Medicaid for the poor, among many other things too long to enumerate, they will force the American government into default, unable to pay its debts.

Now the law providing for the debt ceiling has been on the books since 1917. Never in all that time has Congress refused to increase the ceiling because to do so would mean that the “Full Faith and Credit” of the US, which the world and American Citizens have come to depend on, would no longer be valid.

It would have no effect on spending or taxing or borrowing. It would simply prevent the US from paying its already incurred debts, debts that it owes. Such a default by the US government would have a cascading effect, undermining not only American credit worthiness, but because the US is such a huge economic power, would send the whole world into the worst economic crash in history, most likely dwarfing the ’29 depression. Incredibly, that ceiling was reached on May 16, yet our media is paying hardly any attention to this event. This appears to be because the Treasury has said that by juggling its accounts, it can postpone doomsday until August 2. Nevertheless, this development should not be taken lightly. The idea that a minority can force changes in policy through such hostage taking is, or at least should be, abhorrent. Why are they not being denounced from every editorial page, from every pulpit from every voice? Apparently, because the American people are for compromise. But negotiations under duress; under the threat of destroying our country should bring the strongest condemnation from every quarter. The silence is deafening. If they truly believe that their agenda represents the will of the American people, let them wait until 2012 and if they gain a mandate, i.e. win the Presidency along with both houses of Congress they can work their will. Blackmail is not an acceptable political weapon.

Now I turn to Israel. Here again I am shocked though I shouldn’t be. Ever since the 1967 war, there has been one given. Israel will trade land for peace. There will be a two state solution. A Palestinian State in the West Bank and in Gaza and a Jewish State in the rest of Palestine with the 1967 borders forming the basis for negotiations. Recognizing “facts on the ground” these borders would be adjusted so as to allow the major Israeli settlement blocks to remain and giving other land as compensation to the Palestinians.

On May 19 President Obama referred to this in his speech. I would not have thought that this would be controversial, yet it has caused an outcry from Natanyahu, from Republicans, and from the Israeli lobby.

I have long had great trepidation that what the Natanyahu government seeks is substantially all of the West Bank. Of course he realizes that to do so now, or even to declare it, would cause a world-wide outcry, but what are we to make of this denunciation of what has been a given. Why is it essential to keep expanding settlements? To change the facts on the ground, gradually taking more and more of the West Bank and forcing Palestinians into a smaller and smaller (non arable?) area?

I was in Israel recently (as a holocaust survivor, I, as much if not more than others, want an Israel as a last area of refuge if the need should again arise, but I want an Israel I can be proud of as one that respects the rights of others) and our guide kept emphasizing that Israel was very small about the size of New Jersey. It has an area of 7,992 sq. miles and that is indeed small. But our guide failed to mention that the Palestinian territory consists of only 2,800 sq. miles, and is constantly being nibbled away. Why is it necessary to keep encroaching on these lands that remain to the Palestinians. Israel has a population of 7,746,000 while the Palestinian territories had a population of over 4 million as of 2009 and rapidly increasing. Thus the Palestinian territories already have a greater population density than Israel. Why is it appropriate to deny them the right to keep the small area they have? What is shocking about to the idea that Israel should not expand its territories further at the expense of the Palestinians?

The Palestinian Diaspora contains (as of 2005) was over ten million people. It is undoubtedly much more today. Any thought of their returning to Israel cannot be contemplated, since this would end the Jewish character of the State of Israel. But these people (and they are people, human beings) not as the member of the CUNY Board who objected to Kushner’s honorary degree, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, said, “Palestinians aren’t human.”

When Rabin tried to make peace he was assassinated. And Netanyahu came to power. When Ehud Olmert almost achieved peace with Abbas agreeing to give up the Right of Return, (as revealed by Wikileaks) Natanyahu succeeded him and ended the talks.

Talks are meaningless when “the facts on the ground keep changing.” Every American President has called upon Israel to stop settlement expansion. Expansion is not the way to peace. It is the obstacle.

When Arafat died we heard that Israel couldn’t negotiate because Abbas was too weak. Then we heard there is no point to negotiating because the Palestinian leadership is split. Now that the Palestinian leadership is united, they can’t negotiate because they are united. They argue that Hamas will not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Has Israel recognized the right of a Palestinian state to exist? This must be the end of negotiations – not the beginning.

In the meantime Israel is doing all it can to reduce the population of the West Bank of Palestinians. Palestinians leaving temporarily are not allowed to return and those living in the Palestinian Diaspora are not only not allowed to return to Israel, (which is necessary) but are not even allowed to return to the Palestinian territories, which is not.

The occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is now in its 44th year, is one of the longest in recent history. The American occupation of Japan lasted 57 years and required no territorial concessions. It is time for Israel to do the same. As the most powerful nation in the Middle East by far, fear for its security from the Palestinians rings hollow.