A president can set the nation’s tone, change attitudes, and move policy by making a speech or a statement. Presidential statements are picked up by the media and spread to the masses for consumption in such a way that the President essentially commands what the public pays attention to. In Obama's case this has been healthcare for all citizens, global warming, nuclear proliferation, race relations, and the United States relations with the Muslim world.
The Nobel Peace Prize was given to Obama this past Friday as a signal from the world that the United States is back in their good graces (well, most of the world) – and President Obama deserves full credit for that. Judging from the statement put out by the Nobel committee, the award is more for the promise of what Obama hopes to accomplish on global warming, nuclear weapons reduction, Middle East peace, focusing on international diplomacy and cooperation, and for "capturing the world's attention and giving its people hope for a better future" than for what he has accomplished to date. Thorbjørn Jagland, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and a former prime minister of Norway, explained that Obama's early international diplomacy efforts is what helped him beat out other nominees. In other words, Obama’s agenda is the reason he has received this award.
“Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting,” the secretive five-member committee said. Obama's Nobel Prize win, as much as Conservatives want it to be, is no accident. It came from the Presidents risk-taking work in making daring speeches and visits to dangerous places to bring disparate people together.
Of course there was criticism from some people because Obama has not yet achieved his goals. The far-right wingnuts said the world rebuked Obama after he went to Copenhagen and suffered a “defeat” by unsuccessfully lobbying for Chicago to get the 2016 Olympic Games. In doing so, I think wingnuts actually influenced the Nobel committee’s decision. In giving this award to Obama, the Nobel committee is telling the rightwing forces to back off. This Nobel Peace Prize is a deliberate answer to the attitude of the wingnuts and their refusal to play nice. The Nobel committee is giving a hand up to Obama against his domestic adversaries and sending a message of encouragement to those Americans who put Obama in office.
The Nobel committee wants to encourage President Obama to continue pursuing his promise of change in world relations. Anyone who thinks that giving the Peace Prize as encouragement before anything has been accomplished is wrong. This is not unprecedented. The Nobel Committee gave South African Bishop Desmond Tutu the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his leadership of efforts to abolish apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid wasn't fully abolished in South Africa until 1994. The committee could have waited until after apartheid was abolished to say, "Well done!" But the point of the award was to help bring down apartheid by strengthening Bishop Tutu's efforts.
During the daily news update with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Friday, a reporter was questioning (in a ranting way) as to why Ronald Reagan didn't gain such an award. The answer is easy: Reagan's constant saber-rattling against the Soviet Union had many of us considering moving to Canada just to be out of the way of the possible results of his reckless abandon. Under President Reagan one had the uneasy feeling he was willing to push the red button and get us all blown to hell at any time. In the end, Reagan essentially broke the economic back of Russia, but he did so by causing America to pay the heavy price of being considered the World's new bully.
The contrast in America’s relations with the world while President Bush was in office is pretty stark on nuclear weapons reduction, Middle East peace, and global warming. The Bush administration dropped efforts to get the Senate to ratify the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol, a pact adopted by all other industrialized nations for curbing greenhouse gas emissions until 2012. It's a change that clearly appeals to the Nobel committee, although the committee is well aware that history is contingent and that Obama might fail. It knows very well that the same country that elected Obama also gave the world George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan – and that the far right faction can once again take over.
The Nobel award is a massive repudiation of several decades of Republican "Cowboy" diplomacy. It is a rebuke to the George W. Bush administration and his unilateralism – his “you are either with us or against us” attitude. Masculine virility and macho militarism was fused with the national symbols of the flag and the military. Europeans have seen this before. When we were engaged in our self-congratulating rally, the rest of the world was absolutely horrified. Bush-Chaney lead American foreign policy toward militarism and unilateralism, and he did so with Christian fundamentalist flair. President Obama, in less than ten months, has reset American foreign policy more toward multilateralism and a mature engagement with the world. He has a long way to go and things might not work out. But at least he is moving in the right direction.
President Obama, the third sitting U.S. president to receive the award, has been anointed an important leader on a world scale and is now someone who must be heard not just because he's President of The United States. The award says his actions signal a positive change for the world. The Nobel committee has set the table for Obama's emergence on the world stage as a difference-maker. For the GOP to oppose him now is to go against one of the most important leaders in the history of the free world.
But the GOP is not listening. The hatred and vitriolic response from the right shows they have lost ability to accept something good when it comes our way internationally. The GOP has become so brainwashed by the belligerent Bush-Cheney-Bolton unilateralism of the previous eight years, with its hatred for the world and its people, they are incapable of recognizing the simple truth that it is much better for America to have a president who is admired and respected in the world than one who is despised and feared. Everything Obama has achieved has been met with withering sarcasm and ridicule. He sends Bill Clinton to free American prisoners in North Korea and it turns out to be a stunning success that offers a breakthrough in relations with that weird and dangerous nation and the media greet the news with a collective yawn. His efforts to win the 2016 Olympics are fruitless but provide hours of joy for rightwing loudmouths who ridicule and demean his effort. He wins the Nobel Peace Prize and these same gasbags trash the Nobel Prize and the President.
What is being missed due to the deafening cacophony coming from the rightwing is that Americans should use this Nobel Prize as yet another Obama-inspired "teaching moment" to come to terms with just how much George W. Bush's foreign policy scared the h*ll out of the rest of the world (and many Americans, too). Instead, the GOP aims vitriol at the President for winning it. They do not care about the world’s perception that most Americans came to their senses when Obama was elected. They do not care that for the first time in years the world is looking toward the United States for global leadership. They preferred the childish bullying, the "you are either with us or against us" attitude, the rooster-like crowing about how great we are and if you don’t like it we’ll pound you into the ground like we do the opposing team at a football game – it made them feel good.
This is a symbolic prize – an international recognition that Obama is at least on the right track. There are times when what's good for America should trump partisan politics. President Obama was honored Friday because the world is hearing "America" and "peace" in the same sentence for the first time in years. That's good.
Congratulations, Mr. President. The world supports you in your endeavors – and so do a majority of Americans. Now comes the hard part: turning goodwill into concrete results that can heal the wounds of a very troubled world – and a very troubled nation. If you can do that you will deserve another Nobel Peace Prize.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Monday, October 12, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
The power of persuasion
President Obama entered the arena to thunderous applause and a standing ovation from many in the crowd of over 12,000, while just fewer than 300 anti-abortion protestors (most were not connected with the university) were outside the gates of the grounds of Notre Dame. Only about two dozen students refused to attend their graduation ceremony.
Obama's opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He does not. They want to reduce religious faith to a narrow set of issues. He refuses to join them. They often see theological arguments as leading to an arrogant certainty. In his Notre Dame speech he opted for humility.
The thunderous and repeated applause that greeted Obama and the Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame's president who took enormous grief for inviting him to speak, stood as a rebuke to those who said the president should not have been invited. Jenkins said, "As we serve our country, we will be motivated by faith, but we cannot appeal only to faith. We must also engage in a dialogue that appeals to reason that all can accept" and do so "with love and a generous spirit."
The president courageously ceded no ground. He said that those on each side of the debate "can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions." He did all this without skirting the abortion question and without flinching from the controversy surrounding his visit there.
"Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable." Then he encouraged the two sides to find common ground: "Let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term."
His discussion of faith tells us much about his own Christian beliefs and about his approach toward those who believe differently: "That which unites Americans is more essential that that which divides us. Our essential common values should allow us to reach compromise where we can and remain at least civil as we discuss what cannot be compromised. True faith, true respect for religion, requires actions that make this world a better place."
He spoke of doubt in Christian faith:
"In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse. But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
"This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds."
I found Obama’s speech to be highly Christian in nature. Here are some more highlights:
A litany of sins:
"Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man -- our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism, in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times."
The transformational role of good works in the realm of faith:
"And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn -- not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ."
Defining common values:
"For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the golden rule -- the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this earth…
"Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?"
A call for action:
"But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.
"If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union…"
In the book Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, with its premise that the most important power of the president is the power to persuade, Richard Neustadt wrote: "Persuasive power, thus defined, amounts to more than charm or reasoned argument. These have their uses for a President, but these are not the whole of his resources. For the individuals he would induce to do what he wants done on their own responsibility will need or fear some acts by him on his responsibility. If they share his authority, he has some share in theirs. Presidential "powers" may be inconclusive when a President commands, but always remain relevant as he persuades."
George W. Bush seemed to think that persuasion emerges from the exercise of power. But from Obama's first two commencement speeches, in fact from his body of speeches as president, it looks like he believes that power is through persuasion.
It was hard to square the messages given by Obama and Jenkins with the rage directed toward them by their detractors. Yet in raising the stakes entailed in Obama's visit, the critics did the president a great service. By facing their arguments head-on and by demonstrating his attentiveness to Catholic concerns, Obama showed great courage and helped to strengthen moderate and liberal forces inside the church itself. He also struck a forceful blow against those who would keep the nation mired in culture-war politics without end.
Obama's opponents on the ultra-right placed a huge bet on his Notre Dame visit. In their delusion they may think they won, but they lost.
Obama's opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He does not. They want to reduce religious faith to a narrow set of issues. He refuses to join them. They often see theological arguments as leading to an arrogant certainty. In his Notre Dame speech he opted for humility.
The thunderous and repeated applause that greeted Obama and the Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame's president who took enormous grief for inviting him to speak, stood as a rebuke to those who said the president should not have been invited. Jenkins said, "As we serve our country, we will be motivated by faith, but we cannot appeal only to faith. We must also engage in a dialogue that appeals to reason that all can accept" and do so "with love and a generous spirit."
The president courageously ceded no ground. He said that those on each side of the debate "can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions." He did all this without skirting the abortion question and without flinching from the controversy surrounding his visit there.
"Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable." Then he encouraged the two sides to find common ground: "Let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term."
His discussion of faith tells us much about his own Christian beliefs and about his approach toward those who believe differently: "That which unites Americans is more essential that that which divides us. Our essential common values should allow us to reach compromise where we can and remain at least civil as we discuss what cannot be compromised. True faith, true respect for religion, requires actions that make this world a better place."
He spoke of doubt in Christian faith:
"In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse. But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
"This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds."
I found Obama’s speech to be highly Christian in nature. Here are some more highlights:
A litany of sins:
"Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man -- our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism, in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times."
The transformational role of good works in the realm of faith:
"And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn -- not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ."
Defining common values:
"For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the golden rule -- the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this earth…
"Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?"
A call for action:
"But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.
"If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union…"
In the book Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, with its premise that the most important power of the president is the power to persuade, Richard Neustadt wrote: "Persuasive power, thus defined, amounts to more than charm or reasoned argument. These have their uses for a President, but these are not the whole of his resources. For the individuals he would induce to do what he wants done on their own responsibility will need or fear some acts by him on his responsibility. If they share his authority, he has some share in theirs. Presidential "powers" may be inconclusive when a President commands, but always remain relevant as he persuades."
George W. Bush seemed to think that persuasion emerges from the exercise of power. But from Obama's first two commencement speeches, in fact from his body of speeches as president, it looks like he believes that power is through persuasion.
It was hard to square the messages given by Obama and Jenkins with the rage directed toward them by their detractors. Yet in raising the stakes entailed in Obama's visit, the critics did the president a great service. By facing their arguments head-on and by demonstrating his attentiveness to Catholic concerns, Obama showed great courage and helped to strengthen moderate and liberal forces inside the church itself. He also struck a forceful blow against those who would keep the nation mired in culture-war politics without end.
Obama's opponents on the ultra-right placed a huge bet on his Notre Dame visit. In their delusion they may think they won, but they lost.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The State of the Presidency
In his first speech before a joint session of Congress, President Obama leveled with the American people about how deep and difficult the economic collapse will continue to be. This president was straightforward with American citizens, speaking to us as adults, hiding nothing from us – unlike some presidents of the past.
Obama explained how the need for more stimulus money for banks with greater accountability than the last TARP release, and the need for common sense regulatory reform to prevent unsuitable financial products from being marketed, are all interconnected with increasing the flow of credit to consumers and small businesses. Obama also indicated that the economic crisis offers opportunities for fundamental shifts in national policies related to the economy, energy, education, and health care. The current calamity provides us with the moment to proceed rapidly and ambitiously on these fronts.
In showing his desire for fiscal responsibility, Obama promised to cut unnecessary government spending, saying that his staff had already found 2 trillion dollars in wasteful spending, and to hold a bipartisan summit on Social Security. He also presented an honest and vigorous case for increasing taxes on the wealthiest citizens by ending the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent. He also emphasized the role that government can play in bettering our lives and dared the Republicans to come after him as a tax-and-spend Democrat by restating once again that anyone making less that $250,000 per year (and that is the majority of us) will not pay one single dime in new taxes – not one single dime.
For decades Republicans have dominated our political discourse promising that if we just got government "out of the way" and eliminated regulations and taxes, the private sector would create an "ownership society" where the rising sea of American capitalism would "lift all boats." But the collapse of the economy has brought about a collapse of these myths that sustained the laissez-faire ideology. Obama's speech cut through the Republican mirrors of illusion.
The GOP's laissez-faire policies not only caused this economic crash, but also caused an enormous, widening gap between the richest Americans and everyone else. The income and wealth gap is wider now than at any time in our nation's history, wider than it was in the Roaring 1920s or the Gilded Age (late 1800s). The Republicans' supply-side economics has produced a demand-side crisis. Due to lack of backbone in asking the wealthier citizens to support necessary government activities with taxes, our nation's infrastructure has been crumbling for the past 30 years. Our health care system spends more money per citizen than any other industrialized country, weighing down the profitability of businesses that still provide employer-based insurance. We have huge trade imbalances, devastated labor unions, a burdensome healthcare system, a barely functioning education system, and a dependence on foreign oil so extreme that conservatives like T. Boone Pickens, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and California State Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are pushing for reform.
One of the most difficult challenges President Obama faces, along with the recession and two wars, is nurturing a new attitude in America that emphasizes our spirit of community and interconnectedness. Yet, it is obvious that Obama is up to the challenge of leading this nation toward a new progressivism that values ordinary Americans and communities while dethroning the Republican worldview that has no room for shared sacrifice among all citizens, including the wealthy.
Although the speech was tilted more toward our economic problems, it contained plenty of Reaganesque-type acknowledgments of the spirit of the American people, reminding us that it was an American who first walked on the moon and put together a GI bill that created our middle class. Here’s more:
“History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history.”
President Obama came across as confident and in command, laying out a bold blueprint for the future and voicing his intent to usher in a new way of thinking. There is no way to predict if he will be successful, even if he wins the legislation he seeks, in reviving America with his policies. But he did provide reasons for the citizens of the United States, and the world, to hope for a better future. Many polls are showing that the American people have embraced Obama’s spirit of change.
The State of the Economy may not be so strong at the moment, but the State of the Presidency clearly is.
Obama explained how the need for more stimulus money for banks with greater accountability than the last TARP release, and the need for common sense regulatory reform to prevent unsuitable financial products from being marketed, are all interconnected with increasing the flow of credit to consumers and small businesses. Obama also indicated that the economic crisis offers opportunities for fundamental shifts in national policies related to the economy, energy, education, and health care. The current calamity provides us with the moment to proceed rapidly and ambitiously on these fronts.
In showing his desire for fiscal responsibility, Obama promised to cut unnecessary government spending, saying that his staff had already found 2 trillion dollars in wasteful spending, and to hold a bipartisan summit on Social Security. He also presented an honest and vigorous case for increasing taxes on the wealthiest citizens by ending the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent. He also emphasized the role that government can play in bettering our lives and dared the Republicans to come after him as a tax-and-spend Democrat by restating once again that anyone making less that $250,000 per year (and that is the majority of us) will not pay one single dime in new taxes – not one single dime.
For decades Republicans have dominated our political discourse promising that if we just got government "out of the way" and eliminated regulations and taxes, the private sector would create an "ownership society" where the rising sea of American capitalism would "lift all boats." But the collapse of the economy has brought about a collapse of these myths that sustained the laissez-faire ideology. Obama's speech cut through the Republican mirrors of illusion.
The GOP's laissez-faire policies not only caused this economic crash, but also caused an enormous, widening gap between the richest Americans and everyone else. The income and wealth gap is wider now than at any time in our nation's history, wider than it was in the Roaring 1920s or the Gilded Age (late 1800s). The Republicans' supply-side economics has produced a demand-side crisis. Due to lack of backbone in asking the wealthier citizens to support necessary government activities with taxes, our nation's infrastructure has been crumbling for the past 30 years. Our health care system spends more money per citizen than any other industrialized country, weighing down the profitability of businesses that still provide employer-based insurance. We have huge trade imbalances, devastated labor unions, a burdensome healthcare system, a barely functioning education system, and a dependence on foreign oil so extreme that conservatives like T. Boone Pickens, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and California State Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are pushing for reform.
One of the most difficult challenges President Obama faces, along with the recession and two wars, is nurturing a new attitude in America that emphasizes our spirit of community and interconnectedness. Yet, it is obvious that Obama is up to the challenge of leading this nation toward a new progressivism that values ordinary Americans and communities while dethroning the Republican worldview that has no room for shared sacrifice among all citizens, including the wealthy.
Although the speech was tilted more toward our economic problems, it contained plenty of Reaganesque-type acknowledgments of the spirit of the American people, reminding us that it was an American who first walked on the moon and put together a GI bill that created our middle class. Here’s more:
“History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history.”
President Obama came across as confident and in command, laying out a bold blueprint for the future and voicing his intent to usher in a new way of thinking. There is no way to predict if he will be successful, even if he wins the legislation he seeks, in reviving America with his policies. But he did provide reasons for the citizens of the United States, and the world, to hope for a better future. Many polls are showing that the American people have embraced Obama’s spirit of change.
The State of the Economy may not be so strong at the moment, but the State of the Presidency clearly is.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Why the economy is getting worse
As if to underscore the daunting financial mess confronting President Obama, on January 20, a new plunge in banking stocks dragged the market to just 400 points above its November 20 close. The index of 24 bank stocks tumbled 20% causing the Dow to fall 332.13 points, or 4%, to 7,949.09, its worst performance ever on the day of an inauguration. So far, November 20 marked the bottom of the bear market that began more than a year ago.
Although the sell-off was triggered by anxiety about the depth of the banking crisis and its effect on the economy, I have read and heard some far-right-wing dunderheads try to blame the most recent stock market decline on President Obama’s Inaugural speech in which he warned that the economic recovery would be difficult and that the nation must choose "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord" to overcome the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
It’s the banking crisis, stupid: Disillusioned investors fled financial companies as fresh evidence mounted that the industry's problems are larger than previously understood, larger than the response so far mustered by the government and perhaps larger than the resources remaining in its rescue program. This latest phase of bank stock sell-off began after New Year's Day and intensified when Citigroup and Bank of America reported huge fourth-quarter losses and the government invested an additional $20 billion in Bank of America.
Britain has just officially announced that it is in a deep recession. The possibility of bank nationalizations, in which governments take direct control of financial institutions, is happening in Britain and elsewhere, as some of the world's biggest banks report surprisingly dire results. The industry's plight, intertwined with the ongoing recession, is the greatest challenge presently confronting not only our President but many leaders of the world.
The news that's coming out is staggering:
Shares of State Street Corp., a Boston-based financial giant that had been viewed as a relatively safe harbor amid the industry pandemic, plunged 59% after the institutional money manager disclosed sizable fixed-income trading losses. Bank of America tumbled 29% after analyst Paul Miller at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. predicted the bank would have to raise at least $80 billion in new capital. Wells Fargo slid 24% after Miller said the company might slash its dividend. PNC Financial Services, a major regional banking company based in Pittsburgh, nose-dived 41%. Citigroup fell 20%, and JP Morgan Chase lost 21%. Shares in the sector have been crushed by fears that spiraling loan losses could force the industry to seek billions of dollars in additional capital. That could lead in effect to a nationalization of the industry because, with private investors afraid to step in, the government has been the only supplier of funds. The government now controls these banks in a “de facto” nationalization.
Britain on Monday undertook a second round in its bank bailout and said it would boost its stake in Royal Bank of Scotland to more than two-thirds. The company's American shares, which didn't trade Monday because of Martin Luther King Day, plunged 70% on Tuesday. Ireland has moved closer to nationalizing its third-largest bank, which has suffered from scandal as well as losses, but the government said it wouldn't take control of its two largest financial institutions.
Don’t blame the little guy
Those who blame the little guy must realize that although some borrowers knowingly bought more house than they could afford with the idea they would flip it in two years, unscrupulous lenders steered the majority of mortgage holders into these loans. These unsophisticated, fiscally uneducated borrowers did not understand the small print, but instead, listened to and trusted the lenders. Evidence shows that many who would have qualified for fixed-interest loans were steered into sub-prime mortgages such as adjustable rate mortgages where the interest increases every few years with resulting astronomical house payments or ARMs where the entire mortgage is due in full in five years (called a balloon). These dishonest lenders refused to re-negotiate the loans and foreclosed on hundreds of thousands of homes nationwide because they thought they could resell them at a profit. The market became flooded with homes, the housing bubble burst, home prices plummeted, and down the economic house of cards went.
The global banking industry, which has written off more than $1 trillion of mostly mortgage-related holdings, now is being crushed by losses in areas such as credit cards and commercial real estate that are tied to the faltering economy. For the past decade, lenders offered credit cards, at low teaser rates, to everyone, even to those who had little to no income. Fiscally unsophisticated borrowers ran up huge balances because the “monthly payment” was “affordable”. Then using the borrowers lowered credit score, sometimes even their health records, as an excuse, banks pushed the interest rates as high as 35%, locking these people into a cycle of increasing debt.
Not to be outdone, the check cashing, title loan, and quick loan industry preyed on seniors who faced unbudgeted bills they could not pay (extra large utility bill, medical bill, etc) and whose Social Security checks barely cover the basics. These businesses make short term, one month loans to these seniors for a large fee. Once the elderly person cannot pay off the loan at the end of the month, the balance owed starts to climb exponentially. The state of South Carolina has one of the worst records in this area with thousands of seniors losing everything they have due to the state not regulating these predatory loan sharks.
So, although some far-right-wingers are already blaming the latest downturn on President Obama, the root of our economic dilemma is a too long unregulated banking, investment, and mortgage industry. This deregulation was a fundamental part of the trickle-down, laissez-faire economic policies pushed by the Republicans over the last 35 years. Then, fourteen months ago on Bush’s watch, while he was telling us that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, the house of deregulated cards began to fall, taking many other countries with it because these countries invested heavily in American stocks and bonds. Already, Iceland has become insolvent as its banks crashed and the government dissolved.
I hope I am wrong on this prediction: Obama can gather together as many highly intelligent, experienced experts as he wants and put their suggestions into policy, but the train left the station long ago. Already having gathered much speed as it feeds on itself in a downward spiral, I do not think it can be stopped. This is going to get much, much worse. I think we are looking at several years of deep world-wide recession, and if not actually sinking into a depression, it will at least border on one.
Although the sell-off was triggered by anxiety about the depth of the banking crisis and its effect on the economy, I have read and heard some far-right-wing dunderheads try to blame the most recent stock market decline on President Obama’s Inaugural speech in which he warned that the economic recovery would be difficult and that the nation must choose "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord" to overcome the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
It’s the banking crisis, stupid: Disillusioned investors fled financial companies as fresh evidence mounted that the industry's problems are larger than previously understood, larger than the response so far mustered by the government and perhaps larger than the resources remaining in its rescue program. This latest phase of bank stock sell-off began after New Year's Day and intensified when Citigroup and Bank of America reported huge fourth-quarter losses and the government invested an additional $20 billion in Bank of America.
Britain has just officially announced that it is in a deep recession. The possibility of bank nationalizations, in which governments take direct control of financial institutions, is happening in Britain and elsewhere, as some of the world's biggest banks report surprisingly dire results. The industry's plight, intertwined with the ongoing recession, is the greatest challenge presently confronting not only our President but many leaders of the world.
The news that's coming out is staggering:
Shares of State Street Corp., a Boston-based financial giant that had been viewed as a relatively safe harbor amid the industry pandemic, plunged 59% after the institutional money manager disclosed sizable fixed-income trading losses. Bank of America tumbled 29% after analyst Paul Miller at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. predicted the bank would have to raise at least $80 billion in new capital. Wells Fargo slid 24% after Miller said the company might slash its dividend. PNC Financial Services, a major regional banking company based in Pittsburgh, nose-dived 41%. Citigroup fell 20%, and JP Morgan Chase lost 21%. Shares in the sector have been crushed by fears that spiraling loan losses could force the industry to seek billions of dollars in additional capital. That could lead in effect to a nationalization of the industry because, with private investors afraid to step in, the government has been the only supplier of funds. The government now controls these banks in a “de facto” nationalization.
Britain on Monday undertook a second round in its bank bailout and said it would boost its stake in Royal Bank of Scotland to more than two-thirds. The company's American shares, which didn't trade Monday because of Martin Luther King Day, plunged 70% on Tuesday. Ireland has moved closer to nationalizing its third-largest bank, which has suffered from scandal as well as losses, but the government said it wouldn't take control of its two largest financial institutions.
Don’t blame the little guy
Those who blame the little guy must realize that although some borrowers knowingly bought more house than they could afford with the idea they would flip it in two years, unscrupulous lenders steered the majority of mortgage holders into these loans. These unsophisticated, fiscally uneducated borrowers did not understand the small print, but instead, listened to and trusted the lenders. Evidence shows that many who would have qualified for fixed-interest loans were steered into sub-prime mortgages such as adjustable rate mortgages where the interest increases every few years with resulting astronomical house payments or ARMs where the entire mortgage is due in full in five years (called a balloon). These dishonest lenders refused to re-negotiate the loans and foreclosed on hundreds of thousands of homes nationwide because they thought they could resell them at a profit. The market became flooded with homes, the housing bubble burst, home prices plummeted, and down the economic house of cards went.
The global banking industry, which has written off more than $1 trillion of mostly mortgage-related holdings, now is being crushed by losses in areas such as credit cards and commercial real estate that are tied to the faltering economy. For the past decade, lenders offered credit cards, at low teaser rates, to everyone, even to those who had little to no income. Fiscally unsophisticated borrowers ran up huge balances because the “monthly payment” was “affordable”. Then using the borrowers lowered credit score, sometimes even their health records, as an excuse, banks pushed the interest rates as high as 35%, locking these people into a cycle of increasing debt.
Not to be outdone, the check cashing, title loan, and quick loan industry preyed on seniors who faced unbudgeted bills they could not pay (extra large utility bill, medical bill, etc) and whose Social Security checks barely cover the basics. These businesses make short term, one month loans to these seniors for a large fee. Once the elderly person cannot pay off the loan at the end of the month, the balance owed starts to climb exponentially. The state of South Carolina has one of the worst records in this area with thousands of seniors losing everything they have due to the state not regulating these predatory loan sharks.
So, although some far-right-wingers are already blaming the latest downturn on President Obama, the root of our economic dilemma is a too long unregulated banking, investment, and mortgage industry. This deregulation was a fundamental part of the trickle-down, laissez-faire economic policies pushed by the Republicans over the last 35 years. Then, fourteen months ago on Bush’s watch, while he was telling us that the fundamentals of the economy were strong, the house of deregulated cards began to fall, taking many other countries with it because these countries invested heavily in American stocks and bonds. Already, Iceland has become insolvent as its banks crashed and the government dissolved.
I hope I am wrong on this prediction: Obama can gather together as many highly intelligent, experienced experts as he wants and put their suggestions into policy, but the train left the station long ago. Already having gathered much speed as it feeds on itself in a downward spiral, I do not think it can be stopped. This is going to get much, much worse. I think we are looking at several years of deep world-wide recession, and if not actually sinking into a depression, it will at least border on one.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
A new dawn
I have never been more eager to see massive change at the top of our government. America has been given the chance to rise high above the chasm dug by the Bush administration. Words cannot express how much I am looking forward to January 20, 2009, when President-Elect Obama will take over and set an agenda for positive change. I have high expectations that he will use this opportunity to drive truly visionary and beneficial policies across the board.
In the last 8 years, America was trashed by George Bush and Dick Cheney in many ways. Extreme ideology combined with just plain meanness - both at the White House, and for many years, within the GOP-controlled Congress - brought America to its knees. The casual use of war in the guise of national security and it’s ensuing war crimes, the trashing of America's economic security, and the stepping stones for massive long-term environmental damage were all the handiwork of the Bush-Cheney administration. Yes, there were some Democrats who enabled parts of this terrible agenda - and they deserve blame where it is due - but the bulk of the responsibility for where America finds itself today clearly rests with the current President and Co-President. In November 2008, the American public finally saw the problem and said enough is enough. As a result, conservatism as an ideology is generally in decline.
Americans hold the expectation that an Obama administration will deliver the transformative changes required to rescue us from our broad economic troubles. Many people the world over hope that, with an Obama administration, America will once again be able to lead the them away from the frequent conflicts that are rooted in economic hardship and religious fanaticism. Obama certainly has the vision and leadership to make the kind of changes required to turn America around long-term and make it a respected leader across the world once again.
Obama’s Cabinet picks have shown great consideration on his part and have been generally praised, although there has been some grumbling on the left because so few have reputations as serious liberals. One of the very hopeful signs is that he is choosing experienced professionals for posts in government – people with areas of expertise assigned to appropriate posts, rather than making choices based on the purity of one's ideology. This is an excellent first step. Instead of acting as a liberal, Obama has moved to the center. That is where good government should be.
Polls show that a large percentage of Americans are now eagerly looking forward to the Obama Presidency and the positive change they hope it will bring. Anything Obama does will be a refreshing change from the Bush years. He left himself a fair amount of room for maneuvering in a few specific areas (including Iraq) - and if his actions fall within the gamut of views he expressed during the election, that in itself would be a good starting point. It is reasonable to argue that incremental changes from the Bush-Cheney years will be adequate in the beginning. The majority of the country seems to be more than willing to be patient and give him the benefit of time. I certainly am.
It remains to be seen how successful our new president will be, but here at the end of the old year, I feel a breath of fresh air. If Obama is successful in pulling our country out of the hole dug by the Bush-Cheney policies, there could be wonderful changes in the year to come that will bring me, all of us, contentment and gladness in being alive.
It is not just a new year, it is a new dawn.
In the last 8 years, America was trashed by George Bush and Dick Cheney in many ways. Extreme ideology combined with just plain meanness - both at the White House, and for many years, within the GOP-controlled Congress - brought America to its knees. The casual use of war in the guise of national security and it’s ensuing war crimes, the trashing of America's economic security, and the stepping stones for massive long-term environmental damage were all the handiwork of the Bush-Cheney administration. Yes, there were some Democrats who enabled parts of this terrible agenda - and they deserve blame where it is due - but the bulk of the responsibility for where America finds itself today clearly rests with the current President and Co-President. In November 2008, the American public finally saw the problem and said enough is enough. As a result, conservatism as an ideology is generally in decline.
Americans hold the expectation that an Obama administration will deliver the transformative changes required to rescue us from our broad economic troubles. Many people the world over hope that, with an Obama administration, America will once again be able to lead the them away from the frequent conflicts that are rooted in economic hardship and religious fanaticism. Obama certainly has the vision and leadership to make the kind of changes required to turn America around long-term and make it a respected leader across the world once again.
Obama’s Cabinet picks have shown great consideration on his part and have been generally praised, although there has been some grumbling on the left because so few have reputations as serious liberals. One of the very hopeful signs is that he is choosing experienced professionals for posts in government – people with areas of expertise assigned to appropriate posts, rather than making choices based on the purity of one's ideology. This is an excellent first step. Instead of acting as a liberal, Obama has moved to the center. That is where good government should be.
Polls show that a large percentage of Americans are now eagerly looking forward to the Obama Presidency and the positive change they hope it will bring. Anything Obama does will be a refreshing change from the Bush years. He left himself a fair amount of room for maneuvering in a few specific areas (including Iraq) - and if his actions fall within the gamut of views he expressed during the election, that in itself would be a good starting point. It is reasonable to argue that incremental changes from the Bush-Cheney years will be adequate in the beginning. The majority of the country seems to be more than willing to be patient and give him the benefit of time. I certainly am.
It remains to be seen how successful our new president will be, but here at the end of the old year, I feel a breath of fresh air. If Obama is successful in pulling our country out of the hole dug by the Bush-Cheney policies, there could be wonderful changes in the year to come that will bring me, all of us, contentment and gladness in being alive.
It is not just a new year, it is a new dawn.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Holding my breath
Our nation is just one day away from the most historic election in our history. It appears that we are about to elect someone who represents everything that the next generation believes in – a more equitable and caring society – and, no, I do not mean socialism. Tomorrow we will find out if America is truly ready to choose a better destiny. Will we stand up and say ‘we can do better’ and provide opportunity for all citizens, not just the wealthy? It appears that the answer is yes. According to the polls, we will wake up on Wednesday with Barack Obama as President-elect of the United States.
And yet, I am holding my breath.
It’s skepticism: a realization that those Republicans who have held power during the last decade or so, have done so by dishonest means such as voter suppression or ‘fixed’ voter software programs on the Diebold machines. It’s a fear that they will somehow steal the election once again; that Obama doesn’t really have a chance. He will have to win by a larger margin than what is being predicted in order to overcome the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters. I fear that the better tomorrow, the tomorrow that Obama promises – a country where all citizens are given access to healthcare, where all students can afford to go to college, where energy independence and cleaning up the environment is not only talked about, but acted on, and where the middle class is given the support they have needed for so long – will be snatched away.
It’s the fear that things will not change – cannot change. Perhaps I am holding my breath because, for those of us who are not wealthy, things have been so difficult for such a long time. It’s the knowledge that the GOP does not care about all citizens, but only those with money – the more money you have, the more they care about you. The rest of us are unimportant except for our taxes that help finance wars and shore up banks. It’s because I know that I pay more taxes, percentage-wise, than my very wealthy friends and family members who have tax shelters and lots of other “deductions.” It’s the fear that an unfair tax system that gives huge breaks to the wealthy and places a heavy burden on the middle class can never be changed.
Maybe it’s the awful pictures of death and abandonment of those too poor to own cars and drive away from Katrina. Maybe it is the recent stories of people losing their homes because they were duped by mortgage brokers who told them they could afford the bigger house, or others who have lost everything because someone in the family got very sick and insurance didn’t pay for much of it, or those who have lost loved ones in an unnecessary war. It is the pain of these failures, and more, that shows just how important tomorrow’s election really is. Maybe this is why I am holding my breath.
But it’s more than that. There is something even more ominous that has me scared. To remain silent would mean to pretend that this is not on the minds of millions of Americans everywhere. In the past there were people like Bobby Kennedy, and his brother, John, who stood for a more caring and equal society, who stood for change, and had their opportunity taken away from them prematurely. There were others, too, like Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln, who tried to create a better society, who believed that we are all responsible for our brothers, but paid the price with their lives. I cannot shake this fear that even if Obama wins the election, that something will happen to him. Because he represents change for this country, and a loss of power to the right wing, I am terrified Obama’s chance of leading America to a better place will be taken from him – that several of the haters will get together and take his life, and, in doing so, crush the newly hopeful spirit of this country.
Like John F. Kennedy, Obama will ask our nation to do great things because he believes we can. Given the chance, he will cause many to roll up their sleeves and go to work on rebuilding our infrastructure, designing new ways to meet our energy needs, and creating a more equitable society. Given the chance, he will stand up for the poor and help the middle class get back on its feet. Given the chance, he will stand up for equal rights for all, not because he is a Democrat, but because he is an American, and as Americans we should want nothing less. Given the chance, he will lead us to being a better people. Given the chance, Obama can lead our nation into one of the greatest chapters in its history.
I am holding my breath because Obama’s opportunity to be the leader we so desperately need may be snatched from him and from us.
May God protect him.
And yet, I am holding my breath.
It’s skepticism: a realization that those Republicans who have held power during the last decade or so, have done so by dishonest means such as voter suppression or ‘fixed’ voter software programs on the Diebold machines. It’s a fear that they will somehow steal the election once again; that Obama doesn’t really have a chance. He will have to win by a larger margin than what is being predicted in order to overcome the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters. I fear that the better tomorrow, the tomorrow that Obama promises – a country where all citizens are given access to healthcare, where all students can afford to go to college, where energy independence and cleaning up the environment is not only talked about, but acted on, and where the middle class is given the support they have needed for so long – will be snatched away.
It’s the fear that things will not change – cannot change. Perhaps I am holding my breath because, for those of us who are not wealthy, things have been so difficult for such a long time. It’s the knowledge that the GOP does not care about all citizens, but only those with money – the more money you have, the more they care about you. The rest of us are unimportant except for our taxes that help finance wars and shore up banks. It’s because I know that I pay more taxes, percentage-wise, than my very wealthy friends and family members who have tax shelters and lots of other “deductions.” It’s the fear that an unfair tax system that gives huge breaks to the wealthy and places a heavy burden on the middle class can never be changed.
Maybe it’s the awful pictures of death and abandonment of those too poor to own cars and drive away from Katrina. Maybe it is the recent stories of people losing their homes because they were duped by mortgage brokers who told them they could afford the bigger house, or others who have lost everything because someone in the family got very sick and insurance didn’t pay for much of it, or those who have lost loved ones in an unnecessary war. It is the pain of these failures, and more, that shows just how important tomorrow’s election really is. Maybe this is why I am holding my breath.
But it’s more than that. There is something even more ominous that has me scared. To remain silent would mean to pretend that this is not on the minds of millions of Americans everywhere. In the past there were people like Bobby Kennedy, and his brother, John, who stood for a more caring and equal society, who stood for change, and had their opportunity taken away from them prematurely. There were others, too, like Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln, who tried to create a better society, who believed that we are all responsible for our brothers, but paid the price with their lives. I cannot shake this fear that even if Obama wins the election, that something will happen to him. Because he represents change for this country, and a loss of power to the right wing, I am terrified Obama’s chance of leading America to a better place will be taken from him – that several of the haters will get together and take his life, and, in doing so, crush the newly hopeful spirit of this country.
Like John F. Kennedy, Obama will ask our nation to do great things because he believes we can. Given the chance, he will cause many to roll up their sleeves and go to work on rebuilding our infrastructure, designing new ways to meet our energy needs, and creating a more equitable society. Given the chance, he will stand up for the poor and help the middle class get back on its feet. Given the chance, he will stand up for equal rights for all, not because he is a Democrat, but because he is an American, and as Americans we should want nothing less. Given the chance, he will lead us to being a better people. Given the chance, Obama can lead our nation into one of the greatest chapters in its history.
I am holding my breath because Obama’s opportunity to be the leader we so desperately need may be snatched from him and from us.
May God protect him.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Is Obama’s tax plan socialism?
Republicans have been pounding the socialism theme in recent days. Critics point to Obama's plan to raise the top two tax rates on the wealthy as clear evidence of his socialist bent. However, Len Burman, the director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said that while Obama “would make the tax system more progressive overall, it would not be a radical shift.” In fact, the top two rates would only go back to where they were under Clinton.
In the United States, people often confuse socialism with communism. Thus, when a political nominee of one party accuses his opponent’s ideas of being socialist, many people are thinking “communism,” causing the accusation to be political poison.
As a history teacher, I always made it a point to teach my students the difference between capitalism, socialism, and communism:
• Communism is a social and economic system in which all property, including means of production, is public (owned by the government), not private. It should not to be confused with socialism.
• Socialism, in its pure form, is an economic system characterized by government (public) ownership of all means of production including major industries (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, and medical facilities. People may own private property.
• America's democratic capitalist system is not close to socialism. It also has never been a purely free market; rather, it has always mixed a little socialism with capitalism, and has done so since the progressive income tax was introduced 95 years ago. Under our tax system, the wealthy have always paid higher income tax rates than those who are less fortunate. It's a form of sharing the wealth.
Obama’s plan does not begin to qualify as socialism. The Obama plan is traditional progressive taxation, just like what we have had in the United States since the beginning of the income tax. We've had a progressive tax system for some time, and both Republicans and Democrats have bought into it. McCain's angry denunciation of socialist wealth-spreading ignores the fact that the country has always had a progressive tax code.
The new round of socialism accusations was triggered by Obama's comment last week to "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher in Toledo, Ohio. Joe told Obama that he hoped someday to buy a plumbing business and asked, "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" (see my Joe the Plumber post to see why Obama plan would actually help Joe.) "It's not that I want to punish your success," the Illinois senator told Joe. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you (those making less), that they've got a chance for success, too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." McCain has pounced on the “spread the wealth around” comment and taken it completely out of context, charging Obama with socialism. It’s a last ditch effort to energize his failing campaign.
Key Bush administration tax cuts are due to expire Jan. 1, 2011. Obama wants to end the breaks for most individuals who earn more than $200,000 and families that make more than $250,000, and give a tax cut to those families whose net income is below $250,000. The McCain plan gives very little help to the middle class, gives a further tax cut for the wealthy, and more tax cuts to the wealthy corporations who are raking in billions of dollars in profits. Obama's position would restore the top rates to where they were under President Clinton, when the economy boomed.
McCain once said, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans,” in voting against the 2001 Bush tax cuts. McCain himself once seemed to embrace the sensible notion that those who reap the greatest rewards should contribute more back into the system.
To further the hypocrisy, the McCain-Palin ticket is deriding the Obama tax plan, even though giving a refundable tax credit, a "socialist" idea, is also a major part of McCain's health care plan. McCain has been touting the fact that he would outfit "every single American family with a $5000 refundable tax credit" to help with insurance costs. “Refundable” means that everyone gets the money, regardless of whether or not they have paid income tax.
Presidential campaigns are full of hypocrisy, of course, but I can't remember the last time a candidate was this brazen about it. It makes you wonder what McCain thinks about the public's power of comprehension. He obviously thinks that most of us are not able to figure things out for ourselves.
If anyone wants to talk “socialism,” President Bush and a lot of other Republicans, including McCain, backed a massive federal government rescue of ailing financial institutions this fall, one that's committed well more than $1 trillion so far to "private" banks. The government will take partial ownership of the nine biggest banks, a degree of socialism. But this bailout was necessary to save our financial system. It was Bush – with McCain claiming a central role in the drama – who pushed the nearly trillion-dollar government plan to save ailing financial institutions.
I have heard these two statements made in the last week by wealthy individuals:
"Obama wants to talk about giving pieces of the pie to everyone, but he never wants to talk about growing the pie," said one, "I don't want to share my pie. If I earn it, I want to keep it."
"I make over $250,000 a year, between my wife and I," said a contractor, "I don't want to share it with anybody."
As any parent understands, sharing is not the most natural of human instincts. But government is fundamentally about sharing for the common good; taxes are, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, the price of a civilized society.
Next time there is a pothole in the road in front of your house, who will pay to fix it? Perhaps it will not be fixed for a long time because the county treasury does not have enough money to fix roads. Why is that? We Americans need to find the ability to move beyond the self-centered "no new taxes" debate and have a credible discussion about how to raise the revenue the country needs to make investments for the future in infrastructure, schools, and so forth, even as we provide for our aging population.
In ancient Athens, Greece, the cradle of democracy, with its complete commitment to political equality, taxes were only paid by the wealthy, with ordinary citizens exempt from tax; yet every man had a vote in everything done by the government. Now that’s a thought, isn’t it?
Let me end with this:
“For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” Luke 12:48.
In the United States, people often confuse socialism with communism. Thus, when a political nominee of one party accuses his opponent’s ideas of being socialist, many people are thinking “communism,” causing the accusation to be political poison.
As a history teacher, I always made it a point to teach my students the difference between capitalism, socialism, and communism:
• Communism is a social and economic system in which all property, including means of production, is public (owned by the government), not private. It should not to be confused with socialism.
• Socialism, in its pure form, is an economic system characterized by government (public) ownership of all means of production including major industries (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, and medical facilities. People may own private property.
• America's democratic capitalist system is not close to socialism. It also has never been a purely free market; rather, it has always mixed a little socialism with capitalism, and has done so since the progressive income tax was introduced 95 years ago. Under our tax system, the wealthy have always paid higher income tax rates than those who are less fortunate. It's a form of sharing the wealth.
Obama’s plan does not begin to qualify as socialism. The Obama plan is traditional progressive taxation, just like what we have had in the United States since the beginning of the income tax. We've had a progressive tax system for some time, and both Republicans and Democrats have bought into it. McCain's angry denunciation of socialist wealth-spreading ignores the fact that the country has always had a progressive tax code.
The new round of socialism accusations was triggered by Obama's comment last week to "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher in Toledo, Ohio. Joe told Obama that he hoped someday to buy a plumbing business and asked, "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" (see my Joe the Plumber post to see why Obama plan would actually help Joe.) "It's not that I want to punish your success," the Illinois senator told Joe. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you (those making less), that they've got a chance for success, too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." McCain has pounced on the “spread the wealth around” comment and taken it completely out of context, charging Obama with socialism. It’s a last ditch effort to energize his failing campaign.
Key Bush administration tax cuts are due to expire Jan. 1, 2011. Obama wants to end the breaks for most individuals who earn more than $200,000 and families that make more than $250,000, and give a tax cut to those families whose net income is below $250,000. The McCain plan gives very little help to the middle class, gives a further tax cut for the wealthy, and more tax cuts to the wealthy corporations who are raking in billions of dollars in profits. Obama's position would restore the top rates to where they were under President Clinton, when the economy boomed.
McCain once said, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans,” in voting against the 2001 Bush tax cuts. McCain himself once seemed to embrace the sensible notion that those who reap the greatest rewards should contribute more back into the system.
To further the hypocrisy, the McCain-Palin ticket is deriding the Obama tax plan, even though giving a refundable tax credit, a "socialist" idea, is also a major part of McCain's health care plan. McCain has been touting the fact that he would outfit "every single American family with a $5000 refundable tax credit" to help with insurance costs. “Refundable” means that everyone gets the money, regardless of whether or not they have paid income tax.
Presidential campaigns are full of hypocrisy, of course, but I can't remember the last time a candidate was this brazen about it. It makes you wonder what McCain thinks about the public's power of comprehension. He obviously thinks that most of us are not able to figure things out for ourselves.
If anyone wants to talk “socialism,” President Bush and a lot of other Republicans, including McCain, backed a massive federal government rescue of ailing financial institutions this fall, one that's committed well more than $1 trillion so far to "private" banks. The government will take partial ownership of the nine biggest banks, a degree of socialism. But this bailout was necessary to save our financial system. It was Bush – with McCain claiming a central role in the drama – who pushed the nearly trillion-dollar government plan to save ailing financial institutions.
I have heard these two statements made in the last week by wealthy individuals:
"Obama wants to talk about giving pieces of the pie to everyone, but he never wants to talk about growing the pie," said one, "I don't want to share my pie. If I earn it, I want to keep it."
"I make over $250,000 a year, between my wife and I," said a contractor, "I don't want to share it with anybody."
As any parent understands, sharing is not the most natural of human instincts. But government is fundamentally about sharing for the common good; taxes are, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, the price of a civilized society.
Next time there is a pothole in the road in front of your house, who will pay to fix it? Perhaps it will not be fixed for a long time because the county treasury does not have enough money to fix roads. Why is that? We Americans need to find the ability to move beyond the self-centered "no new taxes" debate and have a credible discussion about how to raise the revenue the country needs to make investments for the future in infrastructure, schools, and so forth, even as we provide for our aging population.
In ancient Athens, Greece, the cradle of democracy, with its complete commitment to political equality, taxes were only paid by the wealthy, with ordinary citizens exempt from tax; yet every man had a vote in everything done by the government. Now that’s a thought, isn’t it?
Let me end with this:
“For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” Luke 12:48.
Monday, October 13, 2008
A very dangerous ugliness
Utter contempt for Democrats is nothing new from the conservative base. But in 2000 and 2004, the Republican rank and file was more likely to mock Gore’s stiffness or make fun of Kerry with such sayings as “flip, flop, flip, flop” while waving flip flop sandals in the air. This year, 2008, the emotion on display is unadulterated anger and hatred. There is disbelief that Obama is ahead in the polls. “How could this be happening when Obama is a terrorist?” they ask, referring to the viral e-mails that have traveled around the Internet for over a year now.
On February 21, 2000, during the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, McCain said: "…I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it." He was speaking of the scurrilous attacks that were being made against him by Bush/Cheney/Rove.
After the second McCain-Obama debate this October, the polls rose in Obama’s favor causing the conservatives to run scared. Shouts of "terrorist" and "treason" aimed at Obama turned Republican rallies into alarming, hate-filled frenzies against the Democratic candidate. Then after letting things build up into a fury for several days, after the attacks began to spill into a very dangerous ugliness, McCain did an about face and urged his supporters to stop hurling abuse against Obama, saying he admired and respected his Democratic rival.
On Friday, at a Minnesota rally, McCain gave the microphone to an elderly woman who then told him that she was afraid of Obama because he was an “Arab,” McCain quickly took the microphone from her and said, “No ma’am.”
She asked, “He isn’t?”
“No,” McCain said, “He is a decent person, a family man, a citizen…”
A young man said that he was scared of Obama. McCain answered, “ I want to be president ... but I have to tell you that he is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as president of the United States."
Then a man stood up and said, “We want you to fight.”
McCain answered, “We want to fight, and I will fight, but we will be respectful.”
McCain was booed by the crowd.
He replied to the boos, “I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments and I will respect him. I want everyone to be respectful and let's make sure we are, because that is the way that politics should be conducted in America.”
For a moment there, I caught a glimpse of the McCain I had once admired. What caused this sudden about face by McCain? The US Secret Service told McCain that it was investigating an alleged death threat from a Florida rally attendee. But I can neither forget nor forgive the horrid ugliness, the ignorance, the name-calling and abuse that I saw projected toward Obama at various McCain and Palin rallies during the last week. For McCain to decide to stop the hate and ugliness because one of his followers had made a threat on Obama’s life does not change my opinion of him.
To my disgust, McCain has proven to be quite a different man than the one I once admired. John McCain has been too willing to say and do anything – with zero regard for truth or decency – in order to win the job of President. I do not believe McCain chose to tone down the attacks, but instead was forced to do so, by the Secret Service. It is now being said that McCain will change his tactics, once again, and actually talk about the economy and its effects on the middle class. But during this past week, as far as I am concerned, he has lost all right to legitimate argument.
Let’s take a look at the past week:
Monday, October 6, at a rally in New Mexico, Senator McCain, while spewing toxic assaults against his Democratic opponent, asked the crowd, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" An audience member shouted back "He's a terrorist!" McCain did not correct the man, but instead, he grinned and went on with his speech.
At a Wednesday rally in Pennsylvania, McCain asked the same question. A woman yelled, "He's a damn liar! Get him! He's bad for our country!" Another shouted back, "he is a bomb."
On Thursday, “I’m mad; I’m really mad!” a Wisconsin voter bellowed at McCain. “And what’s going to surprise ya, is it’s not the economy — it’s the socialists taking over our country. When you have an Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there gonna run this country, we gotta have our head examined!”
In the same Wisconsin mob, as one man in the audience asked a question about Obama’s associations, the crowd erupted in name-calling. “Obama, Osama!” one woman called out. The crowd took up the chant.
During the same week, the pit bull was unleashed and ran amok. Palin told those gathered at her rallies that Obama doesn't like American soldiers. "He said that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, 'air-raiding villages and killing civilians,' " she said, drawing boos from a crowd while a crowd member screamed "treason!" ( The full context of the quote shows that Obama was NOT criticizing troops in any way, he was talking about how we need more troops in Afghanistan, to put in practice Petraeus' "clear and hold" tactic so that more civilians aren't killed there. Obama has long held this position, one that McCain has only recently come around to. But the McCain campaign twists the quote to make it sound unpatriotic.)
Palin linked Obama with a terrorist every time she gave a speech. "Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers, and, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she said as the crowd booed loudly. Never mind that she is deliberately misquoting the New York Times. Truth does not matter to them. ( Many uninformed voters seem to be unaware that the “relationship” between Ayers and Obama is from serving on the same education charity board in Chicago. These voters do not know that anyone who serves in any education position in Chicago will cross paths with Ayers, now an education professor at a state university. Ayers served with Obama and many others on a non-profit board that disbursed $50 million in grants dealing with school reform. Obama and Ayers were NOT friends, although Ayers hosted a coffee for Obama in his first run for state office. Yet Palin would like the Republican base to believe there was more to the relationship that just both men serving on the same board.)
During Palin’s incendiary rhetoric linking Obama to terrorism, a supporter yells "Kill him." This was clearly heard by Palin and others in the crowd. Did Sarah stop in her tracks and admonish the shouter? No.
"Kill him" apparently passed the test for what's allowed in crowd reactions at Republican rallies.
Then there were the speakers at McCain/Palin rallies who continued, unchecked by their leadership, to refer to "Barack Hussein Obama" - the emphasis on his middle name is to imply that Obama is Muslim when he is really a Christian. These speakers know that most people attending the McCain/Palin rallies are low-information voters who vote on non-factual emotion instead of knowledge, so they are inciting voters to draw the worst possible conclusion:
That in the post 9-11 world, a dark-skinned man with a middle name of Hussein is somehow a Muslim terrorist, a one-man sleeper cell, from Africa or the Middle East, who, when once elected president will somehow turn our country over to bin Laden.
This is unbelievable. They seem to just let the misinformation pour into their heads. Garbage in, garbage out.
Every time Sarah Palin talked about Barack Obama "palling around with terrorists," it added fuel to the absurd notion that he's a Muslim terrorist. Every time McCain railed on about tenuous character issues, it made it okay for his followers to base their votes on viral e-mails full of bigotry, lies, and hate that family members or friends forwarded, rather than on issues that matter:
http://bloggerinterrupted.com/2008/10/video-the-mccain-palin-mob-in-strongsville-ohio
“Obama is a terrorist,” they say, citing his name as proof of ties to Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us
There IS a limit to how far it is acceptable to go with negative campaigning, and the McCain Team has exceeded that limit. The current political environment does not excuse remaining silent when a candidate for president is referred to as a "terrorist" in their presence. A desire to win does not excuse remaining silent during a threat on the life of a U.S. Senator at one of their rallies. There are no excuses for evil such as this. John McCain and Sarah Palin, the GOP, and all who support them were one step short of inciting violence at their rallies. They were letting physical threats go unchallenged.
“… when the Republican campaign, mired in desperation, deliberately stokes the fires of hate and fear, using disgusting lies to argue that Obama is literally dangerous, no one should be surprised when the far-right Republican base becomes frenzied…. The responsible thing for McCain and Palin to do would be to turn down the temperature a bit and insist, in no uncertain terms, that they have no tolerance for the kind of ugliness Americans have been recently observing from the GOP.” Steve Benen, The Washington Monthly.
Sarah Palin said that from now until Election Day it may get kind of rough. Kind of rough? The McCain campaign seems to be counting on prejudice and racism. They are picking up where Hillary left off, but have gone much, much farther. They have been presiding over hate rallies where people feel free to yell out murderous threats as the candidates laugh it off and keep giving their speeches, essentially endorsing such mentality.
John McCain’s and Sarah Palin’s constant incendiary attacks against Obama have been producing verbal responses from audiences that demonstrate the danger of such vicious grandstanding. McCain and Palin seem to be inciting extremists within our own country to follow a disturbing path. Once you’ve aroused a lynch mob, it’s hard to stay in charge. McCain may think that it’s the usual political fun and games, but McCain and his pit-bull gal may have unleashed emotions in their followers that they can’t control. Once people are shouting “Treason!” “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” it’s difficult to tell them to calm down. And if those emotions boil over into violence against America’s first black presidential nominee, the results will be a disaster of unimaginable proportions. Do McCain and Palin really want to be partly responsible for an assassination attempt?
For McCain, this is repugnant behavior, unworthy of respect, unworthy of being in the White House, unworthy of being the leader of the free world.
On February 21, 2000, during the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, McCain said: "…I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it." He was speaking of the scurrilous attacks that were being made against him by Bush/Cheney/Rove.
After the second McCain-Obama debate this October, the polls rose in Obama’s favor causing the conservatives to run scared. Shouts of "terrorist" and "treason" aimed at Obama turned Republican rallies into alarming, hate-filled frenzies against the Democratic candidate. Then after letting things build up into a fury for several days, after the attacks began to spill into a very dangerous ugliness, McCain did an about face and urged his supporters to stop hurling abuse against Obama, saying he admired and respected his Democratic rival.
On Friday, at a Minnesota rally, McCain gave the microphone to an elderly woman who then told him that she was afraid of Obama because he was an “Arab,” McCain quickly took the microphone from her and said, “No ma’am.”
She asked, “He isn’t?”
“No,” McCain said, “He is a decent person, a family man, a citizen…”
A young man said that he was scared of Obama. McCain answered, “ I want to be president ... but I have to tell you that he is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as president of the United States."
Then a man stood up and said, “We want you to fight.”
McCain answered, “We want to fight, and I will fight, but we will be respectful.”
McCain was booed by the crowd.
He replied to the boos, “I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments and I will respect him. I want everyone to be respectful and let's make sure we are, because that is the way that politics should be conducted in America.”
For a moment there, I caught a glimpse of the McCain I had once admired. What caused this sudden about face by McCain? The US Secret Service told McCain that it was investigating an alleged death threat from a Florida rally attendee. But I can neither forget nor forgive the horrid ugliness, the ignorance, the name-calling and abuse that I saw projected toward Obama at various McCain and Palin rallies during the last week. For McCain to decide to stop the hate and ugliness because one of his followers had made a threat on Obama’s life does not change my opinion of him.
To my disgust, McCain has proven to be quite a different man than the one I once admired. John McCain has been too willing to say and do anything – with zero regard for truth or decency – in order to win the job of President. I do not believe McCain chose to tone down the attacks, but instead was forced to do so, by the Secret Service. It is now being said that McCain will change his tactics, once again, and actually talk about the economy and its effects on the middle class. But during this past week, as far as I am concerned, he has lost all right to legitimate argument.
Let’s take a look at the past week:
Monday, October 6, at a rally in New Mexico, Senator McCain, while spewing toxic assaults against his Democratic opponent, asked the crowd, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" An audience member shouted back "He's a terrorist!" McCain did not correct the man, but instead, he grinned and went on with his speech.
At a Wednesday rally in Pennsylvania, McCain asked the same question. A woman yelled, "He's a damn liar! Get him! He's bad for our country!" Another shouted back, "he is a bomb."
On Thursday, “I’m mad; I’m really mad!” a Wisconsin voter bellowed at McCain. “And what’s going to surprise ya, is it’s not the economy — it’s the socialists taking over our country. When you have an Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there gonna run this country, we gotta have our head examined!”
In the same Wisconsin mob, as one man in the audience asked a question about Obama’s associations, the crowd erupted in name-calling. “Obama, Osama!” one woman called out. The crowd took up the chant.
During the same week, the pit bull was unleashed and ran amok. Palin told those gathered at her rallies that Obama doesn't like American soldiers. "He said that our troops in Afghanistan are just, quote, 'air-raiding villages and killing civilians,' " she said, drawing boos from a crowd while a crowd member screamed "treason!" ( The full context of the quote shows that Obama was NOT criticizing troops in any way, he was talking about how we need more troops in Afghanistan, to put in practice Petraeus' "clear and hold" tactic so that more civilians aren't killed there. Obama has long held this position, one that McCain has only recently come around to. But the McCain campaign twists the quote to make it sound unpatriotic.)
Palin linked Obama with a terrorist every time she gave a speech. "Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers, and, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she said as the crowd booed loudly. Never mind that she is deliberately misquoting the New York Times. Truth does not matter to them. ( Many uninformed voters seem to be unaware that the “relationship” between Ayers and Obama is from serving on the same education charity board in Chicago. These voters do not know that anyone who serves in any education position in Chicago will cross paths with Ayers, now an education professor at a state university. Ayers served with Obama and many others on a non-profit board that disbursed $50 million in grants dealing with school reform. Obama and Ayers were NOT friends, although Ayers hosted a coffee for Obama in his first run for state office. Yet Palin would like the Republican base to believe there was more to the relationship that just both men serving on the same board.)
During Palin’s incendiary rhetoric linking Obama to terrorism, a supporter yells "Kill him." This was clearly heard by Palin and others in the crowd. Did Sarah stop in her tracks and admonish the shouter? No.
"Kill him" apparently passed the test for what's allowed in crowd reactions at Republican rallies.
Then there were the speakers at McCain/Palin rallies who continued, unchecked by their leadership, to refer to "Barack Hussein Obama" - the emphasis on his middle name is to imply that Obama is Muslim when he is really a Christian. These speakers know that most people attending the McCain/Palin rallies are low-information voters who vote on non-factual emotion instead of knowledge, so they are inciting voters to draw the worst possible conclusion:
That in the post 9-11 world, a dark-skinned man with a middle name of Hussein is somehow a Muslim terrorist, a one-man sleeper cell, from Africa or the Middle East, who, when once elected president will somehow turn our country over to bin Laden.
This is unbelievable. They seem to just let the misinformation pour into their heads. Garbage in, garbage out.
Every time Sarah Palin talked about Barack Obama "palling around with terrorists," it added fuel to the absurd notion that he's a Muslim terrorist. Every time McCain railed on about tenuous character issues, it made it okay for his followers to base their votes on viral e-mails full of bigotry, lies, and hate that family members or friends forwarded, rather than on issues that matter:
http://bloggerinterrupted.com/2008/10/video-the-mccain-palin-mob-in-strongsville-ohio
“Obama is a terrorist,” they say, citing his name as proof of ties to Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us
There IS a limit to how far it is acceptable to go with negative campaigning, and the McCain Team has exceeded that limit. The current political environment does not excuse remaining silent when a candidate for president is referred to as a "terrorist" in their presence. A desire to win does not excuse remaining silent during a threat on the life of a U.S. Senator at one of their rallies. There are no excuses for evil such as this. John McCain and Sarah Palin, the GOP, and all who support them were one step short of inciting violence at their rallies. They were letting physical threats go unchallenged.
“… when the Republican campaign, mired in desperation, deliberately stokes the fires of hate and fear, using disgusting lies to argue that Obama is literally dangerous, no one should be surprised when the far-right Republican base becomes frenzied…. The responsible thing for McCain and Palin to do would be to turn down the temperature a bit and insist, in no uncertain terms, that they have no tolerance for the kind of ugliness Americans have been recently observing from the GOP.” Steve Benen, The Washington Monthly.
Sarah Palin said that from now until Election Day it may get kind of rough. Kind of rough? The McCain campaign seems to be counting on prejudice and racism. They are picking up where Hillary left off, but have gone much, much farther. They have been presiding over hate rallies where people feel free to yell out murderous threats as the candidates laugh it off and keep giving their speeches, essentially endorsing such mentality.
John McCain’s and Sarah Palin’s constant incendiary attacks against Obama have been producing verbal responses from audiences that demonstrate the danger of such vicious grandstanding. McCain and Palin seem to be inciting extremists within our own country to follow a disturbing path. Once you’ve aroused a lynch mob, it’s hard to stay in charge. McCain may think that it’s the usual political fun and games, but McCain and his pit-bull gal may have unleashed emotions in their followers that they can’t control. Once people are shouting “Treason!” “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” it’s difficult to tell them to calm down. And if those emotions boil over into violence against America’s first black presidential nominee, the results will be a disaster of unimaginable proportions. Do McCain and Palin really want to be partly responsible for an assassination attempt?
For McCain, this is repugnant behavior, unworthy of respect, unworthy of being in the White House, unworthy of being the leader of the free world.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Sent up a creek without a paddle
Each candidate has proposed a health care plan. Have you bothered to go to the candidates’ websites and read their proposals or are you just trusting their word? I have been to both websites – here’s my understanding of what I read:
Under McCain’s health care plan, if you get your health insurance through your employer, there will be an increase in your taxable income by the amount that your employer pays for your plan. If you think the tax credit McCain is offering will offset the tax, think again. The credit is only for those who have to buy an individual plan on the open market at an average cost of $12,000 a year. It is NOT for people who have employer-based insurance.
How would the McCain tax increase work? The average total premium for a family health care plan is $12,106 per year, with $8824 paid by the employer.
• A married couple with an annual taxable income of $63,701 to $128,500 would have a tax increase of $2406 (25% of $8824);
• and a couple earning from $15,651 to $63,700 would have a tax increase of $1323.60 (15% of $8824).
The more your employer pays for your insurance, the higher your tax bill!
But the scariest part of McCain’s plan is that your employer may decide to drop your insurance program because they would otherwise have to pay payroll taxes on that $8824, making an already expensive health care plan even more expensive. This would force you to buy health insurance as an individual on the open market. Any medical condition you might now have or once had would be "pre-existing" and insurance companies will refuse to cover you, or only partially cover you, excluding that condition. Do you have asthma? Do you have COPD? Have you had cancer that is now in remission? Have you had surgery of any kind? Have you had pre-cancers removed from your skin? Did you have mono at some point in your life? Have you had an ulcer caused by the ulcer bug? Do you have acid reflux (which has a very low chance of resulting in esophageal cancer)? Is your blood pressure above “normal?” Is your cholesterol up a little? You will likely be denied insurance. Then, McCain says, a pool of people who have been denied insurance will be cared for by a nonprofit corporation. Can you imagine how high the premiums would be?
What I see behind McCain’s plan is a desire on his part to completely destroy employer-based health care, forcing all Americans to purchase on the open market. It will cost thousands of dollars more than what we now pay, if you are lucky enough to quality. If you are over 50 years of age and have developed some health problems – good luck.
In contrast to the McCain plan, Obama's plan is simple and fair:
1) If you have insurance through your employer, you can keep it. It will NOT be taxed.
2) If you want to buy health insurance on your own, he proposes reforming the insurance rules so you can't be turned down for prior medical conditions.
3) Obama’s plan will give everyone the opportunity to get a plan through a Health Insurance Cooperative (called an Exchange) that will offer, at a fair price, the kind of benefits McCain, Obama, and all of Congress, have.
4) All children will be covered, if not through their parent’s plan, then through SCHIPS, the government’s insurance for children who do not qualify for Medicaid. Anyone saying that we should not make sure all the children are covered has a cold heart in my book.
5) Medicare would be allowed to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.
The McCain Team will make accusations that Obama wants to socialize medicine; that he is proposing a big government takeover of health care. "That's malarkey," as Biden often says. The oldest trick in the Republican bag of tricks is to call something socialism.
Obama is NOT proposing a big government plan! His plan would rely on the same insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals we have today. He would require that preventive care be covered, that children be covered, that insurance companies not turn you down or cancel your insurance due to any condition you may have, and that employers kick in to pay their part. These ideas represent pretty much the way health care was until about ten years ago before drug prices and insurance started to skyrocket and many employers stop offering insurance benefits. These ideas are main street values.
So don't be fooled.
John McCain is the one who proposes to increase your taxes. His plan would not only overturn the employer-based health insurance that is so unique to America, his proposals could cause 20 million people to lose their employer-based insurance and be forced to buy insurance on their own. McCain proposes to give a $5000 tax credit to help out, but the tax credit he proposes covers less than half of the cost of the average health insurance plan. This plan shows that either McCain does not care about the average American, or he is completely out of touch because his own health care, through Congress, is so wonderful that it causes him to erroneously think that everyone else has the same wonderful health care.
My state legislature is already arguing over whether to reduce the already greatly reduced benefits of the health care plan for both active and retired teachers. We are part of the “underinsured” group because our insurance is inadequate. Presently, they refuse to pay for the drugs the doctor thinks would be best, and instead, forces her to prescribe from their list of accepted drugs, often with less than a desirable outcome. Five years ago, when my husband and I both had surgery, we ended up paying 33% of our medical expenses for that year because several of my tests and drugs were not covered. Through diligence, we save a certain percentage of our yearly income and, luckily, had savings that covered our part of the expenses. But what if we had not been able to save anything in the years prior to us both needing surgery?
I’ve done the math – my husband and I could not afford John McCain’s health care plan. His tax increase would take a big bite out of our monthly budget. And if it were to cause the state to stop providing insurance, I would be denied insurance on the open market due to my asthma and other chronic problems.
Under McCain, many more Americans would be up the proverbial creek without a health insurance paddle.
Under McCain’s health care plan, if you get your health insurance through your employer, there will be an increase in your taxable income by the amount that your employer pays for your plan. If you think the tax credit McCain is offering will offset the tax, think again. The credit is only for those who have to buy an individual plan on the open market at an average cost of $12,000 a year. It is NOT for people who have employer-based insurance.
How would the McCain tax increase work? The average total premium for a family health care plan is $12,106 per year, with $8824 paid by the employer.
• A married couple with an annual taxable income of $63,701 to $128,500 would have a tax increase of $2406 (25% of $8824);
• and a couple earning from $15,651 to $63,700 would have a tax increase of $1323.60 (15% of $8824).
The more your employer pays for your insurance, the higher your tax bill!
But the scariest part of McCain’s plan is that your employer may decide to drop your insurance program because they would otherwise have to pay payroll taxes on that $8824, making an already expensive health care plan even more expensive. This would force you to buy health insurance as an individual on the open market. Any medical condition you might now have or once had would be "pre-existing" and insurance companies will refuse to cover you, or only partially cover you, excluding that condition. Do you have asthma? Do you have COPD? Have you had cancer that is now in remission? Have you had surgery of any kind? Have you had pre-cancers removed from your skin? Did you have mono at some point in your life? Have you had an ulcer caused by the ulcer bug? Do you have acid reflux (which has a very low chance of resulting in esophageal cancer)? Is your blood pressure above “normal?” Is your cholesterol up a little? You will likely be denied insurance. Then, McCain says, a pool of people who have been denied insurance will be cared for by a nonprofit corporation. Can you imagine how high the premiums would be?
What I see behind McCain’s plan is a desire on his part to completely destroy employer-based health care, forcing all Americans to purchase on the open market. It will cost thousands of dollars more than what we now pay, if you are lucky enough to quality. If you are over 50 years of age and have developed some health problems – good luck.
In contrast to the McCain plan, Obama's plan is simple and fair:
1) If you have insurance through your employer, you can keep it. It will NOT be taxed.
2) If you want to buy health insurance on your own, he proposes reforming the insurance rules so you can't be turned down for prior medical conditions.
3) Obama’s plan will give everyone the opportunity to get a plan through a Health Insurance Cooperative (called an Exchange) that will offer, at a fair price, the kind of benefits McCain, Obama, and all of Congress, have.
4) All children will be covered, if not through their parent’s plan, then through SCHIPS, the government’s insurance for children who do not qualify for Medicaid. Anyone saying that we should not make sure all the children are covered has a cold heart in my book.
5) Medicare would be allowed to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.
The McCain Team will make accusations that Obama wants to socialize medicine; that he is proposing a big government takeover of health care. "That's malarkey," as Biden often says. The oldest trick in the Republican bag of tricks is to call something socialism.
Obama is NOT proposing a big government plan! His plan would rely on the same insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals we have today. He would require that preventive care be covered, that children be covered, that insurance companies not turn you down or cancel your insurance due to any condition you may have, and that employers kick in to pay their part. These ideas represent pretty much the way health care was until about ten years ago before drug prices and insurance started to skyrocket and many employers stop offering insurance benefits. These ideas are main street values.
So don't be fooled.
John McCain is the one who proposes to increase your taxes. His plan would not only overturn the employer-based health insurance that is so unique to America, his proposals could cause 20 million people to lose their employer-based insurance and be forced to buy insurance on their own. McCain proposes to give a $5000 tax credit to help out, but the tax credit he proposes covers less than half of the cost of the average health insurance plan. This plan shows that either McCain does not care about the average American, or he is completely out of touch because his own health care, through Congress, is so wonderful that it causes him to erroneously think that everyone else has the same wonderful health care.
My state legislature is already arguing over whether to reduce the already greatly reduced benefits of the health care plan for both active and retired teachers. We are part of the “underinsured” group because our insurance is inadequate. Presently, they refuse to pay for the drugs the doctor thinks would be best, and instead, forces her to prescribe from their list of accepted drugs, often with less than a desirable outcome. Five years ago, when my husband and I both had surgery, we ended up paying 33% of our medical expenses for that year because several of my tests and drugs were not covered. Through diligence, we save a certain percentage of our yearly income and, luckily, had savings that covered our part of the expenses. But what if we had not been able to save anything in the years prior to us both needing surgery?
I’ve done the math – my husband and I could not afford John McCain’s health care plan. His tax increase would take a big bite out of our monthly budget. And if it were to cause the state to stop providing insurance, I would be denied insurance on the open market due to my asthma and other chronic problems.
Under McCain, many more Americans would be up the proverbial creek without a health insurance paddle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)