Saturday, July 23, 2011

I agree with Obama

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, July 21
, 2011.


If one were to read Keith’s column without a clear knowledge of history, one would have to conclude that the era of partisan politics began in the fall of 2008 when the American Electoral College declared Barack Hussein Obama the President of the United States of America. Many, like Keith, believe the Republican party has been having a hissy fit since then. They see the GOP acting as petulant adolescents, opposing everything Obama proposes merely for the sake of opposition.

I suppose Keith, and others who believe as he does, would prefer a nation where one party rules and the other just sits back and nods in agreement. Perhaps that would make for a peaceful news hour, where rhetoric and politics would melt away and choruses of Kumbaya could be heard from the House floor, but I contend it would make for terrible policy. If you doubt me, just think of other nations who have that “peaceful” air of one-party rule, where none dare to utter a word in opposition, where dissent is met with handcuffs and a one-way ticket to a re-education camp.

I would remind Keith, and others who believe as he does, that our nation was born in a spirit of passionate debate. Our founders recognized the fact that truth and progress usually lie somewhere between two polar opposites. In fact, most of the greatest accomplishments and reforms in our nation’s history have come only after many hours of rancorous debate.

However, in the spirit of spreading some goodwill and compromise in this current battle over extending our nation’s debt limit, I am hereby proclaiming my agreement with a Democratic senator. When I read this man’s words, I immediately concurred with his points. Knowing that words can sometimes be taken out of context, I actually did the due diligence of searching the Congressional Record and read the actual transcript. The following are his words copied and pasted from the Congressional Record of the 109th Congress, dated March 16, 2006 on pages S2238 and S2239:

“Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

I said “Amen, brother, preach it!” He went on to add even more:

“…the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans – a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.”
Another “Amen!” from me. Then he went even further:

“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Of course, that senator’s name was Barack Obama – but that was the Obama of 2006 – not the Obama of 2011, just as the Obama of 2008 opposed the surge of Iraq, until the Obama of 2009 ordered the surge of Afghanistan, but I digress.
Keith followed the party line of the Democrats and the tired class warfare tactic of blaming owners of corporate private jets for taking advantage of a tax deduction that was signed into the stimulus package contrived by President Obama and Geithner. The tax deduction merely allows accelerated depreciation for new jet purchases and its repeal would have diminished our deficit by a whopping $3 Billion over ten years! In other words, it is 0.075% of the deficit spending this year alone! Yeah, baby, let’s get that tax deduction repealed even though it has been credited with increasing sales of domestic aircraft by 43% and has pumped $2 Billion into the economy and saved American jobs.

It has often been the tactic of the Democrats to portray the Republicans as favoring the rich, the corporations and the military, while they themselves come across as compassionate and caring for the middle and lower classes. This latest battle over the debt limit merely perpetuates both myths.

The facts are clearly stated in the above quote from Barack Obama of 2006: raising the debt limit without reducing spending is irresponsible “…it is a failure of leadership, and it is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

I couldn’t have said it better.


3 comments:

Keith said...

Gordon,

Did you pay any attention to what went on in this week's "negoiations", or are you just falling back on Fox News and Limbaugh talking points?

Wanna know why Republicans are portrayed as favoring the rich, corporations and the military over compassion? Look at the policies they put forward. Look at the leadership in Congress. Boehner et al are happy to slash programs that benefit the poor, ill or elderly; they are happy to dismantle Social Security and Medicare; but they REFUSE to ask the wealthy to make any sacrifice in terms of tax revenue.

You know and readers know (at least those with a shred of objectivity and minds free of Fox's cloud of propaganda) that my column does not advocate a single party system, nor one with an absence of partisanship. It is clearly stated that I am opposed to the way partisanship has interfered with policy making.

Do you realize that we raised the debt ceiling SEVEN TIMES under Bush? Bush took the surplus we had when he took office, pissed it away and ran up a credit card with China to finance his two wars. During all that time, I never heard you once stand up in outrage over raising the limit. Not once.

So you tell me when that changed. Did that hypocrisy and partisan blindness begin when Obama took office, or is that just a coincidence?

K

Keith said...

Gordon,

Look at the concessions the Dems made in the previous administrations (and in this administration). They had their asses handed to them by the Republicans during the healthcare reform debates and that was when they controlled the White House and both houses in Congress. So, this obstructionist attitude in Congress IS DIFFERENT.

Partisan debate IS part of our system (which I advocated in my column). But compromise requires concession on both sides. When the Republicans 'negotiate' over the debt limit they are giving nothing They act as if the raising of the ceiling itself is a concession, but both parties agree that it needs to happen to avoid crisis. Everybody but the Tea Partiers realize it.

I mentioned the jet deduction because it IS such a SMALL concession. And STILL the Republicans refuse to give on it when it benefits primarily the wealthiest. BTW, mind sending me the source that credits it with creating jobs and injecting billions into the economy?

First of all. while I supported the mission in Libya to stem the killing of civilians, i HAVE been critical of the process. I HAVE been critical of strikes in Pakistan. I have taken NO position on Yemen (I need to research it more -- but I'm not judging it based on one article you reference from a source you wouldn't be even considering if it didn't oppose Obama).I HAVE NOT been loyal to the Democratic party at the expense of my values. I can't help you understand if you refuse to read my words.

I fully support our system of representational democracy. That's why I am outraged that partisan stubbornness and team-fan mentality has defiled this system.

I don't think we should even HAVE debt ceiling. No other nation does. The economic situation in 2006 is different than it is now and the stakes are higher. You keep acting like default will have no consequences. Just because Rush says it doesn't make it so. Let us default and just see what shitstorm falls upon the United States.

Yes. Companies and people move. Jobs have been outsourced. BUT tax cuts and breaks for the wealth have not resulted in growth of domestic jobs. We need to stop believing that tax cuts result in some trickle-down economic progress for the ruined working class. That was the cruel lie of Reaganomics and it continues to damage the nation.

K

Gordon Cooper said...

Keith,
Okay, Try this out.
If the shoe were on the other foot (and it has been, as recently as 2006 when the Dems took the House and Senate) - and YOUR side had been sent to Washington with a mandate to shake up the status quo (and it was), and Your elected representatives decided to compromise their position of power - even though in this case, they have only the House under their control. I believe in compromise and I practice it everyday here at home and in church and elsewhere. But I do believe tax increases stifle growth by taking money out of the economy and filtering it through several administrative hands before it finally reaches the desired end. The concept that the rich don't pay their share is not true, the majority of all taxes received comes from a small minority of taxpayers.
Let's look at the jet deduction as an example. The document I referred to comes from AP (even though it was reported on Fox News - so you will probably dismiss it) it was written at the time of the stimulus package;
So here is just one example of a tax break trickling down to jobs and stimulating the economy. By the way, it was extended by a majority Democratic vote for the stimulus - which no Reps. voted for. The tax break was initiated by Bush following 9/11 and was credited with saving jobs and pumping money back into the economy.
I still believe its introduction into the negotiations was a political ploy to divert attention from overspending.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/stimulus-includes-tax-break-promote-private-jet-sales#ixzz1SOpYpLQH