|
Obama Caving Before the Eleventh Hour |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=10204"><span class="small">Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 31 December 2012 09:29 |
|
Chait writes: "The erosion signals not only a major substantive problem in its own right, but it also raises disturbing questions about Obama's ability to handle his entire second term agenda."
President Barack Obama speaks at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina 10/19/08. (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)
Obama Caving Before the Eleventh Hour
By Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine
31 December 12
 he discouraging thing about the "fiscal cliff" negotiations is not that they have gone into the eleventh hour, or that they may go into the new year, or even that they won't resolve the long-term budget deficit. It's that President Obama has retreated on his hard line on taxes. In the months before the election, and in the weeks after his victory, Obama had a clear position: The Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000 were ending. He would not sign any extension, and if Republicans refused to extend tax cuts for income below that level, he would hold them responsible for it until they did.
Now, by all accounts, Obama is prepared to extend the Bush tax cuts up to $400,000 a year. Or maybe more. As of Friday, Obama had told Republicans they could have the tax cuts extended on income up to $400,000 if they would accept the estate tax rising from its Bush-set rates. As of last night, Democrats were conceding the estate tax plus the higher exemption on tax rates, which had risen to $450,000. And Republicans still hadn't agreed to it! Why would they, when Democrats keep hurling money at them? By midnight, Republicans might be getting the Saturday Night Live version of Obama's offer ("a 1% raise on the top two Americans - just two people").
The erosion signals not only a major substantive problem in its own right, but it also raises disturbing questions about Obama's ability to handle his entire second term agenda.
To begin with, the $250,000 a year threshold was too high to begin with. Obama may have needed to make the promise in order to insulate himself against suspicions of raising taxes on the middle class, but confining all future revenue to the richest 2% of the population left made it difficult to fund the government at an adequate level. Ending the tax cuts over that level would raise about $800 billion over a decade. Preserving all income under $400,000 a year would give back a quarter of that revenue.
The odd thing about the retreat is that Republicans had all but conceded eventual defeat on the issue. For a month after the election, Republicans gloomily debated amongst themselves whether to strike some kind of deal with Obama to secure spending cuts in exchange for the tax hikes that were certain to occur, or whether to simply wait until January to extend the tax cuts on income under $250,000. Obama insisted not only publicly but privately that he would not bend on taxes, reportedly telling John Boehner that the $800 billion from the expiration of tax cuts on income over $250,000 was his, "for free," and not something he had to negotiate for.
Republicans moaned and wailed about Obama's irrational hatred of the rich or desire to humiliate them, but none of them questioned his determination to end the Bush tax cuts over his proscribed level. The House was preparing elaborate tactics, such as voting for two different bills, to prepare the groundwork for surrender on the Bush tax cuts over Obama's line. The notion that Republicans might push the line higher seemed utterly fanciful. Now it is simply a fact that all sides take for granted.
What happened? The administration's line seems to be that Senate Democrats undercut, or were going to undercut, Obama's position. "They worry that if we go over the fiscal cliff, skittish Senate Democrats will quickly fold before some House-passed plan that raises taxes on income over $750,000, does nothing on stimulus, and sets up a debt-ceiling fight for early next year," wrote Ezra Klein, reporting the administration's thinking. "The White House thinks it'll be very difficult for them to veto anything Senate Democrats agree to, and so they would prefer to strike the deal themselves rather than getting into a situation where vulnerable Senate Democrats could strike a deal on their behalf."
It's surely true that the historical desire of many Senate Democrats to position themselves in the center of any debate, irrespective of substance, and associated desire not to upset their rich fundraising base posed a strategic problem for Obama. But if Obama fears trying to hold a line that Senate Democrats have abandoned, it's just as likely they fear the same about him. Obama's history of foolish negotiating with the Republican Congress gave Democrats every reason to fear he might fail to hold firm on his own line - the burden lay with Obama to prove otherwise. And two weeks ago, when Obama made a concession to Boehner that he would let the Bush tax rates stay in place on income up to $400,000, he gave them every reason to doubt him.
Now, the Obama offer to Boehner was not a full extension of tax cuts under $400,000. The plan was to get higher revenue on income below that level by reducing tax deductions rather than raising rates. But the news reporting cast the offer as simply moving up the threshold, and Obama did nothing to correct that impression. And so the effect of Obama's concession to Boehner - which of course went unrequited - was to reset the tax debate at a new, more GOP-friendly level.
Worse, exposing Obama's willingness to move his seemingly unmovable demand emboldened Republicans to demand even more. If they could push the line to $400,000, why not $500,000? Maybe cut Social Security too?
In 2011, in the wake of the debt ceiling debacle, Ross Douthat persuasively explained why Republicans felt no need to strike a grand bargain with Democrats - the ones he spoke with believed they would never have to face higher taxes. ("Much of the Republican 'intransigence' and 'hostage-taking' and 'terrorism' that they deplore is a direct consequence of the fact that Republicans assume that Democrats will always, always, cave on taxes.")
The negotiating style Obama has displayed in these instances is what poker players call "tight-weak." A tight-strong player avoids throwing in his chips, saving them for a big hand, which he plays aggressively in hopes of a huge win. A loose-weak player plays lots of hands, bluffing frequently. Tight-weak is the worst of all worlds - when you have a weak hand, you lose, and when you have a strong hand, you fail to maximize your position.
Obama is surely going to have to accept a lot of bad policies in his negotiations with Republicans (a fact I've argued to some of my harder-line liberal friends in several columns). But the tax cuts are the one area where he enjoys overwhelming leverage over the Republicans. Their only threat is to block extension of tax cuts on income under $250,000, a wildly unpopular stance countless Republicans have acknowledged they could not sustain for long without courting an enormous public backlash. This is the hand where Obama needed to collect all the chips.
Instead he is allowing Republicans to whittle down the sum by essentially threatening to shoot themselves in the head. And this is the most ominous thing about it. The big meta question looming over Obama's term is whether he has learned to grapple with Republican political hostage-taking. Hostage-taking is not simply aggressive or even irrational negotiating. It is the specific tactic of extracting concessions by threatening to withhold support for policies you yourself endorse, simply because your opponent cares more about the damage. Republicans agree that the debt ceiling must be lifted, but forced Obama to offer them policies he opposed because they believed he cared more about damage to the country than they did.
Their refusal to extend the middle class tax cuts is the same thing - they support the tax cuts on income under $250,000, but demand that Obama give them other tax cuts he opposes in order to pass them.
Obama claims, and seems to genuinely believe, that he won't let Republicans jack him up over the debt ceiling again. But if Republicans could hold the middle class tax cuts hostage, they'll try to hold the debt ceiling hostage. Indeed, they will probably discover other areas of traditionally routine policy agreement that can be turned into extortion opportunities.
Obama may think his conciliatory approach has helped avoid economic chaos. Instead, he is courting it.
 |
|
FOCUS | Trying to Be Positive About 2012 |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=18199"><span class="small">Will Durst, Humor Times</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 30 December 2012 10:30 |
|
Durst writes: "And so we bid a not-so-fond farewell to the bow of 2012, another large unwieldy year, as it sinks slowly over the horizon, wobbling unsteadily towards the graveyard of memory. "
Political satirist Will Durst. (photo: WillDurst.com)
Trying to Be Positive About 2012
By Will Durst, Humor Times
30 December 12
 nd so we bid a not-so-fond farewell to the bow of 2012, another large unwieldy year, as it sinks slowly over the horizon, wobbling unsteadily towards the graveyard of memory. And cheers erupt from we folks on shore waving the double-handed "L for loser" sign above our heads. "So long. See ya. Don't let the door slam you in the butt on the way out. And if you got any brothers or sisters, don't give them this address."
Normally there's some small sense of nostalgia for a departing annum. An iota of regret for the calendar discarded. Not this one. Getting through the past 12 months was like navigating a Black Diamond ski run in roller skates with the wheels rusted shut. While wearing a crib. It was an oil-soaked pelican of years. The Year of Living Stupidly. Had the same connection to constructive change that Vladimir Putin has to the editorial board of Crochet Monthly. The Chinese need a new Zodiac sign: Year of the Flatulent Weasel.
But in the interest of keeping this particular piece of puffery positive, it might be best if we confine our remarks to reflecting on the good that emerged from 2012.
Okay. Well, that was quick. Wait -- got one: at least the presidential election is over. Of course people are already running for 2016, so we got that to look forward to. Which is real similar to looking forward to having five-year twins playing in the back seat of a cross-country drive with a new set of drums and an unlimited supply of metallic sticks. And tambourines. Tons of tambourines. For four years.
You'd think even your average run-of-the-mill politician would possess the simple common human decency to wait till the current President was re-inaugurated, but nooo. These early birds are intent on stockpiling worms. You know what they say: Early money is like yeast. And very early money is like baking soda. And extremely early money is an egg wash brushed delicately across a pan full of hot cross buns.
When you think about it, the only thing that really went right with 2012 was we misread the Mayan Calendar. Everything else is either worse than we found it or the same. Middle East a mess? Check. Crazy people with guns? Check. Weather getting weird? Check. Congress unable to accomplish any sort of worthwhile task, including differentiating between their gluteus maximus and yellow paint? Double check.
Face it. These days, simple survival has become the goal. Continuing existence is the new victory dance. And then, for a half a second you ruminate on how good we got it here. What kind of state the rest of the world is in. And most of our problems just kind of fade away, don't they?
Sure, with great potential comes great responsibility. But it's an exciting time. 15 years ago, the only people with GPS units were NASA. Now we got them in our cars and phones. We're also in the middle of a cheeseburger renaissance and pretty good coffee is available almost everywhere. Not half bad perks. So, what do you say? Shall we give another a year a shot? But just 365 this time around. Don't know about you, but that extra day this year kicked my butt.
|
|
|
Dick Armey: Armed Assailant? |
|
|
Sunday, 30 December 2012 08:43 |
|
Molloff writes: Richard K. Armey, the group’s chairman and a former House majority leader, walked into the FreedomWork’s Capitol Hill offices with his wife, Susan, and an aide holstering a handgun at his waist. The aim was to seize control of the group and expel Armey’s enemies. The coup lasted all of six days."
Molloff: 'Richard K. Armey, the group's chairman and a former House majority leader, walked into the group's Capitol Hill offices with his wife, Susan, and an aide holstering a handgun at his waist.' (photo: AP)
Dick Armey: Armed Assailant?
By Jeanine Molloff, Nation of Change
30 December 12
 never liked Dick Armey. In my opinion he has been a loud, crass, political opportunist bereft of any principles or ethics. Politically, he is the proverbial 'loud fart' in church--aimed squarely at (ahem)--the public interest.
That being said; this descriptor could define 90% of Washington D.C., K Street, the Capitol and the Oval Office. IMHO (with heavy reliance on the opinion component as appropriate 'legal' cover); it is safe to say that most of the big movers and shakers in D.C. carry themselves as aristocrats, and as such view their own actions-- as 'above the law.' Democracy--is out--wanna be aristocratic mobsters--are in, replete with law degrees from the best Ivy league schools. Yet, Dick Armey took this alleged assumed privilege a step further when he recently entered his place of employment--namely the think-tank FreedomWorks armed with his wife Susan, an aide and a private guard sporting a very loaded gun. Here is the encounter as described by the Washington Post :
"Richard K. Armey, the group's chairman and a former House majority leader, walked into the group's Capitol Hill offices with his wife, Susan, and an aide holstering a handgun at his waist. The aim was to seize control of the group and expel Armey's enemies: The gun-wielding assistant escorted FreedomWorks' top two employees off the premises, while Armey suspended several others who broke down in sobs at the news. The coup lasted all of six days. By Sept. 10, Armey was gone--with a promise of $8 million--and the five outsted employees were back."
(Source)
Armey had allegedly proceeded to demand the ouster of 5 key FreedomWorks employees, including director Matt Kibbe, accusing them of 'ethical misconduct.' Though I am not a defender of any Tea Party group or think-tank; I cannot blame Kibbe et al., for complying with Armey's orders and saving themselves 'the price of a bullet.' Armey then allegedly attempted to make himself the Czar of FreedomWorks, but according to multiple sources, abdicated his Tea Party throne for some $8,000,000. After settling for his $8 million payoff; Armey resigned from FreedomWorks.
(Source)
Since then, Armey has been quoted on programs like Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!, yet no legal action has been taken against him. In fact, the mainstream media has described this eventful day as an 'attempted political coup,' rather than the very real attempted assault and possible extortion, these actions represented. Today I am focusing on the alleged assault and the political apologists protecting Armey.
Both Armey and the alleged gunman, former Capitol Hill Police officer Beau Singleton, have been busy disclaiming the events of that day as reported in the Washington Post. It is important to note that Singleton is licensed to carry a concealed gun. He is also well known on Capitol Hill having previously served as part of Dick Armey's congressional security detail. Many insiders (both in Congress and at FreedomWorks) were aware of Singleton's habit of concealing his holstered gun beneath the back of his suit jacket.
(Source)
Armey claimed he was 'unaware' Singleton was armed and Singleton has since confirmed Armey's version of events. Singleton explained that he was ..."just kind of there." He added ...."I can't see why they would act like I was menacing."
(Source)
Frankly, Singleton's inability to see the menace his loaded gun presented--seems as believable as George W. Bush claiming to be a Rhodes scholar. Singleton's loaded 'bulge' was most probably NOT 'shooting blanks.'
Since this drama was reported in the Washington Post, various pundits from all over the political spectrum have weighed in, including Mother Jones columnist David Corn. Appearing on MSNBC's 'Hardball with Chris Matthews this past Wednesday; Corn attempted to clarify the 'misunderstanding'.
..."What happened was, they knew it was going to be a contentious meeting, so [Armey's] wife and his assistant said bring Beau [Singleton] along just in case the FreedomWorks guys go ballistic...He's done private security at FreedomWorks to begin with. They knew him," said Corn
Corn continued..."It wasn't like they didn't know who he was and, to me, the big mystery is why the Washington Post didn't just say who this guy was. THEY MADE IT SOUND LIKE A GUY IN A HOODIE was brought in off the street. This indicates how bad the blood is between the two sides."
(Source)
Aside from the not so thinly veiled racism in Corn's description of ..."a guy in a hoodie"--there are legal questions which have not been addressed which present both a legal and ethical dilemma. Put bluntly, if you or I had stormed into ANY D.C. office with a KNOWN armed guard, demanding employees leave--we would have been kissing the pavement and waiting for the paddy wagon. We most probably would have been charged with 'simple assault,' and forking up bail money.
--Did Armey and Singleton Commit "Intent-to Frighten" Simple Assault...?
According to the Koehler Law website; 'simple' or 'misdemeanor assault' in D.C. is defined as ..."the THREAT or use of force on another person that causes that person to have reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact." (Source : Koehlerlaw.net/assault-theft/simple-assault/) The website further describes the three basic forms of misdemeanor assault. It is the second form, aka the ..."intent-to-frighten" assault which presents the most pertinent application. The "intent-to-frighten" assault classification is defined as..."a threatening act that puts another person in reasonable fear of immediate injury."
(Source)
Seems to me that Kibbe and his colleagues at FreedomWorks had previous knowledge of Singleton's license to conceal and carry a loaded gun--based on multiple reports stating a long term relationship with the same organization. Kibbe and his cohorts had legitimate reason to fear imminent harm, yet no arrests have been made as of this writing.
The 2-Tiered 'Justice' System in D.C....
In a political season where Santa is arrested for the 'crime' of 'chalking' on a public sidewalk the sentiments--'peace' and 'love,' (and for possibly being loosely affiliated with Occupy activists)--Dick Armey is not only flagrantly allowed to bark orders and threats (armed guard attached by the umbilical)--political apologists surge through the MSM all but wetting their panties for the opportunity to defend 'poor little Dickie.'
(Source)
While journalists like Chris Hedges find themselves arrested for what amounts to constitutionally protected dissent--freezing on peacable protest lines--Dick Armey and Beau Singleton appear to get away with 'intent-to-frighten' simple assault.
(Source)
There is a serious injustice being ignored here by the MSM (mainstream media) regarding the 'rule of law.' When the rich and powerful can avoid arrest and prosecution for an alleged assault; while the rest of us face the spectre of 'indefinite detention' for daring to participate in constitutionally protected dissent--we have freefall descended from the 'rule of law' to the 'arbitrary and capricious law of man.' We now have a 'justice system' where police and prosecutors select and pursue 'political prosecutions.' You get as much 'justice' as you can afford. Dick Armey has apologists making excuses for him, while Occupy activists face federal charges for doing nothing more than exercising their 1st amendment rights.
(Source)
Either we have what appears to be a 2-tiered (In)justice system in this nation symbolizing the worst hypocrisy these political aristocrats have to offer--or Hell has truly frozen over.
|
|
FOCUS | 17 Solutions for a Better America in 2013 |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=23303"><span class="small">Ralph Nader, The Nader Page</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 29 December 2012 13:28 |
|
Nader writes: "Don't most Americans believe and want strong law enforcement against corporate crime and fraud and abuses against consumers, taxpayers, the environment and workers?"
Ralph Nader being interviewed during his 2008 presidential campaign, 08/01/08. (photo: Scrape TV)
17 Solutions for a Better America in 2013
By Ralph Nader, The Nader Page
29 December 12
t's easier than you think. That's the way I start discussions and interviews about my new book titled, "Seventeen Solutions."
The "solutions" were selected for their long-overdue practicality, fairness, efficiency, safety, employment potential and respect for future generations. A majority of the people, sometimes a large majority, support such redirections. The effects of many of the "solutions" start being seen immediately.
Don't most Americans believe and want strong law enforcement against corporate crime and fraud and abuses against consumers, taxpayers, the environment and workers? The first step is telling your member of Congress to toughen the weak laws and beef up the law enforcement budgets which will pay for themselves many, many times over in deterrence, damage prevention to innocent people, and fines.
It has been taken off the table by both Democrats and Republicans, but a majority of people (including physicians and nurses) want full Medicare for all with free choice of doctor and hospital. Better outcomes, simpler to use, far less expensive per capita, timely diagnoses and treatment, and tens of thousands of American lives saved a year, are the fruits.
Who in your communities doesn't want public facilities (public works) repaired and expanded to meet needs? Ending the vast disrepair in our water and sewage systems, schools, clinics, libraries, public transit, highways and bridges creates well-paying jobs that cannot be exported to China.
Reducing the well-documented, bloated military budget, can release monies for repairing America. Demilitarizing our foreign policy will save the horrendous costs and after costs of these boomeranging wars of aggressive choice.
Get Congress to have "skin in the game," such as no health and other benefits for them, unless all people have them. There would be no taking our country into war without all able-bodied and age-qualified children of the Senators and Representatives being drafted into the armed forces. This duty will encourage Congress to attend to its deliberative, constitutional obligations and not heave them over to a lawless, out-of-control presidency.
Build family and community resistance and engage in alternatives to the commercial exploitation of children by non-stop big corporate marketers. These tricksters undermine and bypass parental authority to sell children junk food, violent programming and other things corrosive of their minds and bodies. Want to poll parent's reactions to those tricks among beleaguered parents who have lost much control of their children to corporatism?
Getting corporations off welfare, making them pay their fair share of taxes (GE is a profitable tax escapee that even gets checks from the Treasury Department due to the rigged tax code), taxing dividends and capital gains the same as ordinary income of working people, and imposing a tiny sales tax on massive Wall Street speculation are changes an overwhelming number of people support.
These advances, along with restoring our civil liberties, using regular government purchasing specifications for better goods and services to stimulate innovation and safety with our tax dollars, are easier than you think. The engine for these changes is organizing Congressional watchdog groups in every Congressional District around these and other solutions. Taking democratic control of the 535 members of Congress, with its ample constitutional authorities, is a lot easier than you think.
Moving our consumer dollars away from global corporations to local community banks, credit unions, farmer markets, renewable energy, and community health clinics, with emphasis on prevention, is a lot easier than you think. Stronger local economies are more self-reliant, they won't be shut down and shipped away or abroad by absentee owners making life-altering unaccountable decisions in their skyscrapers.
Local democracy is, like most ventures in life, a learning process of civic skills and experience. Starting in elementary and high schools, youngsters can shed their apathy or despair by working on real problems in the communities as part of their school-to-community courses. Look at all those high school physics, biology, and chemistry labs that, for example, can be testing air, water, soil samples and electromagnetic levels, and reporting the results to their community.
Studying books such as the newly released Slow Democracy (Chelsea Press, 2012) will give you many examples and tools to demonstrate that it's easier than you think.
Last September, prominent Cornell Economics Professor, Robert Frank wrote a column for The New York Times with the headline "Nation's Choices Needn't Be Painful." He wrote of infrastructure capital improvement programs, new tax policies, reducing highway congestion, curbing carbon emissions and other remedial actions that pay off.
Professor Frank, who told me he's going to write "a small book" on his assertions, says "the endless hand-wringing about painful economic choices is misguided. With a few simple policy changes, we could restore full employment, rebuild crumbling infrastructure and pay down the national debt without requiring real sacrifices from anyone."
Making all this and more happen needs some three million Americans (the other one percent) organized and focused on Congress and state legislatures in ways that reflect the "public sentiment." We have to stop being so discouraged and solution-averse, especially since we have so many solutions already on the shelf, but not on the ground, because we've let the few make so many centralized, top-down decisions for us – "we the people."
No one can stop us from taking these initiatives, except, that is, ourselves. To send us your "solutions" and to order an autographed copy of Seventeen Solutions, visit: http://www.seventeensolutions.com/
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us." His most recent work of non-fiction is "The Seventeen Traditions."
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
