Tag Archives: obama

Fighting ground.

Okay, let’s get one thing out of the way at the start: very few people enjoy paying taxes. To that I can only add my own personal observation that the people who seem to complain the loudest about taxes are the ones who can most afford to pay them. They have an excellent means of making their complaints heard, too – it’s called the Republican Party. In fact, in service to those who would pay not a single dime more than the historic low rates they’re paying today, the G.O.P. is creating a default crisis out of whole cloth by linking the authorization of additional borrowing to the conclusion of a draconian budget agreement that will gut the essential social programs they have always sought to defund, privatize, etc.

The two things, of course, have nothing to do with one another in the real world. Raising the debt ceiling is merely addressing financial commitments that have already been agreed upon. It is something the Republicans have gladly passed many times before under their own presidents, as well as under Democrats. They have seized upon it because it offers an opportunity to, in effect, put the entire nation up against a wall until we give up on the idea of not spending our elderly years in penury. (That’s sooooo 1960’s of us.) The Republicans see an opportunity here to realize what they could never accomplish during George W. Bush’s tenure – privatization of Medicare, pirating Social Security, and locking in massive tax cuts from now until perdition. And they sense, perhaps correctly, that the Democrats don’t have enough fight in them to stop it.

I will gladly crib Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, and Dean Baker on this – Social Security is not – repeat, not – part of any budgetary problem. It is fully self-funding for the next 25 years with no changes whatsoever. How many programs can make that claim? The G.O.P. and spineless Democrats merely want to pirate the fund to pay for extending Bush tax cuts for the richest people in the country. Regarding Medicare and Medicaid, they are single-payer systems dedicated to the elderly, poor, disabled, and stricken amongst us. The rest of us – those who are relatively young, fit, and almost never need a doctor – are reserved for the profit of private insurers. Single payers systems only pay for themselves when everyone – sick and well, old and young, rich and poor – participates in them. If we want to solve the funding problem, we need to decide whether we can continue to afford contriving a profitable market for companies like BlueCross.

In short, the deficit hawks in the Republican caucuses are blackmailing us into funding tax breaks for wealthy people – including the fuckers who caused the financial crisis – by crippling our already inadequate social safety net.  I say, call their bluff. This is ground worth fighting for.

luv u,

jp

So long, proconsul.

Gates is leaving, but his wars will remain with us, it appears. He didn’t start them, of course, but he was brought in to manage them after they went seriously off the rails. In what I will always consider to be among the clearest evidence of the existence of a permanent institutional foreign policy consensus, Gates was hired to replace Rumsfeld in 2006 when it was obvious that the Bush team’s invasion of Iraq was shaking the American empire to its very foundations. I imagine there was resistance from Bush himself, from Rumsfeld, of course, and from Cheney – they had problems with the Iraq Study Group’s findings and doubled down on their Iraq disaster, but they had lost the confidence of that institutional elite by that time, and the loss of Congress to the Democrats nudged Rumsfeld over the edge. Cheney was effectively sidelined for the remainder of Bush’s second term.

So it goes with empires, I guess. Ours rolled along swimmingly for the last century, gathering steam after World War II, flattening its dissidents, outlasting its main rivals … until we managed to elect a man so incompetent he could, to borrow a phrase, destroy the empire merely by strolling through it. I’m sure to the nation’s imperial board of trustees, George W. seemed a relatively safe bet, particularly with such seemingly reliable minders as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld keeping an eye on the store. That miscalculation is proving very costly. Just as our attack on Vietnam bled us dry (to say nothing of what it did to the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians), this past decade of war – coupled with an amazingly irresponsible policy of deep war-time tax cuts – has helped to hobble our economy, perhaps beyond recovery.

Obama should well be celebrated by the ownership class in America. What the hell, he has salvaged the empire, shored up the banking system, shielded the financial managers from accountability. Beats the hell out of me why they would want rid of him, except that they may want an even better deal. He is trying to return us to that proven imperial model of having others fight our wars for us while resorting to a Murder, Inc. strategy for what is now called “high value” targets. Obama may not succeed in that effort, but he’s trying. So Gates will leave, satisfied, I’m sure, that the republic… I mean, the empire is in good hands, his charge fulfilled.

So, farewell, Proconsul Gates. Off to Capri with you, then.

luv u,

jp

Winding it down.

Obama announced his plans to reverse the Afghan “surge” over the next year and a half – news that appears to have pleased no one in the political world. I guess he shares the Alan Simpson belief that if you piss everyone – everyone – off, you must be doing something right. It just makes me wonder if the guy ever considered trying to please somebody, sometime. A very typical Obama approach, this withdrawal strategy – right down the muddle in the middle. It’s a lot like his solution to health care reform, Wall Street reform, etc. Basically half-measures where double-sized efforts are necessary. Putting a bandaid on a compound fracture. Cured!

This line kind of sums up my own personal frustration with the president:

“Thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special Forces, we killed Osama bin Laden, the only leader that al Qaeda had ever known. This was a victory for all who have served since 9/11. One soldier summed it up well. “The message,” he said, “is we don’t forget. You will be held accountable, no matter how long it takes.”

Yep, well… that memory / accountability argument is a bit flawed. When it comes to our own bona fide war criminals – people who smashed a country to pieces, killing hundreds of thousands, causing millions of refugees, many of whom will never again see home, etc., we need to “look forward” and not engage in settling scores. Theirs? They pay. Bin Laden had much, much to answer for, no question. But so do George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Douglas Feith, and others in the last administration. They cooked up a case for a war that killed more Americans than Bin Laden killed on 9/11. So what if it looks politically awkward; did they do it or not? If they did the crime, they should do the time. It’s a venerable conservative position.

Of course, Obama’s got blood on his hands now, as well. In politics there’s an old saying about not breaking the other guys’ rice bowl. With someone as cautious as this president, rice bowls have never been safer.

luv u,

jp

Strange medicine.

Obama’s Middle East address was full of familiar themes. There’s been a lot of dust kicked up about the suggestion that any lasting peace in Israel/Palestine should be based on the pre-June 1967 borders with mutually agreeable land swaps. That was a bit like Gingrich saying he didn’t believe in gutting Medicare and turning it into a lame, unworkable voucher program. Nothing draws criticism like brief moments of relative sanity. But I digress.

What wasn’t surprising about the speech? The hard swipes at our perennial punching bags, Syria and Iran. The heavily caveated criticism of Bahrain and Yemen. The non-existence of Saudi Arabia. These are all too attractive not to make it into the final draft. But in my mind, there were probably three items worth referencing:

“Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. ” 

This was the magic of the marketplace passage that’s been previewed over the past few days. Obama promised to get the IMF and World Bank working to “modernize and stabilize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt.” What he didn’t say was that the mass protests in Egypt he referenced earlier were fueled, in part, by neoliberal reforms of the type he’s describing. All I can say is that the revolutionaries in Egypt and Tunisia had better be on their guard, because plugging their economies into the Washington consensus only means striving to be another Honduras.

“For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own.”

This is, in a sense, boilerplate framing of the issue. Only Israelis are killed, blown up, etc., in this conflict. Palestinians are merely “humiliated”. From this statement, you’d never know that the vast, vast majority of deaths in this conflict have been among the Palestinians. Also, you never hear this or any president talk about Palestinian security. The only time they use the term security in reference to Palestinians is when they’re talking about Palestinian responsibility to ensure Israeli security. That thing Obama said about every nation having the right to defend itself? Within a few lines he was talking about a “demilitarized” Palestinian state. So much for self defense.

Still, the 1967 borders argument is a rare glimpse at sanity, and I credit him for it. Will it last the weekend? We shall see.

The Strauss-Kahn Consensus.  Not sure why Dominique Strauss-Kahn is under arrest. He only did to that poor woman what the IMF has been doing to poor countries for decades, to choruses of praise from the U.S.

luv u,

jp

Obama’s twenty.

I dimly recall an old Chris Rock routine about Bill Clinton back in the 90’s. It was that bit about Bill Clinton being the first black president; Rock’s proof was simple: “He hands them a twenty, and they hold it up to the light.” That pretty much defines the dynamic that brought about this week’s revealing of Obama’s long-form birth certificate. There’s a clear effort towards delegitimizing the president not so much because of his policies (which merit some substantial criticism) but rather on the basis of his being black. No, Donald Trump is not standing there saying Obama shouldn’t be president because of his skin color. He is merely amplifying the overtly racist insistence that the man hasn’t adequately proven his identity, that he must – again and again, in an ever-proliferating variety of forms – present his papers on demand. When has this ever in our lifetimes been demanded of a president of the United States?

This started with the Clinton campaign and was expanded by the McCain campaign with the ominous warnings from both halves of that ticket that Obama was “not like you and me.” True enough, if “you and me” is white people. It was the birth certificate, the church he belonged to, the African garb he wore on a trip, the middle name his parents gave him – all these attempts to make him appear alien and, therefore, threatening to middle America. (No need to enhance the fear factor on the far right- they were there already.) For the most part, it’s really just a process of drawing people’s attention to the fact that he’s African American, by subtracting the “American” part.

Stephen Colbert did a decent job of explaining this – hilariously – on his show this past week. (I think it was Wednesday night’s show.) Of course, Obama’s effort to still the beast by giving it something to chew on is a bit like paying off blackmailers. And sure enough, they’re already on to the next thing.

Got to go – papers to write. (End of the semester again.)

luv u,

jp

Taking sides.

As you have surely heard, the unprecedented anti-government protests in Egypt have continued over the past week, growing in strength despite some very cynical attempts to disrupt them through violence and intimidation. Together with the revolution in Tunisia and demonstrations in Jordan, Yemen, and Syria, this is probably the most remarkable development in the Arab world since decolonization. From reports on the ground – perhaps most valuably those submitted by Sharif Abdel Kouddous on Democracy Now! – this is an astoundingly well-organized and well-disciplined uprising, very much a bottom-up movement with no obvious uber-leaders. Quite the opposite of the kind of chaos Mubarak keeps referring to as the alternative to his continued rule.

Of course, the United States – despite our late-to-the-party expressions of sympathy for the Egyptian people – is squarely on the wrong side of this divide, as is practically every government in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, and Israel. As a key component of U.S. foreign policy in the middle east, we have been sluicing billions of dollars into the Egyptian regime since the Camp David Accords were signed more than thirty years ago, 29+ of which have been presided over by Mubarak. Much of this has been military aid, the principal purpose of which is to ensure continued non-interference and tacit complicity in Israel’s policy of occupation and assimilation of the West Bank and its denial of national rights for the Palestinians. This aid has given Mubarak the space to run his country with no hint of opposition, in a constant state of emergency. Unsurprising that he would argue for his continued rule by suggesting some dire fate may prove the only alternative.

It’s the same in Egypt as it is pretty much everywhere else. There are two opposing sides: basically the side that owns everything vs. the side that has nothing. Once in a while, the side that has nothing – always far more numerous – decides to stand up, because (as Martin King pointed out) it’s harder for a man to ride on your back when you stand up straight. In nation after nation, we stand with the ownership side – the landlords, if you will. Egypt is no exception. Our bland statements of support for the democratic process cannot change history. Once again, we have been duly recognized as the funders of security forces, the trainers of torturers, the suppliers of tear gas canisters and bullets, all in the name of an abusive “stability”. Even with Obama’s long legs, that’s a little hard to walk away from.

One last point. If our old friend Mubarak continues his astoundingly cynical attempts to break this movement through the use of paid thugs, and if substantially more blood is shed by the Egyptian people as a result, their view of the United States is likely to grow very much dimmer.

luv u,

jp

Talking points.

This week will really be short swipes at various topics. I’m utterly up to my eyeballs… so the rascals are safe!

State of It. Republicans and Democrats sat together, nice-nice, during the State of the Union address. Such an endearing sight, was it not? In some cases, it seemed like something they may actually have wanted to do; others seemed pressed to do so by a sense of the public mood, perhaps. Either way, it’s a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic or spec’ing new curtains on the top floor of the Towering Inferno. (Name checking Irwin Allen here.) Congress is poised to choke ordinary Americans off from a range of federal benefits and services, just as they are dealing with similar reductions at the state and local levels. They have the votes to do it.

Sad thing is, Obama seems ready to assist them in this. His somewhat schizophrenic SOTU lurched from major investments to multi-year spending freezes. Domestic spending kept level for five years? Sounds like McCain. What would the impact of that be on all of these domestic initiatives he’s mentioning in the same breath? We shall see how that shakes out. Of course, the CBO came out with dire estimates regarding both the federal budget and Social Security practically while Obama was speaking. The primary culprit? The tax cut deal, which is blowing the predictable hole in the Federal budget and starving Social Security of its payroll tax funding. Guess how they’re going to try to fill that hole. Ask Paul Ryan.

World Service. The uprising in Tunisia has sparked some pretty serious protests across the Arab world, most notably Egypt. That oppressive regime for which torture is as fundamental a part of the penal system as iron bars is a bit unnerved, to say the least, and will no doubt rely upon the good graces of its sponsor the United States more heavily than before. It’s hard to imagine Egypt without Mubarak, but it will come one day. What that will look like I can only guess. 

Goodbye and Good Luck. MSNBC’s firing of Keith Olbermann is not good news in my house, particularly around the 8:00 pm hour. I don’t think I need comment on the stupidity of this decision, but I feel compelled to say that coverage of it has been pretty lame. NPR’s Talk of the Nation  is one example, which featured Bill Carter of the New York Times talking about how NBC thought him too “aggressive” and how they were concerned about incitement to violence. No comment on whether that was a reasonable position to take – just bland assurances from the man whose very tempered paper helped get us into Iraq.   

Science! The internets are abuzz with speculation about NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdulati and his mysterious past. Stop guessing, conservative bloggers – I know right where he comes from…. across the street from my childhood home in New Hartford, NY, that’s where! He lived there from about 4 years old until after high school, and a brighter and more decent guy you couldn’t imagine – so stop obsessing, you knee-jerk racists.  

luv u,

jp

Service.

After a whirlwind lame duck session for the 111th Congress, it appears as though gays will soon be able to serve openly in the military. I must emphasize the modifier “soon”, as it is not yet safe to make your sexual orientation known in the service, and it won’t be until the Administration and the Pentagon completes their review process. None the less, this was a long time coming, and I am glad for those in uniform for whom the repeal of DADT means a kind of liberation. DADT was implemented before we started asking way too much of our military – multiple deployments to multiple simultaneous occupations, heavy fighting over stretches of months at a time, high casualty rates, etc. – and it has simply outlived its mandate, in addition to being dead wrong from the start.

That’s all good, but it’s just a step in the right direction. Gay Americans are still second-class citizens, barred from full civil rights as of this moment. As of now, there is an institutional necessity to allow gays to join the military – with an all-volunteer force like ours, we cannot wage two (or perhaps three) simultaneous wars without providing incentives to talented people of every persuasion to participate. The trouble is, when they return to civilian life (those who don’t choose to make the military a permanent career), they find themselves unable to marry, to raise a family, or to hold certain types of positions in some states. Not a dissimilar situation to that of the late 1940s, early 1950s, when black soldiers returned to the segregated south and a nearly equally racist north. My guess is that it’s just a matter of time before the crumbling edifice of discrimination against gays falls entirely to pieces.

It is worth saying, too, that while we’re now legislatively bound to start welcoming gays into our military, we might want to take this opportunity to consider more carefully what we’re asking our military to do. Right now, we are involved in two indefensible conflicts. This is not the fault of those who serve – this is the fault of our policy makers and, by extension, us. It gives me little satisfaction to know that, while gays need no longer serve in fear of exposure and expulsion, they are still compelled to participate in conflicts that are killing thousands while making us decidedly less safe from attack.

If we’re asking people – gay and straight – to sacrifice, let’s make certain it’s for a damn good reason… one good enough that each of us would be willing to sacrifice in kind.

luv u,

jp

Dear Santa.

I’ve heard a kind of depressing story the last couple of days about a bureau of the Postal Service tasked with opening letters to Santa Claus. Here’s a somewhat strange version from NPR’s All Things Considered in which Robert Siegel tries to lighten things up with some lame quips. They’ve been finding that, this year, kids are tending less to ask for gaming consoles and the like than stuff like warm coats, shoes, etc. Just a hint of how rough people have it these days – a peek into the Dickensian hellscape inhabited by the millions upon millions of children (and their parents) living in poverty. Our top-down economy is literally killing hope before it even has the chance to learn how to express itself.

I’m not a practicing Christian, nor am I big on organized religion in general, but if there’s one thing valuable about the Christmas season it’s the sense of possibility it can engender in people – not so much the expectation of personal gain, but more the notion that things can be better, that in the midst of an unforgiving universe, we can be fair and decent to one another. So in a way these letters show that, even in the midst of an unrelenting consumer culture, these kids are more focused on those ideals than might be expected. So even though Santa may not be coming for many of them, they are very good little girls and boys indeed.

That’s not to say that Santa isn’t coming for anyone. Not a bit of it. Our nation’s millionaires and billionaires can now expect a little something extra in their Christmas stocking, like another yacht or a Lamborghini, perhaps. Yes, the tax compromise package has been passed by both houses of Congress and is on the way to Obama for his signature. That means low, low taxes for everybody, ludicrously low estate tax rates, and an untold bonanza for the richest 1% in general. Also… a pile of additional, non-investment debt to be paid off at some point uncertain, a significant undermining of the funding vehicle for Social Security, and a paltry 13-month extension to unemployment benefits.

And for those kids, maybe some second-hand shoes for mom. Jesus… this is why we suck.

luv u,

jp

On capitulation.

Okay, so the president has a bit to apologize for. He’s not alone in that respect – plenty of blame to go around here. Fact is, the administration is certainly wrong to criticize the liberal-left for denouncing the deal he cut with Republicans this week. If the president was painted into a corner, it was not by the left. The Congress members who were dead set against raising the tax issue before this past election were “Blue Dog” conservatives, worried about offending their constituencies – the same voters that would soon send more than half of them packing.

It is now these conservative Democrats that Obama is relying upon during the lame duck session to shepherd this deal through the House. It seems likely that most Republicans will support it, so he hardly needs the entire Democratic caucus. In any case, the capitulation happened a long time ago. At this point, the main thing is making certain that unemployed workers get the help they need. I don’t care how we get there, particularly, so long as they don’t give away the store… and reserve the right to start fighting again fresh on January 1.

There will be a lot to fight about, particularly when you consider how the Republicans have been behaving in the wake of their electoral victory. To wit,

  • Jim DeMint has talked about the possibility of making unemployment insurance more like “a loan” to give unemployed people incentive to go to work. No, really… he’s serious.
  • The main talking point on these upper income marginal tax cuts is that they are “NOT tax cuts”, that to not implement them is, in fact, a tax increase.  I heard Jon Kyl plying this one yesterday. A little wordplay here – perhaps they don’t remember that when they invented these tax cuts nine years ago, they put an end point on them. The tax cut has a time limit; when that passes, it’s over. Extend it, that’s a new cut because it involves additional billions. Got that, Jon? 
  • Tax cuts for the rich don’t add to the deficit. Unemployment benefits do.

You get the picture. One last point… it was mentioned in passing on NPR business news today that American corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. Sitting on it.

Again… do these people really need a tax cut?

luv u,

jp