Look What President Obama Can Do

Dear Friends,

By any measure it has been an amazing lame duck session for Congress, and the country will benefit.  President Obama certainly deserves credit as well as the Democrats in Congress.  Unfortunately, the spin coming from even the left wing writers underestimates what President Obama can do.  The last paragraphs of Gail Collins' column today in The New York Times (here) summarizes the spin.

But let’s admit it. Nothing would have gotten done if Obama hadn’t swallowed that loathsome compromise on tax cuts for the wealthy.
If he’d taken the high road, Congress would be in a holiday war. The long-term unemployed would be staggering into the new year without benefits. The rest of the world would look upon the United States as a country so dysfunctional that it can’t even ratify a treaty to help keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The people who worked at ground zero would still be uncertain about their future, and our gay and lesbian soldiers would still be living in fear.
It’s depressing to think that there was no way to win that would not have involved giving away billions of dollars to people who don’t need it. But it’s kind of cheery to think we have a president who actually does know what he’s doing.

 I normally agree with Gail Collins and love her columns, but in this case she is selling President Obama's skills when combined with the inherent bully pulpit of the President short by a mile.  The strategy devised by President Obama to get the nuclear arms treaty ratified exemplifies how President Obama should approach all the legislation that he really wants.  Peter Baker wrote a great article in The New York Times today (here) entitled "Obama's Gamble on Arms Pact Pays Off".  In the article, Mr. Baker explains how President Obama was following his regular approach of courting one or a couple Republican Senators to get their support by essentially bribing them.  In this case it was Senator Jon Kyl but of course in the end, Senator Kyl turned against President Obama and vowed to vote against the treaty.  At that point according to Mr. Baker, some of President Obama's advisors suggested that he back off because it would be bad to fight and not get the treaty ratified.  Here is how Mr. Baker describes how President Obama got the treaty ratified:

Some aides counseled Mr. Obama to stand down. Losing a treaty vote, as one put it, would be “a huge loss.” But Mr. Obama decided that afternoon to make one of the biggest gambles of his presidency and demand that the Senate approve the treaty by the year’s end. “We’ve just got to go ahead,” he told aides, who recounted the conversation on Wednesday.
Along the way, he had to confront his own reluctant party leadership and circumvent the other party’s leadership. He mounted a five-week campaign that married public pressure and private suasion. He enlisted the likes of Henry A. Kissinger, asked Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany to help and sent a team of officials to set up a war room of sorts on Capitol Hill. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had at least 50 meetings or phone calls with senators.

Although not included in Mr. Baker's article, President Obama included a lot of bribes in the form of pork spending.  Zachary Roth wrote an article (here) entitled " Russian arms accord may come at a cost".  These paragraphs sum up his thesis.

As a condition of support for the accord, Senate Republicans held out for a pledge from the Obama administration to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. That demand, in itself, is not necessarily a problem. After all, many of the warheads, built in the Cold War, are rapidly degrading.
But the modernization isn't likely to be carried out in anything like a rational, cost-effective way. Case in point: It will likely include more than $6 billion dollars for a uranium processing facility, to be built at the Y-12 weapons compound in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (pictured). Indeed, the states' two GOP senators, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, both said that money for modernization -- and therefore, in all likelihood, pork for their district -- was a key condition of their support.

Why is that a problem? In 2005, an independent, blue-ribbon task force concluded that the U.S. weapons complex, which occupies eight separate sites across the country, is way too spread out. Shuttering some of the more peripheral sites could save billions, improve security, and make it easier for the complex to adjust to the needs of the 21st century.  Y-12, it implied, was a top candidate for closure. But those recommendations were never acted upon.

So the President's strategy of constant public pushing for the treaty using anybody he could find to help combined with constant lobbying of Republican Senators and some good old fashion pork barrel spending was a successful strategy.  President Obama made it clear exactly what he wanted, he made it clear he would not accept any changes in the treaty, and he went to the public to get their support so that they would pressure their Senators.  He also used all the regular Washington ways of lobbying and bribing.  When President Obama really wants something, and he is willing to risk losing, he knows exactly how to get what he wants.

What I don't know is what does he really want.  What is he willing to risk fighting for even if he might lose? 

I am really happy and proud that he gambled and fought for the arms treaty.  It is good for our country and the world.  Unfortunately, I struggle to understand why President Obama has been unwilling to gamble on the other things that he says he supports.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Fear and Bribery

Dear Friends,

In case there was any doubt that President Obama has given up trying to change the way things are done in Washington, he provided us with two more examples today.  First, Larry Summers is using fear to get support for President Obama's cave in to the Republicans.  Reuters reported (here),

"Failure to pass this bill in the next couple weeks would materially increase the risk that the economy would stall out and we would have a double-dip," Summers told reporters at the White House.

I guess President Obama adopted the tactic of fear from the Karl Rove playbook.

Now the Associated Press is reporting that the way has been cleared for the passage of President Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts.  Here are the first two paragraphs of the report (here).

The White House and key lawmakers cleared the way Thursday night for swift Senate action to avert a Jan. 1 spike in income taxes for nearly all Americans, agreeing to extend breaks for ethanol and other forms of alternative energy as part of the deal.
Tax provisions aimed at increasing production of hybrid automobiles, biodiesel fuel, energy-efficient homes, coal and energy-efficient household appliances would be extended through the end of 2011 under the bill.

Another traditional Washington tactic, when you can't sell the bill on its merits, then bribe Senators and Representatives with more money.  I am not generally opposed to government subsidies for alternative energy, but I am opposed to bribery.  I read a quote in the last couple of days from Senator Franken (D-Minn.) that he was interested to see what happened about ethanol tax credits.  Well now we know.  I certainly hope that President Obama didn't just buy his vote.  I will write him (here) along with Senator Klobuchar (D-Minn.) (here).  They are my Senators.  I would urge you to do the same.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Tax Increase for poverty level families

Dear Friends,

The only group of people that will see a tax increase under President Obama's capitulation to the Republicans are families that earn $40,000 or less and individuals that earn $20,000 or less.  The New York Times article entitled "Tax Package Will Aid Nearly All, Especially Highest Earners" (here) contains the following paragraphs:

In fact, the only groups likely to face a tax increase are those near the bottom of the income scale — individuals who make less than $20,000 and families with earnings below $40,000.

The proposal does not include an extension of Mr. Obama’s signature tax cut, the Making Work Pay credit, which provided a credit of up to $400 for individuals and $800 for families of low and moderate income. Instead, the plan creates a one-year reduction in Social Security payroll taxes, which are generally levied on the first $106,800 of income. For an individual earning $110,000, that provision would reduce payroll taxes by $2,136.
Although the $120 billion payroll tax reduction offers nearly twice the tax savings of the credit it replaces, it will nonetheless lead to higher tax bills for individuals with incomes below $20,000 and families that make less than $40,000. That is because their payroll tax savings are less than the $400 or $800 they will lose from the Making Work Pay credit.

Just as a point of reference, a taxpayer with $1.0 million of income will save over $100,000 in taxes as a result of President Obama's sell out to the rich.  That savings is 2.5 times the total income of the family that will see its taxes increase.  How can anybody support that kind of a deal?  It is immoral.

There is still time to stop President Obama and the Republicans.  Write and call your Representative and your Senators at least once a day.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Not a Done Deal

Dear Friends,

The deal that President Obama cut with the Republicans about the extension of the Bush tax cuts is not a done deal and shouldn't be approved by Congress. 

The deal includes

• a two year extension of the Bush tax cuts for all - clearly much more favorable for the rich than for the middle class and since most of the money goes to the rich not very stimulative of the economy
• a low estate tax and an adjustment to the alternative minimum tax (read another tax cut for high income earners)
• a 13 month extension of unemployment benefits - good for the middle class and good for stimulating the economy but according to Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), the Senate Democrats could have gotten that through the Senate anyway because there would have been enough Republican Senators who would have been forced by their constituents to vote for it if President Obama and the Democratic leadership had put the pressure on
• an extension of several popular tax cuts, including some for businesses, at least two of which the Republicans had been fighting to preserve - these are somewhat stimulative but who knew it was hard to get Republicans to agree to tax cuts
• a reduction in the employee portion of payroll taxes - good for the middle class and stimulative to the economy - problem is that the Republicans will argue that Social Security and Medicare need to be cut further because there is less funding now

All in all the package is far more beneficial to the rich than the middle class and is not very stimulative to the economy that is to say it will not create jobs, but it will certainly increase the deficit big time.  As far as anybody knows, the cost of this deal somewhere in the $800 billion range is a direct increase to the deficit.  That is not good for the American people and it does not create jobs. 

The Democrats in Congress can stop this deal from happening.  The Democrats in the House have already passed the right bill that extends the tax cuts for incomes under $250,000.  They just need to stick to their guns.  In the Senate, we need enough Democrats to stand up and filibuster so that the deal cannot get passed.  Doing this will not prevent unemployment benefits from being extended or even the tax cuts for the middle class being extended.  It will reset the playing field so that a real compromise that is beneficial to the 98% of the American people with incomes under $250,000, that does not further explode the deficit and that does not continue to increase the vast gap between the very wealthy and the rest of America can be reached.

Please write and call your Representative and Senators.  Make your voice heard.  We can stop this immoral deal.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

What Fight?

Dear Friends,

At his press conference today, President Obama showed the most emotion when he was rebuking me and other liberals and claiming that we just wanted a fight and didn't really care about the real implications for the American people.  This approach is insulting and inappropriate.

I want to make my position clear.  I am not opposed to compromise.  I do it every day as part of my job.  Almost never do I get everything I want, and at the end of the day I must assess whether the package that has been negotiated is worth the cost.  My criticism of President Obama is not that he compromises.  Unfortunately, his style is to compromise with himself before he starts talking with the Republicans.  He seems far more concerned about getting Republican support than he does about getting the legislation that is closest to what he wants.

Part of the problem is that there is no transparency about what he really wants.  He needs to start any negotiation by being very clear about what he wants the final legislation to look like.  If the Republicans don't like that they can propose changes.  Then a negotiation can begin.  During the negotiation, President Obama should put the full pressure of the White House and the bully pulpit behind his position.  He has never done that. 

In the health care debate other than laying out some broad principles, President Obama never laid out in detail what he thought the legislation should look like and then campaigned for that legislation.  In the recent Bush tax cut debacle, President Obama signaled very early on that he would compromise.  He had a clear position, the polls showed that a majority of the people supported his position, yet he never put the pressure on the Republicans to force them to accept what he and the American people wanted. 

If you are the President of the United States, you have legislation that you say you badly want, the legislation makes perfect policy sense, it is legislation that you campaigned on, it is legislation that many members of your party campaigned on, your party has big majorities in both the House and the Senate, the American people overwhelmingly support it, you are a great public speaker, and you are unable to get that legislation passed; that loss must be considered a stupendous failure of your leadership abilities.

In his press conference, President Obama claimed that he would fight any further extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, but he never could explain why he felt the outcome would be any different than it was this time around.  He said he would fight for no tax cuts for the rich, but if he fights the way he did this time, the result will be the same.

It turns out that President Obama is a terrible negotiator and a terrible leader.  He has two choices.  He can change is style and fight and negotiate the way that a seasoned negotiator would and use his great speaking skills and the power of the Presidency to get most of what he wants.  His other choice is to withdraw from the 2012 Presidential race.  If he does that he can focus on doing what he believes needs to be done without worrying about re-election.  He might be able to save himself a good place in the history books.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

No Extension Better than Bad Extension

Dear Friends,

It looks like President Obama has caved in on the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and it is unclear what if anything he got in return.  Generally speaking when you do not fight for what you believe in, you put yourself at a huge disadvantage and you then have no bargaining power.  Unfortunately that is President Obama's approach.  We will have to wait to see the terrible details of whatever has been agreed to.  Then we can just hope that there are enough Democrats who just say no to the deal so that it will fall through.

Common wisdom is that it would be a disaster to have all the Bush tax cuts expire.  As with most common wisdom, it is wrong.  Please read Paul Krugman's column in The New York Times today (here).  Mr. Krugman argues that while it is not great to increase the taxes on the middle class in a weak economy, it is better to do that than to continue the tax breaks for the rich which will truly bankrupt the country and require significant reductions in Medicare and Social Security in the future.  Don't be fooled by the fact that the extension is temporary.  The Republicans will know that the Democrats will cave in and the temporary extensions will continue until the Republicans can make them permanent.

But while raising taxes when unemployment is high is a bad thing, there are worse things. And a cold, hard look at the consequences of giving in to the G.O.P. now suggests that saying no, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, is the lesser of two evils.
Bear in mind that Republicans want to make those tax cuts permanent. They might agree to a two- or three-year extension — but only because they believe that this would set up the conditions for a permanent extension later. And they may well be right: if tax-cut blackmail works now, why shouldn’t it work again later?
America, however, cannot afford to make those cuts permanent. We’re talking about almost $4 trillion in lost revenue just over the next decade; over the next 75 years, the revenue loss would be more than three times the entire projected Social Security shortfall. So giving in to Republican demands would mean risking a major fiscal crisis — a crisis that could be resolved only by making savage cuts in federal spending.

Mr. Krugman goes on to refute the claim that the failure to extend the Bush tax breaks would be a disaster for the unemployment rate.

A few months ago, the Congressional Budget Office released a report on the impact of various tax options. A two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts, it estimated, would lower the unemployment rate next year by between 0.1 and 0.3 percentage points compared with what it would be if the tax cuts were allowed to expire; the effect would be about twice as large in 2012. Those are significant numbers, but not huge — certainly not enough to justify the apocalyptic rhetoric one often hears about what will happen if the tax cuts are allowed to end on schedule.

He finishes with some good advice for President Obama, and I would add for the Democrats in the House and Senate who may have to adopt the Republican approach to governing by blocking the extension for all.

So Mr. Obama should draw a line in the sand, right here, right now. If Republicans hold out, and taxes go up, he should tell the nation the truth, and denounce the blackmail attempt for what it is.
Yes, letting taxes go up would be politically risky. But giving in would be risky, too — especially for a president whom voters are starting to write off as a man too timid to take a stand. Now is the time for him to prove them wrong.

In case the number of dollars we are talking about for these tax cuts is mind boggling to you, the "By the Numbers" column in The New York Times yesterday might help.  Here it is:

What Else Would $60 Billion Buy?

By DAVID LEONHARDT

$60 Billion: The approximate amount that extending the Bush tax cuts on income above $250,000 a year — which Congress seems on the verge of doing — will cost a year, in inflation-adjusted terms. On average, the affluent households that benefit from these cuts will save $25,000 annually. What else might that $60 billion a year buy?
•As much deficit reduction as the elimination of earmarks, President Obama’s proposed federal pay freeze, a 10 percent cut in the federal work force and a 50 percent cut in foreign aid — combined.
•A tripling of federal funding for medical research.
•Universal preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds, with relatively small class sizes.
•A much larger troop surge in Afghanistan, raising spending by 60 percent from current levels.
•A national infrastructure program to repair and upgrade roads, bridges, mass transit, water systems and levees.
•A 15 percent cut in corporate taxes.
•Twice as much money for clean-energy research as suggested by a recent bipartisan plan.
•Free college, including room and board, for about half of all full-time students, at both four- and two-year colleges.
•A $500 tax cut for all households.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

When is it time to look for a new candidate for 2012?

Dear Friends,

In The New York Times this morning both Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd wrote articles expressing, better than I have, that the main problem with President Obama is his failure to actively support anything.  Here are a few quotes from Frank Rich's column:

But the real problem is that he’s so indistinct no one across the entire political spectrum knows who he is. A chief executive who repeatedly presents himself as a conciliator, forever searching for the “good side” of all adversaries and convening summits, in the end comes across as weightless, if not AWOL. 

Mr. Rich then goes on to explain the popularity of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who has a 51% approval rating.

But the core of Christie’s appeal at home is that he explains passionately held views in concrete, plain-spoken detail. Voters know what he stands for and sometimes respect him for his forthrightness even when they reject the stands themselves...G.O.P. propagandists notwithstanding, Christie’s appeal does not prove that New Jersey (and therefore the country) has “turned to the right.” It does prove that people want a leader with a strong voice, even if only to argue with it.

Mr. Rich concludes with a sobering thought.

Everyone will have caught on by 2012, but that will be too late for many jobless Americans, let alone for Obama. As the economics commentator Jeff Madrick wrote in The Huffington Post, the unemployment rate has been above 7 percent only four times in a presidential election year since World War II — and in three of the four the incumbent lost (Ford, Carter, the first Bush). Reagan did win in 1984 with an unemployment rate of 7.2 percent, but the rate was falling rapidly (from a high of 10.8 two years earlier), and Reagan was as clear-cut in his leadership as Christie (only nicer).

Maureen Dowd in her column while discussing Don't Ask Don't Tell made the following statement which could be applied to President Obama's entire presidency so far.

Once again, the Democrats waited too long to close the deal, the president showed no leadership, and a campaign promise that was seen as a fait accompli now seems a casualty.

I am not quite ready to start looking for another candidate for President in 2012, but I am getting very close.  We need to start talking openly about the possibility.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama and Torture

Dear Readers,

I was saddened and disappointed to learn today that not only will President Obama not permit the United States to honor its treaty obligations and its own laws and investigate and prosecute Bush Administration officials for torture and other war crimes, President Obama put inappropriate pressure on the independent judiciary of Spain to stop Spain from following its laws and doing what President Obama should be doing here.

Before getting to the inappropriate pressure on Spain's independent judiciary.  I want to remind you of several facts.

• Throughout American history waterboarding by other countries of our soldiers has been prosecuted by us as torture, and waterboarding is by all normal standards considered torture.
• Torture is a war crime under all definitions of that term.
• Any treaty that the United States signs essentially becomes United States law.
• The United States has signed treaties that obligate it to prosecute war crimes and has separate laws that make torture a criminal act.
• Both former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney have publicly stated that they authorized and approved the use of waterboarding.
• So it is clear that former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney have admitted to committing war crimes and violating American anti-torture laws, and there is clear documentation that other members of the Bush Administration were involved in the planning and execution of war crimes and the violation of anti-torture laws.
• President Obama has failed to investigate these crimes and now it is clear has been involved in preventing others from investigating them as well.

What kind of a leader is that?

But back to the recent revelations.  The information of President Obama's inappropriate interference with Spain's independent judiciary became known as a result of the cables released by WikiLeaks and the reporting of David Corn at MotherJones.  The complete story is here. 

A Spanish civil rights group asked Spain's independent judiciary to

indict six former Bush officials for, as the cable describes it, "creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture." The six were former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon's former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel.

The Obama Administration as well as Senator Judd Greg (R-N.H.) and Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) put pressure on the Spanish government to interfere with the investigation and potential prosecution in order to preserve good relations with the United States. David Corn's article continues

The Americans, according to this cable, "underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the US and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship" between Spain and the United States. Here was a former head of the GOP and a representative of a new Democratic administration (headed by a president who had decried the Bush-Cheney administration's use of torture) jointly applying pressure on Spain to kill the investigation of the former Bush officials. Lossada replied that the independence of the Spanish judiciary had to be respected, but he added that the government would send a message to the attorney general that it did not favor prosecuting this case.

Unfortunately for justice, it appears that President Obama was successful at stopping an investigation and potential prosecution.  I believe this is the only known case of true bipartisanship that President Obama can take credit for.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Bush Tax Cuts and Leadership

Dear Friends,

The following is an email that I just sent to President Obama.

I was a big supporter of yours and gave you more money than I have ever given any candidate.  I also make over $250,000.
You have failed to keep your campaign promises and you have failed to fight for what you told me you believed in. There is still time for you to redeem yourself but you must begin to be a leader, you must take a stand and you must fight for what you believe in even if you make some people angry and even if you lose some times.
The House passed the bill that you said you supported for extending the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $250,000.  Now you need to go public and throw your full support behind that bill.  You need to push the Senate to call the Republicans' bluff.  Make them vote against a tax cut for income up to $250,000 or else actually filibuster on the floor of the Senate. You also need to campaign before the American people so that they understand that it is the Republicans that voted against a tax cut on income under $250,000 because they wanted to give the really rich a bonus tax cut that will cost us $700 billion.  You need to take a stand here.  Your lack of leadership is hurting America.

I also just sent emails to my two Senators, urging them to call the Republicans' bluff. The Senate Democrats are meeting tonight apparently to decide on a strategy and some test votes.  We all need to put pressure on our Senators to fight for what is right. 

Please write President Obama (here), and please write to your Senators.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Unemployment Benefits

Dear Friends,

If you have not done so, please read The New York Times lead editorial today (here) entitled "The Unemployed Held Hostage".  As the editorial points out the extension of the Bush tax cuts for incomes over $250,000 would cost $700 billion over 10 years or an average of $70 billion a year, and the cost of a yearlong extension of unemployment benefits would cost $60 billion.  There is no reason to link these two issues although politicians are doing so.  That being said why is that according to the Republicans and conservative Democrats we cannot afford the extension of unemployment benefits but we can afford to give even more money to the top 2% of earners?  Here is how the editorial ends:

President Obama should pound the table for a clean, yearlong extension of unemployment benefits, and should excoriate phony deficit hawks — in both parties — who say that jobless benefits are too costly, even as they pass vastly more expensive tax cuts for the rich.

I agree completely and could not have said it better.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Immoral Tax Breaks

 Dear Friends,

If you have not yet read Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class by Paul Pierson and Jacob S. Hacker, you need to do so.  It is impossible to summarize this book, and it would be inappropriate to reprint the entire book in this blog, so please read the book and then act accordingly.

Early in the book, the authors dispel the theory that the average person and our political system will take action to keep "runaway inequality" in check.  The authors summarize what has happened as follows:

Inequality in what people earn has skyrocketed.  But instead of offsetting this rise, government taxes and benefits have actually exacerbated it, an outcome witnessed in virtually no other nation.  And when we look beyond the highly visible redistribution that occurs through government taxes and benefits, the picture grows even starker.  In a range of areas, from labor law to financial market regulation, public policy has reshaped the economy to favor those at the top.  Far from"soaking the rich," elected political leaders have treated the rich more solicitously than ever, even as the rich have grown massively richer at the expense of the majority.

Here are a few statistics that the authors cite:

• In 2009 (while the rest of the economy was really hurting) Goldman Sachs paid its employees an average of nearly $600,000.
• In 2009 the top 25 hedge fund managers earned an average of $892 million each.
• From 1979 to the eve of the recent Great Recession, the top one percent received 36% of all gains in household income.
• Between 2001 and 2006, the top one percent received over 53% of all gains in household income.
• Between 1979 and 2005, the top 0.1 percent of households (roughly 300,000 people) received over 20% of all after-tax income gains while the bottom 60% (roughly 180 million people) received 13.5% of all after-tax income gains.

The United States has the greatest disparity in both income and wealth of any nation on earth.  Earlier in my lifetime, I was proud to say that the United States had a progressive tax policy.  That is certainly not the case today.  While the income tax has progressive rates, they are much less progressive than they use to be.  In addition, the rich are able to avoid the impact of these progressive rates through a plethora of deductions, credits, and special rates on capital gains and dividends to say nothing of elaborate tax shelters. 

The other taxes that we have are all very regressive.  The payroll taxes are the same percentage for all regardless of income and are even capped so that most of the income of the rich avoids payroll taxes.  In addition, since the employer has to match payroll taxes, they are a direct cost to hiring people.  Sales taxes are also very regressive.  They apply the same rate regardless of the purchasers' income of wealth, and the rich spend a much smaller percentage of their income and wealth than the rest of the people. 

As a consequence, the rich pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the poor and middle class.  That is wrong.  It is not just unfair to the non-rich.  It is not good for the country.

With all of this as background, how is that that there can be any debate about the extension of the Bush tax cuts for incomes over $250,000 a year?  It seems that everybody agrees the Bush tax cuts should be extended with respect to income up to $250,000.  The Republicans and the conservative Democrats contend that we must extend the Bush tax cuts for all income because a failure to do that would limit job growth.  There is no evidence to support that claim.  In fact, giving a tax break to the top 2% of earners will do nothing to help job growth.  I should note that it is these same Republicans and conservative Democrats that are insistent on reducing the deficit.  The blatant hypocrisy of fighting for tax breaks for the very wealthy that will increase the deficit by $700 billion over 10 years while also calling for reduction in benefits to the poor and middle class to reduce the deficit should be shouted out loud constantly by President Obama and leaders of the Democrats. 

Tax cuts for the poor and middle class are very stimulative to the economy and will create jobs because the money will be spent.  Tax cuts for the rich will not stimulate job growth because the money will be saved and not spent.  They will just increase the wealth disparity in this country which is already obscene.

President Obama and the Democrats are already talking about compromising on this issue.  They must not compromise.  We must not let them compromise.  Please write President Obama (here) and contact your Representative and Senators.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

One Lesson from the Elections

Dear Friends,

There are many lessons that can be learned from the latest elections.  The one lesson that it is critical for President Obama and the Democrats to learn is that if you don't fight for what you believe in you cannot expect people to fight for you.  President Obama fought harder for bipartisanship than he did for his signature accomplishments like health care reform and financial reform.  It is clearly not enough to pass important legislation.

President Obama did not take the lead on health care reform.  He left the negotiations to Congress without making it clear what he wanted.  He never even tried to get single payer or the government option.

On the issue that was most important to the American people, President Obama let Congress pass a stimulus package that was too small and too full of tax breaks instead of fighting for a real stimulus package that would really produce jobs.  Again, President Obama sat on the sidelines and let Congress craft the legislation.  As far as the public knew, President Obama didn't really care what happened to the economy because he wasn't out there campaigning for an appropriate stimulus package.

On issues that President Obama campaigned on like Don't Ask Don't Tell were essentially left off the table.  President Obama had the support of the majority of the American people, and he squandered the opportunity because he refused to campaign for it.

It is entirely possible that he would have lost some votes or that some of his legislation would have been filibustered in the Senate, but President Obama kept sitting on the sidelines, negotiating against himself and working for bipartisanship that was never going to happen.  The Democrats should have made the Senate Republicans actually filibuster bills that would have helped the average person instead of just letting the threat of a filibuster stop them.  Instead the Democrats would agree to waterdown the legislation and still never get any Republican support.

President Obama never tried to get control of the conservative Democrats who were permitted to oppose his legislative agenda with impunity.  I was appalled that he supported Senator Blanche Lincoln when she was challenged in a primary by a candidate much closer to President Obama's stated positions. 

The huge grassroots support that President Obama enjoyed as a candidate who preached change and hope was not support for bipartisanship.  It was support for someone who would fight for what he believed in and not be corrupted by Washington DC.  Unfortunately, President Obama fought for bipartisanship by throwing what he campaigned for under the bus.  It was President Obama's approach to governing that caused the huge defeat that the Democrats suffered in the last election. 


Why should I enthusiastically support President Obama and the Democrats when they refuse to fight for what they claim to believe in?  They don't have to win every battle, but they must fight for what they believe in.  If President Obama doesn't demonstrate that he is willing to fight and campaign for what he believes in, he should not expect to get enthusiastic support from his base especially when he calls us "whiners".

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Bob Herbert

Dear Friends,

Bob Herbert's column in The New York Times this morning (here) demonstrates why he gets paid for writing columns, and I write this blog out of frustration.  In any case, he eloquently says what I have been ineloquently saying about the problem that the Democrats have created for themselves. 

But voters do not feel that the administration and Congress have delivered the fundamental change they were seeking when they swept President Obama and huge Democratic majorities into office nearly two years ago. Forget about the crazies in the Tea Party for the moment. Forget about the ugly Republican obstructionism that is based on the idea that the failure not just of President Obama but of American society itself is the G.O.P.’s quickest ticket back to power.

The Democrats are in deep, deep trouble because they have not effectively addressed the overwhelming concern of working men and women: an economy that is too weak to provide the jobs they need to support themselves and their families. And that failure is rooted in the Democrats’ continued fascination with the self-serving conservative belief that the way to help ordinary people is to shower money on the rich and wait for the blessings to trickle down to the great unwashed below...

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, commenting on the president’s recent $50 billion transportation infrastructure proposal, said: “This is about long-term economic growth. This isn’t about the next 60 days or the next 90 days. This is about how do we get our economy fully back on track, how do we get the millions that want to work back to work, and how do we repair the economic damage that’s been going on not just over the past two years but over the past 10 years.”

Well, that’s the drum the Democrats should have been pounding in the earliest days of the Obama administration, and they should have backed it up with a dramatic rebuild America infrastructure campaign and every other job-creation measure they could think of, including public works projects for the young and the poor and the hard-core unemployed.

With the nation losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month in early-2009, the president and his allies in Congress could have rallied the citizenry to participate in the difficult work of nation-building here at home. He could have called on everyone to share in the sacrifices that needed to be made, and he could have demanded much more from the financial and corporate elites who were being bailed out with the people’s money.

Unfortunately, the President and the Democratic leaders in Congress did not do that.  Even though President Obama made a couple of great speeches a couple days ago, his follow through is as usual lacking.  Nothing again today.  A speech in Milwaukee and a speech in Cleveland and then silence once again.  It is hard for even me to believe that he truly cares about the economy.  What happened to his promise to fight every day, every hour, every minute.  The gap between the President's rhetoric and his actions is larger than the Grand Canyon.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama and transperancy

Dear Friends,

An article in the middle of the first section of The New York Times this morning caught my eye.  It was entitled "Pentagon Loosens Restrictions for Press in Guantanamo" by Jeremy Peters (here).   As you may remember back in May four journalists were expelled from Guantanamo for releasing the name of an Army interrogator who was to be a witness in a trial at Guantanamo.  The Army considered the interrogator's name to be privileged information even though it had been previously reported in the news media and was generally known in the public domain.  Penalizing those journalists at the time was an outrage.

What the headline refers to as a loosening of restrictions is simply the application of logic and common sense.  How could the Pentagon penalize reporters who report what is already generally available to the public?  Is it any wonder that some of us liberals challenge President Obama's claim to be transparent.  When you restrict the freedom of the press, you are truly doing damage to our democracy, and you have no right to claim that you are being transparent.

We need to hold President Obama accountable for his claims of transparency and for his claims of supporting open government. 

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama and his liberal base

Dear Friends,

It is a very sad day for America.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 6 to 5 decision upheld the Bush Administration's and now the Obama Administration's contention that the government can avoid any responsibility for criminal activity, in this case torture, by simply claiming that to defend the case would disclose state secrets.  Candidate Obama was outspoken in his criticism of President Bush's national security stances including President Bush's expanded claims with respect to the state secrets doctrine.  Unfortunately, President Obama is pushing to expand the use of that doctrine perhaps even further than President Bush was pushing it.  The New York Times article on the decision (here) reads in part:

Its counterterrorism programs have in some ways departed from the expectations of change fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of former President George W. Bush’s approach.
Among other policies, the Obama national security team has also authorized the C.I.A. to try to kill a United States citizen suspected of terrorism ties, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the basis for their imprisonment without trial, and continued the C.I.A.’s so-called extraordinary rendition program of prisoner transfers — though the administration has forbidden torture and says it seeks assurances from other countries that detainees will not be mistreated.

The New York Times editorial on the decision read in part,

But the merits of the case were never considered because the Bush administration argued that even discussing the matter in court would violate the state secrets privilege. Barack Obama told voters in 2008 that he opposed the government cult of secrecy, but once he became president, his Justice Department also argued that the case should be dismissed on secrecy grounds.
The Ninth Circuit was sharply divided, voting 6 to 5 to dismiss the case and overturn a decision to let it proceed that was made by a panel of three circuit judges last year. The majority said it reached its decision reluctantly and was not trying to send a signal that secrecy could be used regularly to dismiss lawsuits. But even though it is public knowledge that Jeppesen arranged the torture flights, the majority said any effort by the company to defend itself would pose “an unacceptable risk of disclosure of state secrets.”
That notion was demolished by the five-judge minority that dissented from the ruling, pointing out that the plaintiffs were never even given a chance to make their case in court using nonsecret evidence, including a sworn statement by a former Jeppesen employee about the company’s role in what he called “the torture flights.” The case should have been sent back to the district court to examine which evidence was truly secret; now it will have to be appealed to a Supreme Court that is unlikely to be sympathetic to the plaintiffs.

As President Obama seems to be starting to engage in the mid-term election process with his Labor Day speech in Milwaukee and his follow-up speech in Cleveland, he was also starting to appeal to his liberal base.  He has ignored us and disappointed us, but now that the elections are approaching he needs us so he gives a couple of speeches that contain language that would appeal to liberals.

There is no question that President Obama needs to get the liberal base enthusiastic again.  Here are some self-explanatory paragraphs from a recent article by Peter Grier in The Christian Science Monitor (here):

Remember when Barack Obama would stride onstage at big rallies during the 2008 campaign and shout, “I’m fired up and ready to go!” His supporters loved it. They’d often chant, “Ready to go, ready to go, ready to go,” right back.
The president’s party could use some of that old enthusiasm right now. Because when it comes to the 2010 midterms, Democrats are not fired up, and not ready to go. They are ready to stay home and not vote.
That’s a big reason why the Republicans are increasingly favored to take back the House and have a chance to regain majority status in the Senate. It is GOP voters that now are excited about their party’s electoral prospects.
You can see this enthusiasm gap in the latest polls. A Gallup survey released Sept. 7 found that 50 percent of Republicans are “very enthusiastic” about voting in the coming election. The corresponding figure for Democrats is 25 percent.

I looked again at President Obama's schedule.  For some reason the White House website simply says "No public schedule".  I am sure that the President has a schedule for all those days, but the White House is not disclosing what it is.  How's that for transparency?  And what happened to his promise, "I am going to keep fighting, every single day, every single hour, every single minute to turn this economy around"?

President Obama is not going to get his liberal base out to vote by staying in the White House and continuing the worst of the Bush Administration policies that deny justice to those whom we tortured.  He could really engage the liberal base if he would reverse all those policies of the Bush Administration that he railed against as Candidate Obama but then adopted as President Obama and at the same time traveled the country from coast to coast fighting for an infrastructure stimulus in the hundreds of billions of dollars that would actually do something.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

The President is in Cleveland

Dear Friends,

The President fulfilled his promise today to fight every day to turn the economy around.  He gave a speech in Cleveland this afternoon that was another campaign style speech.  In substance it was a well thought out and concise argument for why people should vote for Democrats this year instead of Republicans personified by Representative Boehner.  When I read it, it seemed to lack the enthusiasm and intensity of his labor day speech in Milwaukee and when I watched a video it seemed quite flat.  However, if any undecided voters listened with an open mind, they would have been persuaded to keep the Republicans out of power for as long as possible. 

President Obama seemed to quash any rumors that his administration would agree to some extension of all the Bush tax breaks as a compromise.  I hope he meant that.  He will need to be more forceful to be sure that the public knows that it is the Republicans that are blocking the continuation of the tax cuts for those with incomes under $250,000 because the tax cuts for the top 2% of earners are not being extended.  President Obama had a great paragraph about this subject:

With all the other budgetary pressures we have -– with all the Republicans’ talk about wanting to shrink the deficit -- they would have us borrow $700 billion over the next 10 years to give a tax cut of about $100,000 each to folks who are already millionaires.  And keep in mind wealthy Americans are just about the only folks who saw their incomes rise when Republicans were in charge.  And these are the folks who are less likely to spend the money -- which is why economists don’t think tax breaks for the wealthy would do much to boost the economy.

The President finished with what I suspect will be his theme - a great project of American renewal:

We are here today because in the worst of times, the people who came before us brought out the best in America.  Because our parents and our grandparents and our great-grandparents were willing to work and sacrifice for us.  They were willing to take great risks, and face great hardship, and reach for a future that would give us the chance at a better life.  They knew that this country is greater than the sum of its parts -– that America is not about the ambitions of any one individual, but the aspirations of an entire people, an entire nation.

That’s who we are.  That is our legacy.  And I’m convinced that if we’re willing to summon those values today, and if we’re willing to choose hope over fear, and choose the future over the past, and come together once more around the great project of national renewal, then we will restore our economy and rebuild our middle class and reclaim the American Dream for the next generation.

Unfortunately, I am still not convinced that the President understands that he needs to make these speeches on a sustained basis for the next two months.  On Thursday, the President is having meetings with his staff in the White House all day, and there is no public schedule for through the weekend.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal 

The President's Schedule

Dear Friends,

Yesterday the President promised:

I am going to keep fighting, every single day, every single hour, every single minute to turn this economy around; to put people back to work; and renew the American Dream not just for your family, not just for all our families, but for future generations.

Here is the President's schedule for today:

10:00 am	The President and the Vice President receive the Presidential Daily Briefing Oval Office Closed Press
10:30 am	The President and the Vice President receive the Economic Daily Briefing Oval Office Closed Press
11:10 am	The President and the Vice President meet with Secretary Clinton Oval Office Closed Press
11:50 am	The President welcomes NATO Secretary General Rasmussen Oval Office Pool Spray at the Top Gather Time 11:40AM – Brady Press Briefing Room
12:45 pm	The President and the Vice President have lunch Private Dining Room Closed Press
1:15 pm	The President meets with senior advisors Oval Office Closed Press
4:30 pm	The President and the Vice President meet with Secretary of Defense Gates Oval Office Closed Press

I do not see anything on that agenda that would indicate that the President is fighting "every single day, every single hour, every single minute".  The President needs to get out of the White House and talk to the people.  He needs to do that everyday.  Otherwise, the people will figure out that he is not fighting for them every day and then they might look at his schedule which will confirm that he is in meetings all day long and not out fighting for them.  You cannot win the people over to your ideas by having meetings with the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense and your staff.

Please let the President know that you want him out talking to the people and fighting for them every day (here). 

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Candidate Obama

Dear Friends,

President Obama seems to finally have gone on the campaign trail.  He spoke today at LaborFest in Milwaukee.  I actually watched the whole speech online.  It was candidate Obama on the campaign trail, and it was really great.  He is a great speaker.  He can get a crowd enthused and on its feet.  He really seems to believe what he is saying, and he is saying what real Democrats have believed for years.  Here is a sample:

But on this Labor Day, there are two things I want you to know, Milwaukee. Number one: I am going to keep fighting, every single day, every single hour, every single minute to turn this economy around; to put people back to work; and renew the American Dream not just for your family, not just for all our families, but for future generations.
Number two - and I believe this with every fiber of my being: America cannot have a strong, growing economy without a strong, growing middle class, and the chance for everybody, no matter how humble their beginnings, to join that middle class. A middle class built on the idea that if you work hard and if live up to your responsibilities, then you can get ahead, that you can enjoy some basic guarantees in life. A good job that pays a good wage. Health care that'll be there when you get sick. A secure retirement even if you're not rich. An education that'll give our kids a better life than we had. These are simple ideas.  These are American ideas.  These are union ideas.  That's what we are fighting for.

President Obama is right.  Those basic values that he outlined are worth fighting for, and we need to fight for them.  We need to help President Obama fight for them.  We need to hold him to his promise that he will fight "every single day, every single hour, every single minute".  We have not seen that so far but every time I hear President Obama speak like candidate Obama, I am willing to give him another chance.   He sounded like he really means to fight "every single day, every single hour, every single minute" so we need to do two things - hold him to his promise and stand beside him in the fight.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Jobs, tax cuts and economic stimulus

Dear Friends,

As I have said before, at this point in time the two most important things that President Obama, Congress and the American people need to focus on are getting out of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and creating more jobs in the United States.

The Republicans (and for reasons that escape all logic and understanding some people who call themselves Democrats) believe that tax cuts, especially tax cuts for the rich are the way to stimulate the economy and ultimately create jobs.  I, as an unabashed liberal, disagree with that position both on the grounds that it is factually incorrect and that it is bad for our country as it increases the wealth disparity.

Before proceeding, I want to discuss a distinction that unfortunately gets blurred way too often.  Republicans often say that by stimulating the economy, jobs will be created.  I, on the other hand, am more focused on creating jobs which will then stimulate the economy.  The most common method used to determine if the economy is being stimulated is to look at changes in the GDP.  The GDP is intended to measure economic activity of all kinds and therefore does not necessarily reflect what is happening to employment.  In recent memory, we have had what are commonly referred to as "jobless recoveries".  Jobless recoveries occur when the economy has recovered as measured by growth in the GDP or perhaps the stock market or corporate profits, but the unemployment rate has remained unacceptably high.  My point is that we know that the economy can improve even without reducing unemployment.  We also know that if the unemployment rates drop, the economy will improve, and that with sustained growth in jobs that provide a reasonable wage and benefits comes a smaller disparity between the richest Americans and everybody else.

As we approach Labor Day, there are two issues that are gaining attention that relate to creating jobs - extending the Bush tax cuts and an additional stimulus package.  The New York Times published two excellent op-ed pieces today that address these issues.  The first was by Robert Reich (here) and the second was by Paul Krugman (here). 

Mr. Reich's thesis is that there is a structural problem with our economy that must be fixed if we are to see strong sustainable growth in our economy.  The disparity in wealth in America has been very well documented.  Mr. Reich cites the following results of one study: "In the late 1970s, the richest 1 percent of American families took in about 9 percent of the nation's total income; by 2007, the top 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of total income."  Mr. Reich reaches the following conclusion:

The Great Depression and its aftermath demonstrate that there is only one way back to full recovery: through more widely shared prosperity. In the 1930s, the American economy was completely restructured. New Deal measures — Social Security, a 40-hour work week with time-and-a-half overtime, unemployment insurance, the right to form unions and bargain collectively, the minimum wage — leveled the playing field.

In the decades after World War II, legislation like the G.I. Bill, a vast expansion of public higher education and civil rights and voting rights laws further reduced economic inequality. Much of this was paid for with a 70 percent to 90 percent marginal income tax on the highest incomes. And as America’s middle class shared more of the economy’s gains, it was able to buy more of the goods and services the economy could provide. The result: rapid growth and more jobs.

Mr. Reich then suggests a number of policies that would result in providing a more equitable distribution of the wealth while not increasing the deficit.  Needless to say, some taxes were included in his suggestions.  He does not suggest that the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 be permitted to expire, but that would certainly help achieve a broader sharing of the wealth.  Mr. Reich concludes his article as follows:

Policies that generate more widely shared prosperity lead to stronger and more sustainable economic growth — and that’s good for everyone. The rich are better off with a smaller percentage of a fast-growing economy than a larger share of an economy that’s barely moving. That’s the Labor Day lesson we learned decades ago; until we remember it again, we’ll be stuck in the Great Recession.

I am a strong proponent of letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those who earn more than $200,000 a year.  Only a very small percentage of Americans earn over $200,000 a year and those who do will not change their spending habits as a result of the additional taxes that they would pay.  We had incredible economic growth when marginal income tax rates were 70% and even 90%.  We are no where near those rates today and those at the top of the wealth ladder can afford to pay a little more. 

It is not just liberals that believe that we should let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.  Even Alan Greenspan is against continuing the Bush tax breaks without paying for them which is something that the Republicans refuse to do by arguing that the tax breaks will pay for themselves.  An article in the Huffington Post (here) reads as follows:

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the push by congressional Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the costs elsewhere could end up being "disastrous" for the economy.
In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Greenspan expressed his disagreement with the conservative argument that tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by generating revenue and productivity among recipients.
"They do not," said Greenspan.
"I'm very much in favor of tax cuts but not with borrowed money and the problem that we have gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money," he said. "And at the end of the day that proves disastrous. My view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here."

It is nice to know that there is something that I agree with Alan Greenspan about.

Paul Krugman's op-ed piece in The New York Times today (here) makes an excellent case for an additional and larger stimulus.  Mr. Krugman's opening paragraph echos my sentiments exactly.

Next week, President Obama is scheduled to propose new measures to boost the economy. I hope they’re bold and substantive, since the Republicans will oppose him regardless — if he came out for motherhood, the G.O.P. would declare motherhood un-American. So he should put them on the spot for standing in the way of real action.

Mr. Krugman goes on to describe how the initial stimulus while too small had a very positive impact, why the conservatives position against the stimulus have proven wrong over and over again and why we need a new aggressive stimulus program.  Mr. Krugman is absolutely right as he was when he objected to the original stimulus for being too small.  President Obama may not be able to get a big stimulus through Congress for political reasons, but that does not mean that he shouldn't try and be willing to fight hard even if he loses.  He needs to do that for two reasons.  First, it is the right thing to do.  Second, he will regain the support and respect of many people who are looking for a leader that stands up for what he believes in.

As Labor Day approaches we should remember that it is the vast middle class and the workers that have been the backbone of this country and our economy for years.  We need to work together to give those people the share of the country's prosperity that they deserve.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Depressing August

Dear Friends,

August has been a very depressing month.  The politicians, the pundits, the people have all been distracted by the community center near ground zero, Glen Beck's rally, meaningless primaries, the most recent goings on with the Hollywood stars, etc.  Right now there are two things that are critical to our country's long term future - jobs and wars.

The "combat mission" part of the Iraq war has come to a close because we agreed with the Iraqi government that it would by September 1st.  So now we have less than 50,000 troops in Iraq.  We should not have any.  The Iraqi politicians have not been able to form a government in over 6 months.  The Iraq war will end up with us leaving and hoping that something good will happen.  It is possible something good will happen, because the Iraqis have had a civil war and are now tired of that but they do not seem inclined to try to unify their country.  But we are not ones to talk, the political climate in this country is completely divisive.

Unfortunately, my guess is that in a few years after many more lives have been lost and ruined, we will leave Afghanistan in much the same way.  Nobody has said clearly what victory is because there can be no victory.  We can kill enough people to provide some calm on the surface so that the politicians could do something but all they do is continue to line their pockets with graft money and fight to maintain their power.  In this country we have more genteel words for it but many of our politicians are doing the same thing - raising obscene amounts of money from corporate interests and working to maintain their power, rather than focusing on what is good for the country.

So the wars go on and the military industrial complex continues to control what we do in the world.  Apart from an occasional voice of reason in Congress, our politicians continue to act at the beck and call of the huge corporations that fund their profits and their political contributions through military contracts.

At the same time, our politicians are not willing to even discuss what we need to do to create the jobs needed to put Americans back to work so that our economy can recover and vice versa.  The New York Times published an op-ed piece by Laura Tyson today entitled "Why We Need a Second Stimulus" (here).  She explains exactly why we need a second stimulus in clear logical terms.  Why can't our President and the members of Congress that call themselves Democrats make such an argument?  Her position is sound economics, it is sound policy, and it is great politics.  It does require a leader with an a ability to communicate and energize people, a leader that is bold and inspiring, a leader that is willing to take risks, a leader who will challenge the naysayers, a leader who respects the electorate, and a leader who will fight for what she/he believes unwaveringly.  Apparently, there aren't any of that type of leader around.

Bloomberg Business Week reported (here) that

China, the world’s biggest polluter, may spend about 5 trillion yuan ($738 billion) in the next decade developing cleaner sources of energy to reduce emissions from burning oil and coal.
China erected more wind turbines in 2009 than any other country and may install a record 18 gigawatts of wind-power capacity in 2010, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates show.

On August 13, 2010, Fortune published an article entitled "Renewable Energy:  The Government Piggybank" (here).  The first paragraph reads:

If the government truly wants America to go green, it's going to have to shell out to support the nascent but important sector of our economy. Green jobs and renewable energy were boldly funded in the stimulus bill, yet whenever Congress and the Obama administration need to scare up capital to fund some other program, they chip away at the initial $37 billion allocated for climate and energy-related efforts.

The article goes on to say that in order to find the $26 billion for the recently passed bill to help the states that $1.5 billion of that came by reducing the green energy allocation of $37 billion.  I think that the help to the states was really important but why would we reduce the already paltry amount that we are providing to encourage green technology and jobs?  But if the Chinese are spending $74 billion a year and we are spending less than half that with no long term plan, what difference does $1.5 billion make?

If the Chinese beat us at developing green technology which they are well on their way to doing, we will never recover the jobs that we have lost in this country.  The United States has always been a technology leader, but we are falling behind while our politicians find ways to distract us rather than facing the realities of a world in which we are losing our role.  If we are to regain the jobs that have been lost and provide long-term economic growth and job security, we must be willing to stimulate the economy.  There are two great ways to do that.  One is to improve our infrastructure and the other is to invest in green technology that will produce jobs both now and well into the future.

The President of the United States is the only person who can provide the leadership that we need to provide a second stimulus, to invest in green technology and get out of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  Unfortunately, the current President seems unwilling to provide the leadership we need.  Frank Rich wrote a great op-ed piece in The New York Times today (here) in which he pointed out that President Franklin Roosevelt and President John Kennedy both faced well financed right wing fringe challenges and that both of them prevailed by being leaders.  He concludes that President Obama while facing the same challenges so far has failed to lead.  Here are the ending of the piece:

When wolves of Murdoch’s ingenuity and the Kochs’ stealth have been at the door of our democracy in the past, Democrats have fought back fiercely. Franklin Roosevelt’s triumphant 1936 re-election campaign pummeled the Liberty League as a Republican ally eager to “squeeze the worker dry in his old age and cast him like an orange rind into the refuse pail.” When John Kennedy’s patriotism was assailed by Birchers calling for impeachment, he gave a major speech denouncing their “crusades of suspicion.”
And Obama? So far, sadly, this question answers itself.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, Mosques and the Constitution

Dear Friends,

I was impressed with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's remarks earlier this month about the mosque near Ground Zero, but until tonight I had just heard clips on the news.  Tonight I read a transcript of his speech (here).  It is really impressive when you read the whole thing.  I tried to but cannot summarize it, so I would suggest that you read it.  It is short but excellent.  I would love to hear a discussion between Mayor Bloomberg and the Republicans who are railing against the Muslims and mosques.

President Obama joined the discussion about the mosque near Ground Zero in a speech at the Iftar dinner at the White House marking the breaking of the daily Ramadan fast.  On Friday night when I heard reports that he had joined the discussion and had strongly supported the building of the mosque, I was very pleased.  The next day I saw clips of his remarks and remained very pleased that he was speaking out for our values so clearly.  Then I heard reports of his "clarification" of his remarks, and I was very disappointed. 

The Republican response to the issue of a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero is repulsive, and once again makes clear that they will say anything to strike fear into the hearts of their base in order to win elections.  I think that I will comment on that another day, but for now, I want to focus on what President Obama said.

I have now read the transcript of President Obama's speech at Friday night's Iftar dinner (here).  It is an impressive speech.  The news clips do not do it justice.  I really love it that both President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg discussed the history of religious freedom in our country including the difficulties that we have had from time to time maintaining this core value of ours.  I am not able to summarize it.  You really should read it.  Like Mayor Bloomberg's speech, it is not long.

I have not found a full transcript of President Obama's clarification of his remarks, but the most quoted statement is

I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.

There are several problems with this clarification.  Worst of all, it is a lie.  Anybody reading the transcript of his Iftar dinner remarks can tell that he was supporting the mosque that is located two blocks from Ground Zero.  Here are two key paragraphs:

Now, that's not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -- particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.(emphasis added)

These two paragraphs are well written and very clear.  No clarification was required and the "clarification" offered by President Obama is much more like a retraction.  His speech was not an academic recitation of the freedom of religion in our country.  It was a clear, well articulated endorsement of building the proposed mosque in lower Manhattan.  It was a speech that made me proud to have him as my President.

President Obama must have known that this speech would be greeted with outrage by the Republicans.  He must also have known that his clarification/revocation of his speech would be ignored by the Republicans.  So why does it seem like he was surprised by the reaction?   Why did he make a speech that he had to know would start a fight with the Republicans and then immediately back down which he also had to know would not satisfy the Republicans?

Until President Obama is willing to stand up and fight for what he believes in, whatever that is, he will continue to lose the support and respect of the American people.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Speech, Surveillance, President Obama and Justice Kagan

Dear Friends,

The sixth topic addressed in the American Civil Liberties Union report entitled "Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration" (here) is speech and surveillance.  The first paragraph of this article summarizes the thrust of the article.

With limited exceptions, the Obama administration’s positions on national security issues relating to speech and surveillance have mirrored those taken by the Bush administration in its second term.

The report goes on to detail how candidate Obama disagreed with the Bush Administration policy of conducting warrantless wiretaps.  Unfortunately, his actions as a Senator indicated that he just wanted Congress to have some control.  President Obama continues to defend FISA by saying, as the Bush Administration did, that the government's actions under FISA are effectively immune from judicial review.  The Obama administration has continued to argue that you can't challenge the actions of the government unless you can prove that you have been the subject of surveillance under FISA and then of course the government refuses to disclose who has been the subject of surveillance.

The article also reminds those of us that travel outside of the United States, that US border agents are authorized to copy the contents of our computers before letting them back into the country.  They have this authority and need no probable cause to exercise it.

The report also points out how the Obama administration continues to threaten our freedom of speech.  The worst example of this problem involves now Supreme Court Justice Kagan.  The ACLU report says it best.

In an important case that reached the Supreme Court, the Obama administration took the position that it could prosecute individuals under a statute that bars the provision of “material support” to terrorist organizations even if the support in question consists solely of speech—advice on issues relating to international law, for example, or on peaceful resolution of conflicts. In a dispiriting oral argument, Solicitor General Elena Kagan even proposed that lawyers could be sent to prison for filing friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of designated terrorist organizations. The Supreme Court ultimately adopted many of the administration’s arguments and issued a decision that can fairly be described as a catastrophe for the First Amendment.

Why is that Republican Presidents appoint ultra conservatives to the bench, and Democratic Presidents appoint middle of the road or pseudo liberals to the bench?  In May, The New York Times published an article entitled "Kagan's Notable Statements and Writings" (here).  Even if you read it when it was published, I would suggest that you read it again before you relax and think that we have a reasonable replacement for Justice Stevens.  For example here is a quote from Justice Kagan's testimony at her confirmation hearing for Solicitor General, "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."  

There are many things that President Obama has been unable to accomplish at least in part because of the Republicans' just say no to everything, but there are many things that President Obama has done that are very disappointing to those of us that supported him and believed him when he promised change.  We must hold him accountable.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Military Commissions and President Obama

Dear Friends,

The fifth topic addressed in the American Civil Liberties Union report entitled "Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration" (here) is military commissions. The first paragraph of this section of the ACLU report reads:

While campaigning for the presidency, then-Senator Obama made cogent arguments against military commission trials at Guantánamo on both principled and pragmatic grounds. He professed “faith in America’s courts” and pledged to “reject the Military Commissions Act.” In 2007 he pointed out the practical inferiority of the military commissions, noting that there had been “only one conviction at Guantánamo. It was for a guilty plea on material support for terrorism. The sentence was 9 months. There has not been one conviction of a terrorist act.”

Of course, President Obama has changed his tune dramatically on this point.  While making some good changes to the procedures, he encouraged the redrafting of the law.  He is enshrining in America a two-class system of justice and the President gets to say in which of those two systems an individual is tried.  One system is enshrined in our Constitution and our system of laws and justice.  The other system is not one that we would recognize as legitimate if any other country were to adopt it.

The first trial is just underway at Guantanamo.  It is particularly obscene that President Obama is letting the first trial be the trial of Omar Khadr, a child soldier who was only 15 at the time of the alleged offense.  This military tribunal trial by the United States government is first time that a child soldier has been tried for a war crime by a Western country since World War II.  The more I read about this case more angry I am about what is being done by my government.

For a history of this case, I would suggest you read "The Case of Omar Khadr, Canada" by Human Rights First (here).  The following are two of the opening paragraphs of that report that address the child soldier issue and the failure of the United States to live up to its legal obligations.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and international juvenile justice standards require prompt determination of juvenile cases and discourage detainment of juveniles at all except as a last resort. Such standards have not been heeded by the U.S. government in the case of Khadr. Khadr was held for two years prior to being given access to an attorney, waited more than three years prior to being charged before the first military commission, and is now in his eighth year in U.S. custody. During Khadr's time in detainment, he has been held both in solitary confinement as well as with adult detainees, contrary to international standards requiring that children be treated in accordance with their age and segregated from adult detainees. Khadr also claims he was subjected to abusive interrogation practices in violation of U.S. humane treatment standards, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and other binding prohibitions against torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
In 2002, the U.S. ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, which prohibits the use of children under 18 in armed conflict and requires signatories to criminalize such conduct and rehabilitate former child soldiers as well as provide "all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration." The U.S. has failed to heed these legal obligations in the case of Khadr.

The United States law requires us to rehabilitate former child soldiers not try them for war crimes so that we can kill them.

There have been many articles recently about the Khadr case because the trial has finally started.  To get a feel for how the "jury" selection went and why this second class justice system needs to be abandoned, you should read an article entitled "Guantanamo: 'Jury' selected for Omar Khadr's military commission trial" by Alex Neve at the Amnesty International website (here).  Mr. Neve sums up his overall impression of the jury selection process as follows:

What stays with me from these two days is the intensity of the prosecution’s determination to exclude anyone who had an informed view about the well-documented human rights concerns associated with Guantánamo Bay and other aspects of the USA’s post-September 11th counter-terrorism policies.  This was particularly notable in the case of the Army Lieutenant Colonel against whom the prosecution eventually used their peremptory challenge. He spoke openly about his understanding of the concerns that had arisen at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere.  He worried about what he saw as US moral authority having been eroded.  He talked of concerns such as lengthy detention without charge, charges being brought which had limited legal precedent, and the admissibility of information obtained under torture.  He spoke of his concerns about the positions that former White House Counsel and US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had taken on the handling of detainees and interrogation methods.  Ultimately he repeated several times that he supported President Obama’s position that it would be best to close down the Guantánamo detention facility.
The prosecution was vehement in laying out their case for why this Lieutenant Colonel should be excluded.  He was accused of disloyalty for his criticism of Alberto Gonzales.  He was described as having a hostile attitude towards the government.  And he was repeatedly chastised for having said that he “agreed with the President” when it came to Guantánamo Bay, for which he was accused of clearly being biased against the government.  One was left wondering just who the prosecution thinks the government is.

I also read a report about the proceedings that took place today posted by Daphne Eviatar for Human Rights First (here).  Ms. Eviatar's description of the courtroom proceedings is excellent.  After describing the testimony that had taken place particularly the answers to the questions asked by defense counsel, she gives her reflections on today's testimony:

After the first day of testimony for the government, I’m left wondering who really is the criminal here. Sargeant Major D described how he entered the compound, armed with an N-4 and a Glock-9mm. The compound had just been shot up by U.S. Apache helicopters and bombarded by two 500-pound bombs. After sensing a grenade and small arms fire coming from an alleyway, Major D ran to the alley and shot a man with an AK-47 and a grenade in the head and killed him. Omar Khadr, however, was seated on the ground, unarmed, in a dust-covered light-blue tunic, his back to the Major D. Khadr was not holding or aiming a gun at the Sargeant, or threatening him in any way. Yet Sargeant Major D shot him twice in the back. He then walked over and thumped him in the eye, to see if he was still alive. Surprisingly, he was.

Lt. Col. Jackson, Khadr’s defense lawyer, asked Sarg. Major D if he knows the laws of war, which prohibit killing a civilian not actively participating in hostilities. Jackson also pointed out that there was an armed civilian CIA agent accompanying the US forces that day.

Which got me thinking: who is the real war criminal here? And who gets to decide?

A big part of the hope and change that candidate Obama promised in his campaign was to restore America's image in the world and to bring back the rule of law.  President Obama has not done either of those things.  Not because the Republicans have stopped him from fulfilling a campaign promise but because he chose to break a campaign promise.  President Obama has chosen to violate our laws and our international obligations and to prosecute a child based on evidence that at best is flawed and obtained by torture and at worst is completely without foundation.

We must hold President Obama accountable especially when he has chosen to violate his oath of office, our laws and our values.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal