Clinton and Sanders Infrastructure Plans

Dear Friends,

Hillary Clinton has finally come out with an infrastructure plan, and as you might imagine it is very middle of the road and certainly would not accomplish what even she says we need.

Everybody agrees that the United States infrastructure is in grave need of repair, costs Americans a ton of unnecessary money each year and is way behind that of other developed countries.  If you don't believe me read the article in Fortune (here) entitled "An investment in America's infrastructure could cost taxpayers nothing".  It is a full throated argument for investing huge sums of money in our infrastructure.

There seems to be general agreement that the US needs to invest well over $1 trillion in our infrastructure to repair it and bring it to a competitive level with other developed countries.  As the Fortune article points out, an up to date infrastructure would save everybody money that is currently spent on lost time and damage done by a crumbling and overcrowded infrastructure.  In addition, infrastructure spending creates lots of good paying jobs.  The Fortune article estimates that even a $18 billion annual investment in infrastructure would create 216,000 jobs in the first year.  As the Fortune article concludes, "It is hard to think of a timelier win-win proposal."

Bernie Sanders has proposed increasing our infrastructure spending by $1 trillion over the next five years (here).  Hillary Clinton, while acknowledging that estimates of "the size of our 'infrastructure gap' register in the trillions of dollars", proposes that we increase our infrastructure spending by just $275 million over the next five years (here).

You can see a comparison of the two plans at Dave Johnson's blog on The Huffington Post (here).

Secretary Clinton's proposal can hardly be called an incremental improvement much less any kind of a solution to our infrastructure deficit.  It is, of course, better than nothing.  Senator Sanders' proposal truly addresses both the infrastructure deficit we face as well as the need for many more good paying jobs.  Once again the extremely modest proposal from the establishment candidate will not generate any enthusiasm among those in our country who are looking for real change and bold ideas.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama eviscerates our rights and protects wrongdoers

Dear Friends,

I have pointed out before that President Obama is often not the President that he could or should be.  He has referred to his administration as "the most transparent administration in history".  Since prior administrations set such a low bar, his statement may be technically true, but it is very misleading.  President Obama has been aggressively pursuing any "leaks" with prosecutions.  A 2013 article in The Guardian (here) leads off with these paragraphs:

Barack Obama has pursued the most aggressive "war on leaks" since the Nixon administration, according to a report published on Thursday that says the administration's attempts to control the flow of information is hampering the ability of journalists to do their jobs.
The author of the study, the former Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie, says the administration's actions have severely hindered the release of information that could be used to hold it to account.

President Obama continues to aggressively pursue prosecution of whistleblowers while doing nothing to those whose crimes are disclosed by the whistleblowers.

He is now seeking to limit the authority of the inspector generals of various agency who act as watchdogs over those agency.  Here is a summary of the inspector general concept, and President Obama's attempt to destroy it from a recent article in The New York Times (here)

The inspector-general system was created in 1978 in the wake of Watergate as an independent check on government abuse, and it has grown to include watchdogs at 72 federal agencies. Their investigations have produced thousands of often searing public reports on everything from secret terrorism programs and disaster responses to boondoggles like a lavish government conference in Las Vegas in 2010 that featured a clown and a mind reader.
Not surprisingly, tensions are common between the watchdogs and the officials they investigate. President Ronald Reagan, in fact, fired 15 inspectors general in 1981. But a number of scholars and investigators said the restrictions imposed by the Obama administration reflect a new level of acrimony.
“This is by far the most aggressive assault on the inspector general concept since the beginning,” said Paul Light, a New York University professor who has studied the system. “It’s the complete evisceration of the concept. You might as well fold them down. They’ve become defanged.”

Last summer, President Obama's Justice Department issued a new ruling related to the inspector general concept.  Here are the opening paragraphs from an article at the Huffington Post (here)

The Department of Justice watchdog says a new opinion issued by the DOJ's legal office "undermines" the watchdog's independence and will "significantly" impair its ability to "detect and deter waste, fraud, and abuse, and to protect taxpayer dollars."
The Office of the Inspector General at the Justice Department conducts oversight of the department's activities and law enforcement agencies within it. But under a new opinion from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, the inspector general has to seek permission from the organization it is meant to oversee in order to obtain certain types of information.
"As a result of the OLC’s opinion, the OIG will now need to obtain Justice Department permission in order to get access to important information in the Department’s files – putting the agency over which the OIG conducts oversight in the position of deciding whether to give the OIG access to the information necessary to conduct that oversight," the Inspector General's office said in a statement. "The conflict with the principles enshrined in the Inspector General Act could not be clearer and, as a result, the OIG’s work will be adversely impacted."

The New York Times article referenced above (here) cited an incredible list of recent examples of investigations that have been hindered or completely thwarted by the agency refusing to provide documents to its inspector general, including, the killing of unarmed Honduran civilians by DEA agents, sexual assaults in the Peace Corps, FBI abuses in counterterrorism cases and the conduct of negotiations of international trade agreements by the Commerce Department.  We have a right to know about the bad and illegal things our government does and to have those responsible held accountable.

As far as we know, President Obama has continued and defended programs which violate our right to privacy and now he is trying his best to ensure that we have no way of finding out about wrongdoings by government officials.  That is not the way a democracy works.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist

Dear Friends,

Notwithstanding the lack of press coverage, Bernie Sanders gave a very important speech yesterday.  Initially, it was to explain what it means to be a democratic socialist, but as a result of the recent terrorist attacks, Senator Sanders expanded it to cover his approach to eliminating ISIS.  If you have the time, you should read it here.

His speech made it very clear that Senator Sanders is a modern version of President Franklin Roosevelt.  The two men have a very similar view of the role of government with respect to providing for the people.  FDR was President in a time of great economic disparity, and he referred to those at the top of the economic ladder who wanted to have it all as "economic royalists"; Bernie Sanders refers to the same type of people as the "billionaire class".  Senator Sanders references President Roosevelt often, including his second Bill of Rights.  The following is an excerpt from President Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union address.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

As Senator Sanders goes on to enumerate what it means to be a democratic socialist, it is easy to see FDR's second Bill of Rights as well as his view of the role of government.  Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist believes

• we must have an economy that works for all not just the few
• healthcare is a right - we need Medicare for all
• education is a right - we need free public college education
• full employment is an obligation of the government if the private sector fails - we need a significant infrastructure building jobs program
• a person working full-time must not live in poverty - we need a $15/hour minimum wage
• wellbeing is a right - we need programs like paid family leave
• a secure and dignified retirement is a right - we need to expand social security
• we need a fair political system not one controlled by the rich 
• we need a tax system where everybody and every corporation pays their fair share

Bernie Sanders made it clear that he agrees with President Roosevelt that freedom requires economic security.  In his 1944 State of the Union Address, FDR said

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men.

Bernie Sanders also echoed Martin Luther King, Jr. who said in 1968

This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor.

Senator Sanders went on to give a perfect example of what Reverend King meant.

It is a system, for example, which during the 1990s allowed Wall Street to spend $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to get deregulated. Then, ten years later, after the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior of Wall Street led to their collapse, it is a system which provided trillions in government aid to bail them out. Wall Street used their wealth and power to get Congress to do their bidding for deregulation and then, when their greed caused their collapse, they used their wealth and power to get Congress to bail them out. Quite a system!

And, then, to add insult to injury, we were told that not only were the banks too big to fail, the bankers were too big to jail. Kids who get caught possessing marijuana get police records. Wall Street CEOs who help destroy the economy get raises in their salaries. This is what Martin Luther King, Jr. meant by socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else.

Senator Sanders also made the direct connection between our economic security at home and our ability to bring peace in the world.  As did President Roosevelt when he elaborated on his second Bill of Rights.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

When Senator Sanders turned to the question of how to defeat ISIS, he was very clear that the United States must play a very important but supporting role.

But let's be very clear. While the U.S. and other western nations have the strength of our militaries and political systems, the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations - with the strong support of their global partners.

These same sentiments have been echoed by those in the region. Jordan's King Abdallah II said in a speech on Sunday that terrorism is the "greatest threat to our region" and that Muslims must lead the fight against it. He noted that confronting extremism is both a regional and international responsibility, and that it is incumbent on Muslim nations and communities to confront those who seek to hijack their societies and generations with intolerance and violent ideology.

With a strong understanding of history and our past foreign policy mistakes, Senator Sanders is clear that he will provide all the support needed to defeat ISIS, but the Muslim nations and communities must take the lead.  He also calls out some of our so-called allies who have not only not done enough to fight ISIS but who have in many ways provided support to radical clerics.

Equally important, and this is a point that must be made - countries in the region like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE - countries of enormous wealth and resources - have contributed far too little in the fight against ISIS. That must change. King Abdallah is absolutely right when he says that that the Muslim nations must lead the fight against ISIS, and that includes some of the most wealthy and powerful nations in the region, who, up to this point have done far too little.

All of this has got to change. Wealthy and powerful Muslim nations in the region can no longer sit on the sidelines and expect the United States to do their work for them. As we develop a strongly coordinated effort, we need a commitment from these countries that the fight against ISIS takes precedence over the religious and ideological differences that hamper the kind of cooperation that we desperately need.

The bottom line is that ISIS must be destroyed, but it cannot be defeated by the United States alone. A new and effective coalition must be formed with the Muslim nations leading the effort on the ground, while the United States and other major forces provide the support they need.

Senator Bernie Sanders is not an extremist.  All of the great programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were called socialist by their detractors, but they provide the bedrock to provide the economic security that all Americans should enjoy.  There is nothing radical or new about providing free public education or government rebuilding our infrastructure or every person paying his or her fair share of taxes or providing paid family leave or having Medicare for all or a minimum wage of $15 an hour so a full-time worker does not live in poverty or regulating and taxing Wall Street so that the banks are not too big to fail and the CEO's not too big to prosecute or any of the other policies that Bernie Sanders advocates.  All of those policies are well within the second Bill of Rights proposed by FDR and at the time commonly accepted.  In addition, Senator Sanders' plan for defeating ISIS is the only realistic one that I have heard; as it is clear that a US lead ground war in Muslim countries will only lead to more terrorism.

Bernie Sanders is the person we need as President.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal