President Obama wants the Bush tax cuts to expire, thus ending tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent of Americans. Republican leaders, however, argue that these tax cuts would encourage small businesses, stimulate the economy, and create jobs. They are wrong for several key reasons.
First, the average small business income is around $40,000, and therefore, extending the tax cuts for rich individuals making more than $250,000 isn't going to do much for small businesses. Instead, Obama has proposed the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act, which would offer tax incentives for these businesses (who create more than half of all new jobs in America) and save taxpayers $1 billion over the next 10 years. However, the constant filibustering by Republicans has made it difficult for the Senate to pass such a job creating measure. Strike #1
Second, to truly stimulate the economy, you need to provide benefits to those who are out of work and looking for a job. Long-term growth requires widely spread prosperity, not an ever increasing concentration of wealth at the top and an increasing gap between the rich and poor. That’s why Obama has extended unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. As I mentioned in my blog post “Unconstructive Criticism”, just as the Bush tax cut puts more money in the pockets of the wealthy, unemployment insurance gives more money to the unemployed (who are likelier to spend it). But again, Republicans have argued against it. Strike #2.
Third, Republicans argue that by transferring more money to the wealthiest, we would entice them to invest more in the economy. But let us not forget that the rich have had this tax cut since 2003 and, instead of investing and creating jobs, they paid large corporate bonuses, laid-off millions of workers, and outsourced manufacturing jobs. Strike #3.
By allowing these unnecessary tax cuts to expire, the tax rate for the wealthiest will go back to Clinton-era levels. During the Clinton administration, the rich paid a high individual income tax rate of 39%. However, the economy still created more than 23 million jobs (about 90% in the private sector) in less than eight years -- the most jobs ever created under a single administration. He also left office with a huge surplus.
When Bush took office, he lowered the top individual tax rate down to 35%. But, compared to the prior administration, he only created about 3 million jobs during his 8 years in office. In addition, Bush took a $230 billion surplus and turned it into a $1.4 trillion deficit. If the tax cuts are not left to expire, they will cost us an additional $3 trillion in the next 10 years through lost revenue.
Compare that to Obama administration, which has already created and/or saved more jobs in his first two years as president than Bush did in 8 years! By investing in our future, Obama has created jobs in almost every major sector of our economy, including construction, education, healthcare, clean energy, and the auto-industry.
As the Democratic leadership has put it: when you are driving a car, you push “D” to go forward, and “R” to go backward. So, where do you want to go?
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Do Your Jobs
As yet more proof that his economic policies are working, President Obama recently highlighted his success with the auto industry and pressed for passage of the Small Business Jobs Act, a measure which Senate Republicans are blocking.
First and foremost, Republicans should not criticize the President for not creating jobs, as they were the folks that adamantly opposed the auto industry bailout. Today, however, that very action taken by Democrats not only saved and created a lot of jobs, but it saved an entire industry.
In the year prior to Obama’s administration, American auto companies were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, instead of making political calculations and shying away from the problem, Obama decided to invest in American businesses and save them from bankruptcy. Now, for the first time since 2004, GM, Ford, and Chrysler are making profits and creating thousands of jobs in communities, such as Detroit, which desperately need them. If Obama had not stepped in and taken such measures, many analysts claim at least one million more Americans would have lost their jobs.
Not only did Obama save and create jobs on American shores, but he also maintained American competitiveness in the world. Allowing the industry to fail would have cost the government billions of dollars in lost tax revenues and millions of out-of-work employees. Our companies cannot compete on a global level if this is the situation.
For this very reason, the President has also emphasized the need to create a $30 billion government fund to help open up lending for credit-starved small businesses. It’s these small businesses which create a majority of all new jobs in America, and it’s these small businesses which need our help. Therefore, the proposed bill would give additional tax breaks and badly-needed lending assistance to America’s small business owners so they can grow and hire, and yes, create more jobs!
However, time and time again, Republicans are using parliamentary procedures to block it from even coming up for a vote in the Senate. It seems to me that they do not care about the welfare of our nation, but instead, for garnering as many political points as possible. They have done everything in their power to stop Obama at every turn because, simply put, they want him to fail. They want to show the American people that the Democratic Party is not fit to lead. They want to enter the November elections and tell the American people, “I told you so.”
But how much more pain and suffering are they willing to cause the American people before they realize you cannot win an election as a party of “NO”? You cannot gain the trust of the voters if you have failed to offer any real solutions, make false accusations of noteworthy proposals, increase hatred for your opponents, and hope for the leader of your own nation to fail. It does not create a “more perfect union”, and it certainly does not help win elections.
So, while GOP leaders wait for Obama’s next “waterloo”, the administration will continue fighting for Americans by doing the one thing Democrats are best at:
doing their jobs.
First and foremost, Republicans should not criticize the President for not creating jobs, as they were the folks that adamantly opposed the auto industry bailout. Today, however, that very action taken by Democrats not only saved and created a lot of jobs, but it saved an entire industry.
In the year prior to Obama’s administration, American auto companies were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, instead of making political calculations and shying away from the problem, Obama decided to invest in American businesses and save them from bankruptcy. Now, for the first time since 2004, GM, Ford, and Chrysler are making profits and creating thousands of jobs in communities, such as Detroit, which desperately need them. If Obama had not stepped in and taken such measures, many analysts claim at least one million more Americans would have lost their jobs.
Not only did Obama save and create jobs on American shores, but he also maintained American competitiveness in the world. Allowing the industry to fail would have cost the government billions of dollars in lost tax revenues and millions of out-of-work employees. Our companies cannot compete on a global level if this is the situation.
For this very reason, the President has also emphasized the need to create a $30 billion government fund to help open up lending for credit-starved small businesses. It’s these small businesses which create a majority of all new jobs in America, and it’s these small businesses which need our help. Therefore, the proposed bill would give additional tax breaks and badly-needed lending assistance to America’s small business owners so they can grow and hire, and yes, create more jobs!
However, time and time again, Republicans are using parliamentary procedures to block it from even coming up for a vote in the Senate. It seems to me that they do not care about the welfare of our nation, but instead, for garnering as many political points as possible. They have done everything in their power to stop Obama at every turn because, simply put, they want him to fail. They want to show the American people that the Democratic Party is not fit to lead. They want to enter the November elections and tell the American people, “I told you so.”
But how much more pain and suffering are they willing to cause the American people before they realize you cannot win an election as a party of “NO”? You cannot gain the trust of the voters if you have failed to offer any real solutions, make false accusations of noteworthy proposals, increase hatred for your opponents, and hope for the leader of your own nation to fail. It does not create a “more perfect union”, and it certainly does not help win elections.
So, while GOP leaders wait for Obama’s next “waterloo”, the administration will continue fighting for Americans by doing the one thing Democrats are best at:
doing their jobs.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Unconstructive Criticism
Conservatives and critics of President Obama have slammed the administration’s handling of almost every major issue confronting our nation. Many of these critics are prematurely making judgments, and in most cases, failing to look at the facts.
GOP leaders claim the president has “neglected” to focus on job creation. In their opinions, the most effective way to create jobs is through tax cuts for the wealthy. The Obama administration, however, has focused on stimulus and spending to create jobs. This approach proves to be a more sustainable solution.
When Obama took office in January 2009, over 700,000 Americans lost their jobs (a direct result of the previous administration’s failures; and the biggest rate of job loss since Obama took over). To provide immediate relief and jump start our economy, he passed a $787 billion stimulus package that allocated much needed spending to improve our infrastructure, which creates better long-term employment; gave tax cuts and lending approvals to small businesses, which employ half of America's working population; and has now proved to have saved or created about 3 million jobs.
In addition, Obama has extended unemployment benefits for the 9.5% unemployment rate we currently face (which is down from a 10% rate just a few months ago). Just as a tax cut puts more money in the pockets of the wealthy, unemployment insurance puts more money in an unemployed person's pocket. The difference is that the unemployed person is likelier to spend that money, which will generate more taxable economic activity than if that money is saved.
Conservatives also argue that unemployment payments are a disincentive to taking a new job, as many will become lazy and unmotivated to find a job. But let me ask you this: Could you live on less than $300 a week? If the average unemployment check in the U.S. is $293, how could any person make their mortgage payments, their car payments, and feed their family? If a majority of your unemployment insurance check is paying for the rising costs of healthcare, is it realistic to expect you will still have money left for food and rent and utilities and other necessities? The answer is you cannot.
It seems as if many on the right are either insensitive to this fact or they are simply out of touch with reality. It seems as if they are only making political calculations, and not considering the human calculations.
Third, and more recently, Obama has decided to tackle Wall Street and end an era of irresponsibility that led to the “loss of 8 million jobs and trillions of dollars of wealth. This reform is good for families; it's good for businesses; it's good for the entire economy." With more accountability and transparency for the financial sector, the measure will only help us in the future.
Unlike President Bush, who inherited a $230 billion surplus when he took office, President Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit, along with 2 wars and a failing economy. Taking this into major consideration, Obama has done extraordinary to prevent another Great Depression. Although our situation is bad, it would have been much worse if the administration had not taken such actions. The only way he can do more is if he stops trying to reach over the isle to find bipartisan support and focuses strictly on his liberal base, an argument that many Democrats have been proposing.
Yes we need to hold our leaders at a higher standard, and yes opposition is always needed to improve any solution. Republicans have tried their solutions for the last 8years and could not meet the situation. GOP leaders now need to focus on constructive criticism rather than being a party that out-rightly rejects any solution Obama offers, promotes unprofessional conduct, allows racism to flourish, and advocates that our leader fails at every possible turn.
We need real debate, not political games. That is how we, as a country, can progress.
GOP leaders claim the president has “neglected” to focus on job creation. In their opinions, the most effective way to create jobs is through tax cuts for the wealthy. The Obama administration, however, has focused on stimulus and spending to create jobs. This approach proves to be a more sustainable solution.
When Obama took office in January 2009, over 700,000 Americans lost their jobs (a direct result of the previous administration’s failures; and the biggest rate of job loss since Obama took over). To provide immediate relief and jump start our economy, he passed a $787 billion stimulus package that allocated much needed spending to improve our infrastructure, which creates better long-term employment; gave tax cuts and lending approvals to small businesses, which employ half of America's working population; and has now proved to have saved or created about 3 million jobs.
In addition, Obama has extended unemployment benefits for the 9.5% unemployment rate we currently face (which is down from a 10% rate just a few months ago). Just as a tax cut puts more money in the pockets of the wealthy, unemployment insurance puts more money in an unemployed person's pocket. The difference is that the unemployed person is likelier to spend that money, which will generate more taxable economic activity than if that money is saved.
Conservatives also argue that unemployment payments are a disincentive to taking a new job, as many will become lazy and unmotivated to find a job. But let me ask you this: Could you live on less than $300 a week? If the average unemployment check in the U.S. is $293, how could any person make their mortgage payments, their car payments, and feed their family? If a majority of your unemployment insurance check is paying for the rising costs of healthcare, is it realistic to expect you will still have money left for food and rent and utilities and other necessities? The answer is you cannot.
It seems as if many on the right are either insensitive to this fact or they are simply out of touch with reality. It seems as if they are only making political calculations, and not considering the human calculations.
Third, and more recently, Obama has decided to tackle Wall Street and end an era of irresponsibility that led to the “loss of 8 million jobs and trillions of dollars of wealth. This reform is good for families; it's good for businesses; it's good for the entire economy." With more accountability and transparency for the financial sector, the measure will only help us in the future.
Unlike President Bush, who inherited a $230 billion surplus when he took office, President Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit, along with 2 wars and a failing economy. Taking this into major consideration, Obama has done extraordinary to prevent another Great Depression. Although our situation is bad, it would have been much worse if the administration had not taken such actions. The only way he can do more is if he stops trying to reach over the isle to find bipartisan support and focuses strictly on his liberal base, an argument that many Democrats have been proposing.
Yes we need to hold our leaders at a higher standard, and yes opposition is always needed to improve any solution. Republicans have tried their solutions for the last 8years and could not meet the situation. GOP leaders now need to focus on constructive criticism rather than being a party that out-rightly rejects any solution Obama offers, promotes unprofessional conduct, allows racism to flourish, and advocates that our leader fails at every possible turn.
We need real debate, not political games. That is how we, as a country, can progress.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Liberty and Justice for All?
Since the early days of kindergarten, children in the United States have learned to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. However, until recently, I could not truly appreciate the meaning behind the words “with liberty and justice for all”. What made me understand these words more clearly was not my love and passion for this country, but President Obama’s decision to file a lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law this past Tuesday.
The new law, which would order immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally, is not only unjust, but is also unconstitutional.
I completely understand the need for stricter immigration reform. I am in full support of our American workers and those that obey the laws, and agree that people who break our laws should be punished. But at what cost?
We need to ensure that we, first and foremost, uphold our American values of equality, liberty, and justice for all. America is a nation comprised of immigrants. We pride ourselves on our multiculturalism, yet we decide to act in ways that prohibit and restrict those very ideals we preach throughout the world. The new law invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement, thus harming people’s civil rights and opening doors to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners. If you do not think this new law would invite such hardships, ask yourself this question: How would you determine who looks like an “illegal immigrant?” Chances are you’re not thinking of a white male. Where’s the justice in this?
Not to mention that Arizona’s new law unconstitutionally interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters. Enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, not a state’s. Immigration law, policy, and enforcement priorities are affected by and have impacts on U.S. foreign policy, and are themselves the subject of diplomatic arrangements. For the same reason we do not allow states to have their own foreign policies, we should not allow states to conduct their own immigration laws.
Some opponents are making it a point to emphasize the fact that a majority of Arizona’s residents actually support the new law. However, the fact that a majority of people support it does not make it just. If the civil rights movement was based on popularity, then surely it would not have been passed, and we would be living in a very different America.
And for those that argue we should simply put the illegal immigrants on a boat and deport them, consider this-we have over 11 million undocumented and illegal workers living in the country. It is unrealistic and unfeasible to ask them all to leave. Instead, as Obama and other democrats have argued, create a legal pathway to citizenship. They will still have to pay a fine, learn English, and wait at the back of the line for those that apply for citizenship legally, but will provide us with greater prosperity. Just imagine adding over 11 million new workers who pay taxes and add to our economic well-being.
Republicans these days are sounding much like those very same people who persecuted, racially profiled, and drove out the Jewish people in Eastern Europe a little more than a century ago- “foreigners must carry identification cards with them at all times, and if not, they should all be forced to leave the country.” This is not the America I was taught about in school. This is not the America I want to leave for my children and grandchildren. This is not the America that preaches “liberty and justice for all”.
And as Obama mentioned in his speech at American University last week, we should all remember the words written by Emma Lazarus in describing our Statue of Liberty:
“Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand,” she wrote,
A mighty woman with a torch…
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome…
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!”…
“Give me your tired, and your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to be free…
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
The new law, which would order immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally, is not only unjust, but is also unconstitutional.
I completely understand the need for stricter immigration reform. I am in full support of our American workers and those that obey the laws, and agree that people who break our laws should be punished. But at what cost?
We need to ensure that we, first and foremost, uphold our American values of equality, liberty, and justice for all. America is a nation comprised of immigrants. We pride ourselves on our multiculturalism, yet we decide to act in ways that prohibit and restrict those very ideals we preach throughout the world. The new law invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement, thus harming people’s civil rights and opening doors to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners. If you do not think this new law would invite such hardships, ask yourself this question: How would you determine who looks like an “illegal immigrant?” Chances are you’re not thinking of a white male. Where’s the justice in this?
Not to mention that Arizona’s new law unconstitutionally interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters. Enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, not a state’s. Immigration law, policy, and enforcement priorities are affected by and have impacts on U.S. foreign policy, and are themselves the subject of diplomatic arrangements. For the same reason we do not allow states to have their own foreign policies, we should not allow states to conduct their own immigration laws.
Some opponents are making it a point to emphasize the fact that a majority of Arizona’s residents actually support the new law. However, the fact that a majority of people support it does not make it just. If the civil rights movement was based on popularity, then surely it would not have been passed, and we would be living in a very different America.
And for those that argue we should simply put the illegal immigrants on a boat and deport them, consider this-we have over 11 million undocumented and illegal workers living in the country. It is unrealistic and unfeasible to ask them all to leave. Instead, as Obama and other democrats have argued, create a legal pathway to citizenship. They will still have to pay a fine, learn English, and wait at the back of the line for those that apply for citizenship legally, but will provide us with greater prosperity. Just imagine adding over 11 million new workers who pay taxes and add to our economic well-being.
Republicans these days are sounding much like those very same people who persecuted, racially profiled, and drove out the Jewish people in Eastern Europe a little more than a century ago- “foreigners must carry identification cards with them at all times, and if not, they should all be forced to leave the country.” This is not the America I was taught about in school. This is not the America I want to leave for my children and grandchildren. This is not the America that preaches “liberty and justice for all”.
And as Obama mentioned in his speech at American University last week, we should all remember the words written by Emma Lazarus in describing our Statue of Liberty:
“Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand,” she wrote,
A mighty woman with a torch…
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome…
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!”…
“Give me your tired, and your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to be free…
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Monday, June 14, 2010
Misplaced Facts
Many GOP leaders, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, are criticizing President Barack Obama’s response to the oil spill off the Gulf Coast. They are claiming he has failed to show leadership and, instead, “has spent his time blaming people and not taking responsibility to make sure the oil spill is capped.” Although there sentiments are sincere, their concerns seem misplaced.
Not only has the president’s administration deployed the biggest recovery effort for a natural disaster in the history of this country, but he has repeatedly mentioned that “the buck stops with me.” From day 1 of this oil spill, Obama has worked diligently with top scientists and engineers from across the world to find a solution. Also, to prevent a future mishap, he has continued his moratorium on offshore drilling (something that Republicans are still adamantly against) and has successfully pushed a comprehensive energy and climate bill through the House of Representatives. This bill, in turn, would promote a new economy powered by green jobs, combat climate change, and end our dependence on oil.
As evidence proves, his response to the disaster in the Gulf mirrors his efficient and adequate response to our nation’s economic downturn. Recently, Obama has urged congressional passage of legislation meant to boost federal assistance to a key segment of the economy-small businesses. Not only have these small companies generated over 60 percent of all new jobs every year over the past 15 years, but they have also suffered the most from this recession.
We must also not forget the $700 billion stimulus package (known as the Recovery Act) Obama signed within the first few months of his presidency, which has proved critical in preventing the U.S. from entering another Great Depression.
Although the recovery is slow, there has been a continuing trend of improvement. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the nation’s premiere, independent, nonpartisan scorekeeper, as of the first quarter of this year, the Recovery Act saved or created as many as 2.8 million jobs. Over the past three months, we’ve gained over 400,000 new jobs. Over that same period last year, we lost 1.7 million. Also, confidence among U.S. consumers rose in June to the highest level in more than two years, a recent Bloomberg News survey showed. This all accomplished with only a fifth of the stimulus funds having been spent.
No one expects the economy to be at the same levels as pre-recession times. What we do expect, however, is that our government is acting swiftly to undo the mistakes of the last administration and get our country back on the path to success. So far, economists across the spectrum widely agree that the Recovery Act played a key role in that reversal.
Whether it is regarding the oil spill, the healthcare bill, or the economy, many Republicans are simply getting the facts wrong, and misrepresenting the successes of this administration. But, as the old adage goes, “everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.”
It is clear that Obama is getting results. If GOP leaders are still confused, hopefully November will explain things clearly.
Not only has the president’s administration deployed the biggest recovery effort for a natural disaster in the history of this country, but he has repeatedly mentioned that “the buck stops with me.” From day 1 of this oil spill, Obama has worked diligently with top scientists and engineers from across the world to find a solution. Also, to prevent a future mishap, he has continued his moratorium on offshore drilling (something that Republicans are still adamantly against) and has successfully pushed a comprehensive energy and climate bill through the House of Representatives. This bill, in turn, would promote a new economy powered by green jobs, combat climate change, and end our dependence on oil.
As evidence proves, his response to the disaster in the Gulf mirrors his efficient and adequate response to our nation’s economic downturn. Recently, Obama has urged congressional passage of legislation meant to boost federal assistance to a key segment of the economy-small businesses. Not only have these small companies generated over 60 percent of all new jobs every year over the past 15 years, but they have also suffered the most from this recession.
We must also not forget the $700 billion stimulus package (known as the Recovery Act) Obama signed within the first few months of his presidency, which has proved critical in preventing the U.S. from entering another Great Depression.
Although the recovery is slow, there has been a continuing trend of improvement. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the nation’s premiere, independent, nonpartisan scorekeeper, as of the first quarter of this year, the Recovery Act saved or created as many as 2.8 million jobs. Over the past three months, we’ve gained over 400,000 new jobs. Over that same period last year, we lost 1.7 million. Also, confidence among U.S. consumers rose in June to the highest level in more than two years, a recent Bloomberg News survey showed. This all accomplished with only a fifth of the stimulus funds having been spent.
No one expects the economy to be at the same levels as pre-recession times. What we do expect, however, is that our government is acting swiftly to undo the mistakes of the last administration and get our country back on the path to success. So far, economists across the spectrum widely agree that the Recovery Act played a key role in that reversal.
Whether it is regarding the oil spill, the healthcare bill, or the economy, many Republicans are simply getting the facts wrong, and misrepresenting the successes of this administration. But, as the old adage goes, “everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.”
It is clear that Obama is getting results. If GOP leaders are still confused, hopefully November will explain things clearly.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Obama's Katrina?
President Obama will make his second visit to the Gulf of Mexico tomorrow, stressing the urgency of the situation and addressing his administration’s concern for the massive oil spill. Many Republicans, however, are trying to link President Obama's handling of the BP oil spill to President Bush's flawed response in 2005 to Hurricane Katrina. This is a flawed view for many reasons.
First and foremost, Katrina was a storm that you track for several weeks. After swiftly coming ashore, more than 1,800 people were killed, and thousands more left without food or shelter. It is impossible to challenge President Bush’s slow response, as so many of us witnessed the catastrophe firsthand: the entire city was left to fend for itself, abandoned by the government, as people were left at the New Orleans convention center for days with no water or food. Many can remember watching television to see people stuck on their rooftops crying out for help. That is called a slow response and any comparisons to President Obama’s reaction to the BP oil spill are not only immature, but uneducated.
In the case of what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama responded hastily from day one. As the news of the crisis poured through the media, the Coast Guard and the Navy were on site immediately after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig from which the oil spill began. Obama also took it upon his duties to order a moratorium on new offshore drilling leases and dispatched cabinet secretaries and cargo planes to the region.
Even Fox News Anchor Bill O’Reilly said, on the May 5th edition of Good Morning America, that even if Obama acted quicker, “they can’t even cap it now. What else could he have done, be put in a dive suit?” Strangely enough, I agree.
Second, to say Obama’s response to the oil spill is intentionally slow due to BP’s previous donations to his presidential campaign in 2008 is irresponsible. Not only has he responded quickly, but he has made it his administration’s top priority. The government is not sitting idly while leaving BP to clean up the mess it created in the first place, but instead, has ensured that any and all actions taken by the oil company must be first approved by the federal government. So although BP is at fault and may be taking steps to clean up the mess, their efforts are all coordinated and managed by Obama and his administration.
Third, I'm almost sure that the oil companies don't consider the Obama administration a huge ally. Through his repeated calls for cleaner energy, cap-and-trade policies, and decreased reliance on oil, the president has made clear that he has not become cozy with his campaign donors. Remember when he proposed a windfall profits tax for oil companies who jack up their oil prices to charge more for gasoline? There is also proof when examining his calls for greater financial regulation, despite the fact that his campaign received large donations from Wall Street firms.
Republicans have been criticizing the president for not dealing with the spill efficiently. Yet, it has long been the GOP mantra to “drill baby drill”. Seems very hypocritical if you ask me.
To the critics, please stop trying to criticize every action taken by our president to help fix this nation from the misery and pain caused from the last eight years. Instead, try offering real solutions and put the American people first, not politics.
First and foremost, Katrina was a storm that you track for several weeks. After swiftly coming ashore, more than 1,800 people were killed, and thousands more left without food or shelter. It is impossible to challenge President Bush’s slow response, as so many of us witnessed the catastrophe firsthand: the entire city was left to fend for itself, abandoned by the government, as people were left at the New Orleans convention center for days with no water or food. Many can remember watching television to see people stuck on their rooftops crying out for help. That is called a slow response and any comparisons to President Obama’s reaction to the BP oil spill are not only immature, but uneducated.
In the case of what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama responded hastily from day one. As the news of the crisis poured through the media, the Coast Guard and the Navy were on site immediately after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig from which the oil spill began. Obama also took it upon his duties to order a moratorium on new offshore drilling leases and dispatched cabinet secretaries and cargo planes to the region.
Even Fox News Anchor Bill O’Reilly said, on the May 5th edition of Good Morning America, that even if Obama acted quicker, “they can’t even cap it now. What else could he have done, be put in a dive suit?” Strangely enough, I agree.
Second, to say Obama’s response to the oil spill is intentionally slow due to BP’s previous donations to his presidential campaign in 2008 is irresponsible. Not only has he responded quickly, but he has made it his administration’s top priority. The government is not sitting idly while leaving BP to clean up the mess it created in the first place, but instead, has ensured that any and all actions taken by the oil company must be first approved by the federal government. So although BP is at fault and may be taking steps to clean up the mess, their efforts are all coordinated and managed by Obama and his administration.
Third, I'm almost sure that the oil companies don't consider the Obama administration a huge ally. Through his repeated calls for cleaner energy, cap-and-trade policies, and decreased reliance on oil, the president has made clear that he has not become cozy with his campaign donors. Remember when he proposed a windfall profits tax for oil companies who jack up their oil prices to charge more for gasoline? There is also proof when examining his calls for greater financial regulation, despite the fact that his campaign received large donations from Wall Street firms.
Republicans have been criticizing the president for not dealing with the spill efficiently. Yet, it has long been the GOP mantra to “drill baby drill”. Seems very hypocritical if you ask me.
To the critics, please stop trying to criticize every action taken by our president to help fix this nation from the misery and pain caused from the last eight years. Instead, try offering real solutions and put the American people first, not politics.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Partisanship At Its Best
Today, President Obama joined Senate Republicans in a closed door meeting on Capitol Hill, the latest attempt by the President to reach across the table in hopes of bipartisanship.
Although there was, and will continue to be a many differences in opinions on various issues, the fact of the matter is that a productive piece of legislation does not pass until it is well understood by both parties and significant effort has been made to make it a cooperative effort. Obama understands this, and therefore, has made attempts to seek his opponents’ advice.
However, there are many GOP leaders who continue to “stick to their guns” and focus on petty politics. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, for example, accused the president during the meeting of taking an excessively partisan approach to critical issues such as financial reform, and then having the "audacity" to come to the Senate GOP conference and use the Republicans as election year "props."
This serves as a problem for several reasons. First, Obama is a Democrat and therefore will hold liberal views on many issues, same as President Bush held many conservative views on many issues, and almost every other political leader to date. What makes the difference, however, is how that person tries to overcome that disparity in opinions to try and reach a conclusive decision. With Obama setting up such meetings, it serves as proof that he is, at the least, trying to understand the others’ point of view, instead of blindly holding his ground.
Second, what exactly does it mean to be “excessively partisan”? Would the “You lie” outburst from Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, at President Obama during his speech to Congress be considered “excessively partisan”? Would the incident when Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, shouted “baby killer” at Democrat Bart Stupak in his debate on the House floor be considered “excessively partisan”? Or how about when Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, and other GOP leaders compare the President to Adolf Hitler? Or when numerous Republican Senators, including Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told people that they were correct to fear that the government would "pull the plug on grandma with the death panels”? By the way, how’s that working out since the passage of Obama’s healthcare bill?
Wouldn’t all those statements be considered “excessively partisan”? I guess not. I guess having a valid difference in opinion in the Republican Party either makes you a liar, a baby killer, or Hitler.
If that’s the case, I prefer to stay excessively partisan.
Although there was, and will continue to be a many differences in opinions on various issues, the fact of the matter is that a productive piece of legislation does not pass until it is well understood by both parties and significant effort has been made to make it a cooperative effort. Obama understands this, and therefore, has made attempts to seek his opponents’ advice.
However, there are many GOP leaders who continue to “stick to their guns” and focus on petty politics. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, for example, accused the president during the meeting of taking an excessively partisan approach to critical issues such as financial reform, and then having the "audacity" to come to the Senate GOP conference and use the Republicans as election year "props."
This serves as a problem for several reasons. First, Obama is a Democrat and therefore will hold liberal views on many issues, same as President Bush held many conservative views on many issues, and almost every other political leader to date. What makes the difference, however, is how that person tries to overcome that disparity in opinions to try and reach a conclusive decision. With Obama setting up such meetings, it serves as proof that he is, at the least, trying to understand the others’ point of view, instead of blindly holding his ground.
Second, what exactly does it mean to be “excessively partisan”? Would the “You lie” outburst from Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, at President Obama during his speech to Congress be considered “excessively partisan”? Would the incident when Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, shouted “baby killer” at Democrat Bart Stupak in his debate on the House floor be considered “excessively partisan”? Or how about when Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, and other GOP leaders compare the President to Adolf Hitler? Or when numerous Republican Senators, including Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told people that they were correct to fear that the government would "pull the plug on grandma with the death panels”? By the way, how’s that working out since the passage of Obama’s healthcare bill?
Wouldn’t all those statements be considered “excessively partisan”? I guess not. I guess having a valid difference in opinion in the Republican Party either makes you a liar, a baby killer, or Hitler.
If that’s the case, I prefer to stay excessively partisan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)