Barack Obama on a Roll

I know this sort of summarization will set the fringe full mooners on the right all atwitter but the last month or so has been pretty good to President Obama:

1. He received a rock star reception in Ireland and now in England Barack Obama has made history by becoming the first American president in history to address both houses of Parliament.

2. Chrysler pays back bailout loan to the feds: “SERGIO MARCHIONNE, Chrysler: We have received confirmation this morning at 10:13 a.m. from Citigroup that Chrysler Group repaid, with interest, by wire transfer to the United States Treasury and by bank transfer to the Canadian government, every penny that had been loaned less than two years ago: Chrysler Pays Back Billions in Bailout Loans: Is the Comeback Complete?: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june11/chrysler_05-24.html

3. The unwinding of TARP continues with the federal government making a small profit on the sale of part of its A.I.G. stock: Treasury Gets Small Profit From Sale of A.I.G. Stock; http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/a-i-g-underwriters-price-stock-sale-at-29/?scp=1&sq=A.I.G.&st=cse

4. In spite of the far right-wing media bleating aloud that Obama had essentially “thrown Israel under the bus”, Benjamin Netanyahu in an address before both houses of Congress indicated that it’s his responsibility to compromise so as to effect a lasting peace in the MidEast. Cablers Cover Netanyahu Speech to Joint Session of Congress; http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cablers-cover-netanyahu-speech-to-joint-session-of-congress_b68067 While Netanyahu reiterated that he would not support a return to the pre-1967 borders or the wholesale return of Palestinians into Israel, his willingness to compromise is evident in his comments: “I stood before my people and said that I will accept a Palestinian state; it’s time for President Abbas to stand up before his people and say, ‘I will accept a Jewish state. Those six words will change history, With those six words, the Israeli people will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise.” Netanyahu Gives No Ground in Congress Speech; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25diplo.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=netanyahu&st=cse

5. Osama bin Laden dead on Obama’s watch in what represents the greatest triumph of American intelligence since the discovery of Russian missiles bound for Cuba during the Kennedy Administration . Obama was gracious enough to give George W. Bush the requisite credit for the changes made to our national security apparatus in 2005 that contributed to the eventual demise of Osama bin Laden. He also invited Bush to attend the Ground Zero commemoration. However, in spite of this, much of the far right media refused to give Obama any credit at all for the death of bin Laden, choosing to only focus on that aspect of the event that could be traced back to the Bush era. This lack of tact and grace on the part of far right talking heads does nothing to diminish the fact that the actionable intelligence which led to the decision to kill bin Laden came only eight months ago and the ultimate decision to engage in this high risk mission was made by none other than Barack Obama.

6. The victory of a Democrat in the N.Y. 26th Congressional District can only be seen as a setback for the efforts by Paul Ryan to restructure Medicare and thus a victory for Obama and the Democrats: “There’s no way to spin this result. Both the reality and the perception are in sync: Republicans’ bet on pushing the Ryan Medicare plan through the House has cost them what should have been a totally safe GOP seat. All the other factors – a third-party candidate and the weakness of the Republican nominee – are meaningless. The crazy thing for Republicans is that they walked the plank for a policy that has no chance to become law as long as Barack Obama is in the White House, much like Democrats did on cap and trade…While it is impossible to predict with certainty, it is clear that like much swirling about in politics today, the outcome of the 2012 election (for both president and control of Congress) will be determined in large part by whether there is a grand bargain on deficit reduction (including Medicare changes), and, if there is such a bargain, what the terms of it are; An Omen, Not a Predictive Event
http://thepage.time.com/2011/05/25/an-omen-not-a-predictive-event/#ixzz1NQIJdqBJ
The Bigger Message From NY-26; http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/the-bigger-message-from-ny-26.html

7. The defeat of the Ryan budget proposals in a procedural Senate vote today that saw five Republican senators side with the Democrats: Ryan Budget Goes Down; http://thepage.time.com/2011/05/25/ryan-budget-goes-down/

No matter how you cut it, Obama is now on a bit of a roll after having presided over the Democratic defeat of 2010 and the bristling attacks from the far right that have lamely tried to paint him as everything from Fascist to Marxist an angry post colonial black man. His approval rating is the highest it’s been since November of 2009: President Obama Job Approval; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html Is any of this guarantee that he will be re-elected in 2012, no, but it’s a hell of a lot better for Obama then things have been since the November 2010 Congressional defeat.

SJG
5/25/11

The Tea Party, Taxes and Spending Cuts‏

The Tea Party, Taxes and Spending Cuts‏.

The Tea Party, Taxes and Spending Cuts‏

A key goal of the Tea Party movement is the reduction of the national debt and thus the size of government via spending cuts. However, it is highly unlikely that the federal deficit can be reduced through spending cuts alone. That said if the Tea Party movement harbors such a fundamental opposition to tax increases and revenue enhancements and those measures are required in order to effect the deficit reduction they hope to achieve, how can the movement can ever hope to be successful.

It was a perquisite that those seeking Tea Party support in the 2010 elections for the House and Senate sign a statement stating that they would never raise taxes or eliminate tax breaks in attempt to reduce the federal deficit. This may prove a pledge that cannot be kept for those who ultimately want to lower the deficit. Two of the three major deficit reduction panels, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, co-chaired by, Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles, and the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force, co-chaired by former CBO Director Alice Rivlin and retired Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), have both included revenue enhancements as part of deficit reduction. Quoting political reporter Jackie Calmes: “The sponsors of the plans say that the scale of the nation’s fiscal problem is too great to resolve without both raising taxes and cutting projected spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, all popular entitlement programs.” It is these recommendations that are at the center of the bipartisan discussion currently underway in the Senate. While those on the far right will continue to insist that the deficit can be reduced by spending cuts alone, the political reality is that the discussion in Washington has now moved beyond that argument and the facts reveal that there is some degree of bipartisan support for revenue enhancements in any deficit reduction package.

A growing minority within the G.O.P. is also making the case that the projected debt is too big to handle simply by cutting spending. In the run up to the 2010 elections, Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) observed: “Everything has got to be on the table for discussion… “there are a lot of things people are going to have to be educated about, on the spending side as well as the revenue side.” Chambliss is now one of the “Gang of Six” senators involved in negotiations as to how to implement the deficit reduction panel’s proposals. Since the panels findings have made it into the discussion on deficit reduction, Chambliss stated, “We’ve got to have an increase in revenues to be able to retire this debt.” Chambliss appearing on CNN in April said, “Now, if we don’t want to pay the debt back, then we could just not worry about the revenues. But the fact is we’ve got a $14 trillion debt staring us in the face, and revenues have to be on the table if we’re serious about attacking that debt.” Tom Coburn (R-OK), who had been a “Gang of Six” member, has parted company with those who rule out revenue enhancements. Appearing on Meet the Press in April Coburn said that increasing revenues may be required in order to address the deficit issue and in an NPR piece, he indicated that the solution to the deficit problem may involve tax increases. Coburn’s stance has touched off an internecine feud within the ranks of conservatives as well. Grover Norquist of the Americans for Tax Reform, the creators of the anti-tax pledge, criticized Coburn on his change of heart as it relates to tax increases. Coburn in responding to a question on Meet the Press has in turn dismissed Norquist and his organization as being nothing more than just another anti-tax lobbying group: “Which pledge is most important, David, The pledge to uphold your oath to the Constitution of the United States? Or a pledge from a special interest group who claims to speak for all of American conservatives, when in fact they really don’t?”

Now, even though he seems to have temporarily left the Gang of Six, Coburn continues to point to the need for revenue enhancements. To wit: “But look, realistically we cannot solve our problems unless we generate growth in this country, and the only way we’re going to do that is back off on a lot of regulations, create a tax structure that’s going to cause investment to happen, and get dynamic returns that actually increase the revenues coming to the federal government. We can’t do it all by eliminating large sections and duplicate spending and waste. We can do a large portion of it, but there has to be some revenue component to that, and anybody that says that’s not the case, I think they’re just wrong and they’re not thinking about the long-term health of our country.” James Thurber, an expert on congressional affairs at American University points out: “It’s significant that both Chambliss and Coburn see increased revenues as part of the solution to chronic deficits… This is the beginning of a crack, which may allow for a deal, Thurber says. “Norquist will try to stop it, and it will be a major confrontation between the Republican senators and Norquist.” Thus while the hot rhetoric flies back and forth on the political street, in the chambers of the Senate, all manner of measures are being considered in deficit reduction strategy sessions.

It’s not only practical politicians on the right who have abandoned the idea that the deficit could be addressed by spending cuts alone, conservative sources outside the Beltway are weighing in on the need for revenue enhancements as well. Quoting David Stockman: “It is obvious that the nation’s desperate fiscal condition requires higher taxes on the middle class, not just the richest 2 percent. Likewise, entitlement reform requires means-testing the giant Social Security and Medicare programs, not merely squeezing the far smaller safety net in areas like Medicaid and food stamps.” The Wall Street Journal’s David Wessel pointed out that the ideas contained in Paul Ryan’s budget plans will actually lead to tax increases due to Ryan’s faulty math and unrealistic assumptions as to what can be done and how. In addition, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation makes the following observation: “Overall, this feed the beast question is the core question that conservatives must answer before taking a position on the role of tax hikes in solving the long-term budget problem. If feed the beast isn’t a problem at all, but you still hold deep to your no tax hike position so as to support fiscal insolvency which would trigger enormous tax hikes, your position is so illogical that you don’t deserve to be part of the debate.” Martin Feldstein, former Reagan Economic Advisor, made the following observation, “Reducing the budget deficit and stopping the explosion of our national debt will require more tax revenue as well as reduced government spending. But the need for more revenue needn’t mean higher tax rates. As the bipartisan fiscal commission appointed by President Obamastressed last year tax revenues can be increased substantially by limiting the deductions, credits and exclusions that are essentially government spending by another name.” Likewise, even the conservative National Journal says that revenue increases have to realistically be on the table.

Are there still those among the newly elected Tea Party caucuses that are insisting on reducing the national debt and the size of government but spending cuts alone, of course there are but their actual influence is now hardly the force it was once thought to be. What is important to note is that these people will not have the final say in the ultimate policy outcome. I predict the scenario will play out as follows. The Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives will continue to clamor for drastic cuts in spending and no increase in taxes or revenues and Speaker Boehner will continue to parrot that line right up until the last minute upon which he will take his proposals to the Senate only to have them rejected. Thereafter, Boehner will return to the House, just as he did during the Continuing Resolution debates, where he will inform the Tea Party crowd that what they had hoped to accomplish is not in the cards politically. Like the situation related to the Continuing Resolution, the final product will be the result of compromise not political extremism and that compromise will be tempered by the fact that the Democrats control the Senate and Obama wields the veto pen. Thus, the only choice that the House Tea Party Caucus will have available to it will be a solution that is quite different from the philosophy of its core beliefs. The ultimate result will be that those who came to Washington with the idea that they could reduce the deficit and size of government by spending cuts alone will be in for a rude awakening sooner rather than later. There is no way that can be seen as good news for the Tea Party. After all, if you cannot come through on one of the single most important planks in your platform, what can you do? Therein lies what could be the single greatest threat to the continued existence of the Tea Party. If you cannot even remotely accomplish that which you set out to achieve, why would anyone continue to be attracted to your core philosophy or vote for your candidates? Hence, the ultimate fallout from this great debate before us on raising the national debt limit and the concomitant discussions related to taxes and spending may very well be the end of the beginning for the Tea Party movement as a force in American politics.

Steven J. Gulitti
May 23, 2011

Sources:

Can Deficit Reduction Panels Get Congress’ Attention
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/18/131406072/can-deficit-reduction-panels-get-congress-attention?sc=emaf

Obama Deficit Panel Gets Some Competition

Jackie Calmes: Deficit Panels Go Where Politicians Won’t

‘Gang of Six’ may solve U.S. debt mess
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-10/opinion/avlon.bipartisan.progress_1_national-debt-debt-ceiling-creditor-nations?_s=PM:OPINION

On Deficit Proposals, a Failure of Will and Not Ideas

Meet the Press – Showdown Over Spending, Room for Compromise?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42738206#42738206

NPR: Conservative Heavyweights Trade Jabs Over Taxes
http://www.npr.org/2011/04/26/135739718/conservative-heavyweights-trade-jabs-over-taxes?sc=emaf

Sen. Coburn: Americans for Tax Reform a Special Interest
http://thepage.time.com/2011/04/24/coburn-tags-grover/?artId=?contType=?chn=

One-on-One with Senator Tom Coburn
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43113779

Raise Taxes, but Not Tax Rates

David Stockman: The Bipartisan March to Fiscal Madness

David Wessel: New Proposal Hits Old Hurdles of Budget Math
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576245023533534178.html

Tax Foundation: Should Conservatives Favor Tax Hikes to Solve Long-Term Budget Gap? An Outline to Answering the Question
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26795.html

The Gingrich Fallout

As events would have it there is a good follow-on to the post: The Winds of Folly Begin to Buffet Newt Gingrich on this morning’s Meet the Press called the “Gingrich Fallout.”; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/43038275#43038280. It’s also available on their Twitter feed.

The bottom line on all of this is that it seems that all of the king’s horse’s and all the king’s men can’t put Newt back together again. It seems no amount of damage control can now save Newt or his presidential aspirations. Thus the rocks of political reality are now looming ever closer for the Gingrich presidential folly.

sjg
5/22/11

The Winds of Folly Begin to Buffet Newt Gingrich

Back in March I wrote a piece on Newt Gingrich’s far fetched dream of being elected to the American presidency, “Newt Gingrich’s Dream, Driven by the Winds of Folly?” In concluding the aforementioned I wrote:”Ultimately Gingrich’s presidential aspirations will be blown by the winds of folly onto the rocks of political reality. His political day has come and gone and it’s not going to come back. It’s just a matter of time before he himself comes to that realization.” Now just a few weeks after formally announcing his candidacy and having a plethora of prior positions and comments come back to haunt him, Gingrich seems to be on the verge of one of the fastest denouements in American political history.

As everyone knows, any serious candidate for the presidency passes through the trial by fire that is NBC’s Meet the Press and Gingrich’s recent appearance on the show seems to have only hastened his political demise. Having to answer questions about his multiple marriages, his prior endorsement of elements of what is presently within Obama’s health care reform and his characterization of Paul Ryan’s economic ideas as radical and right-wing engineering has touched off a mass of defections among donors and a rising chorus of criticism on the right as to his fitness for the office of the presidency. According to political reporter Jon Ward: “The former House Speaker from Georgia’s once biggest advantage over other long shot candidates — an established fundraising network — is withering before his eyes.”The last 48 hours have called into question if Newt can even make it to July 4, because his fundraising is going to dry up,” said one veteran Republican strategist. “No serious finance bundler is now going to step forward in such an organized campaign and take a leadership role.” Within 24 hours of Gingrich’s Meet the Press interview he had lost 13 of 18 co-chairs to an upcoming fund raising event. Thus Gingrich’s hopes of winning the nomination are dwindling as fast as is the funding he needs to propel his campaign forward.

From Rush Limbaugh, who called Gingrich’s comments “inexplicable” and lacking any “rational set of reasons” to a RedState conservative blogger who wrote “It’s time for Newt to disappear into the background. His moment has passed, and this tailspin has been decades in the making.” the chorus of criticism leveled at Newt Gingrich has been nothing less than stunning. Alex Castellanos, a long time conservative political consultant opined that Gingrich’s Meet the Press moment would supply the Obama campaign with more than ample ammunition to make Gingrich’s defeat, should he win the nomination, a “lay-up.” Castellanos went on to say that Gingrich had thrown the entire G.O.P. under the bus in pursuit of his own ambition and that more importantly:” In his first campaign outing on Meet the Press, he abandoned the discipline he said a president must display.” Among the conservative political class Gingrich has no shortage of detractors. Conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said of Gingrich, “”He’s the last person I’d vote for for president of the United States. His life indicates he does not have a commitment to the character traits necessary to be a great president.” Likewise Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) doubts that Gingrich could win the nomination. Even a rising star like Republican Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) hinted that Gingrich’s time has come and gone. To make matters worse, days after the interview with David Gregory, it was revealed that Gingrich was in hock to Tiffany’s for up to a half of a million dollars for jewelry purchases, so much for the personal rectitude of those who preach fiscal responsibility to the rest of us.

Thus it would appear that Newt Gingrich’s presidential aspirations are now on the verge of being over after having just been launched and after so much posturing and the nurturing of public expectation. For Gingrich, the fateful interview on Meet the Press was the beginning of the end rather than the end of the beginning and could possibly be the opening act in his farewell tour on the American political scene.

Steven J. Gulitti
May 20, 2011

Sources:

Newt Gingrich’s Dream, Driven by the Winds of Folly?; http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_j_gulitti/2011/03/04/newt_gingrichs_dream_driven_by_the_winds_of_folly_1

Jon Ward: “GOP Donors Deserting Newt Gingrich”; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/18/gop-donors-deserting-newt-gingrich_n_863910.html?ref=email_share

Rush Limbaugh: Limbaugh: Gingrich’s Attack On Paul Ryan And Budget Plan “Inexplicable”; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/16/limbaugh_gingrichs_attack_on_paul_ryan_and_budget_plan_inexplicable.html

Make room for the new guys, Newt.
http://www.redstate.com/tabithahale/2011/05/18/newt-gingrich-flames-out-worst-potus-launch-in-history/

Alex Castellanos: Newt Gingrich is the devil in a red dress
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/17/newt-gingrich-femme-fatale/#ixzz1MuN5dKM8

Gingrich owed six figures to Tiffany’s
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4EB520A8-BCEF-41B4-9324-F70CFFDA97A0

Tom Coburn: Coburn rips the left and right alike
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100828_16_A13_CUTLIN138403

Tom Coburn Jabs Newt Gingrich Over Presidential Aspirations
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/tom-coburn-disses-newt-gi_n_830292.html

Richard Burr: Gingrich 2012 News Gets Mixed Hill Response
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_89/-203762-1.html

Nikki Haley: Nikki Haley offers hints at 2012 endorsement
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/haley-offers-hints-at-2012-end.html?wprss=thefix

Barack Obama Weak on Terrorism?

In the run up to the 2008 elections and thereafter one of the persistent criticisms of Barack Obama was that he would be “soft” on terrorists and likely to be ineffectual in dealing with the hydra headed threat of Islamic terror. We were told again and again by people like Rudy Giuliani that if Obama were elected that “we would be hit again.” Sarah Palin warned in a speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention that Obama would “reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world” and ” Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?”

Once elected the criticisms didn’t subside either. Newt Gingrich said: “This administration is underestimating how hard this war is going to be. The American people should demand that we are much more aggressive in seeking data and that we are much more aggressive in stopping people.” Likewise Dick Cheney opined ” We’ve seen a lot of decisions made, especially in this administration with respect to the War on Terror, which is no longer a War on Terror, it’s an overseas contingency operation.” The aforementioned are but a sampling of the doubts and criticisms that were slung at the Obama Administration with a fair degree of regularity and which would reach fever pitch in the far right media anytime a terrorist attack had been thwarted or as was all to apparent during the Ground Zero Mosque controversy.

Well, it goes without saying that the liquidation of Osama bin Laden on Barack Obama’s watch should, in the eyes of any intelligent and rational human being, lay to rest the plethora of nonsense that has surrounded this administration as it relates to both its ability and commitment in successfully prosecuting the war on terror. Alas, the fact that we can provide some degree of procedural rights to those being held on suspicion of having been involved in terror plots in no way impeded our ability to eliminate Osama bin Laden. Nor did our same Navy Seals show any predisposition towards appeasement when they freed the crew of the Marsek Alabama off Somalia in 2009 by killing or capturing their pirate captors.

To paraphrase conservative commentator Major Garret of the National Journal: “Killing bin Laden represents a continuum of competence on the part of Barack Obama in fulfilling his campaign pledge to eliminate Osama bin Laden as a terrorist threat and thus the War on Terror is seen to be effectively fought. Few would deny that the death of Osama bin Laden represents a major victory for the administration and the nation. Likewise, few would deny that so much of the criticism leveled at the Obama Administration by opponents on the right constitutes political grandstanding at a time when we should all be standing shoulder to shoulder in a unified war or Islamic Terror. In the aftermath of the bin Laden assassination Barack Obama appears more serious then ever while so many of his critics seem to have done nothing but jumped to conclusions about the Administration’s ability to successfully fight the war on terror.

SJG
5/3/11

Sources:

Speech at 2008 Republican National Convention Sep 3, 2008

Terror Attempt a Referendum on Obama Security Policy?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/newt-gingrich-obama-administration-underestimating-war-terrorism/story?id=9450864

Gingrich Will Blast Obama on Terrorism
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/07/26/gingrich_will_blast_obama_on_terrorism.html

Sean Hannity Lies About Obama Slashing Transit and Port Security Funds to NYC
http://www.politicususa.com/en/hannity-obama-nyc

Former VP Dick Cheney on Obama Administration ‘Dismantling’ Terrorism Policies
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517300,00.html