What is treason? The dictionary says that it is “Violation of allegiance toward one's country.” To me, this would include aiding in the economic destruction of one’s country and blocking efforts to make one’s country prosperous and safe. Why would anyone engage in such treasonous actions? Perhaps in order to replace those in power and take-over the government. This, I contend, is exactly what the Republicans are trying to do.
You would think that such treasonous actions would be a thing of the past. Control of the government no longer includes attainment of great wealth, castles, and lands. But it does include the acquisition of great power, and this is probably what the Republicans want. They have captured the House of Representatives and now they want to control the Senate and the Presidency. They believe that in order to do this they need to oppose every effort of President Obama and the Democrats to improve the nation’s economy and security.
It may sound harsh to call this kind of Republican political behavior treason, but the effect of their actions could be the continuation of economic stagnation and unemployment, damage to our relationship with Russia, weakening of our national security, and decrease in American prestige abroad. The Republican’s idea, as recently espoused by Senator Mitch McConnell, is to do everything possible to defeat President Obama in the next election. This means that even if Americans have to suffer more unemployment and poor economy, it is worth it to win the presidency. McConnell knows that President Obama will have a much harder time getting reelected if the economy remains lethargic.
You can expect that the Republicans in Congress will oppose and try to block any effort to give further stimulus to the economy. Every economist knows that extending unemployment insurance not only provides desperately needed relief to people out of work but also helps the economy because of the tendency of such people to spend unemployment benefits right away. Every economist knows that providing more stimulus to rebuild American’s infrastructure will improve the economy by creating jobs and enhancing interstate commerce. Nevertheless, Republicans have already blocked the building of a new rail system in Ohio and a new Hudson River tunnel in New Jersey.
The Republicans in the Senate are, apparently, filibustering a bill that would provide health care and economic compensation for tens of thousands of citizens suffering severe effects from the cleanup of the 9/11 collapse of the World Trade Center. Police, firefighters and citizen volunteers suffered various illnesses after their labors amid the toxic fumes and clouds at ground zero. They have not received compensation or health care because they were not part of the original lawsuits that were settled. So far, only one Republican Senator appears willing to support the bill. That is not politics, that is cruelty.
There are certain things that can be done to lower the federal deficit, some of them very hard. But you can be sure that Republicans will not agree to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire while keeping the tax cuts for the middle class. Despite the fact that economists have warned about the extreme danger of allowing our huge deficits to continue, it is questionable whether the Republicans will be willing to compromise on any genuine deficit-cutting programs. If the Republicans in Congress refuse to agree to increase the spending limit next year the nation could be faced with a critical economic crisis.
In a recent column in The New York Times, Nobel Prize Laureate Paul Krugman, wrote that the Republicans have joined forces with Germany and China in an effort to stop the Federal Reserve from buying governmental bonds and thereby helping American manufacturers compete abroad. The Fed’s activity will lower the dollar, increase exports, narrow the trade deficit, and help fight unemployment. Krugman asks, “So what’s really motivating the GOP attack on the Fed?” He cited the remarks of budget expert, Stan Collender, saying that: “‘With Republican policymakers seeing economic hardship as the path to election glory,’ they would be ‘opposed to any actions taken by the Federal Reserve that would make the economy better.’ In short, their real fear is not that Fed actions will be harmful, it is that they might succeed.”
God forbid that the Democratic President and the Democrats in Congress are able to increase exports and employment! God forbid that the economy of America improves greatly before the next presidential election! God forbid that President Obama gets credit for securing an arms limitation treaty with Russia!
It appears that the Republicans want not only for the economy to remain stagnant, but for it to go into a double-dip recession with more millions out-of-work. They believe, perhaps correctly, that such economic crisis will lead to Republican recapture of the White House and the Senate. They are oblivious to the damage that will be done to the country and to millions of hard-working Americans. It is not that they want power in order to improve things. They have no program to bring-on an economic miracle. They have no plans to vastly reduce unemployment. They have no program to improve the security of America and our relations with Russia. They want power for the sake of power. That is often the reason that traitors want power.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Should The Democrats Rethink Their Strategy
If the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress feel that recent losses in the House of Representatives and in various state governorships and legislatures require them to rethink their strategy and move more toward the middle, they will be giving the Republicans and Conservatives a victory that they never earned at the polls. After all, the President is still a liberal Democrat. The Democrats are still in charge of the U.S. Senate. There are still plenty of Democratic governors and state legislators. In my opinion as a liberal Democrat, the Democrats should move more to the left, and leave the middle for the Republicans.
The reason why the Republicans won this year was not because the Democrats are liberal and the Republicans are conservative. The Republicans won because of “the economy stupid.” The mass of independent voters, and many Democrats and Republicans, always vote their pocket-books. They do not care about, or know very much about, the big issues. They look at what is happening in the economy and how it is affecting or likely to affect their personal finances. They opposed the stimulus because they resented money going to big banks and stockbrokerages. They did not realize that much of the stimulus money was designed to go to jobs for lower and middle income Americans. They resented the health care reform bill because they believed that it would help only poor people and that it would raise taxes. They didn’t realize that it would benefit all people and that only the wealthy people would pay higher taxes. They also did not realize that the bill would actually lower the deficit.
Thus, it was not their political philosophy that hurt the Democrats. It was the continuation of a sluggish economy and unemployment from a recession started under a Republican administration and caused by Republicans’ anti-regulation policies.
So what should the President Obama and the Democrats do now? Should they retain the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthy as well as for the middle-class? Should they abandon all hope of getting legislation to stop global warming? Should they give-up on trying to have a public option attached to the health care legislation? Should they forget about trying to strengthen the Wall Street reforms? I say that, if anything, they should increase their efforts to pass these things and other liberal legislation. The last thing they should do is kowtow to the Conservatives and become more conservative themselves. By moving to the right the Democrats will have truly lost the election and given-in to the Republicans.
It is particularly important that President Obama not believe that the election was a referendum on his popularity. It was a referendum on the economy, which still suffers from high unemployment. Moreover, a large percentage of the people who voted Republican this time voted against Obama when he ran for president. President Obama won the White House by a 52 to 46 percent margin. That means that 46 percent of the electorate was already prepared to vote Republican two years later. All it took was a small shift of independent voters to insure a Republican victory in the midterm elections. There can be no doubt that those independents did so in the hope that it would improve their finances.
Conservatives will point to Bill Clinton who appeared to become more conservative after the Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm election. But Clinton did not become more conservative. Rather, he recognized the necessity of working with a Republican congress in order to get anything done. In that sense, President Obama has it better than Clinton did. At least he has a Democratic Senate to work with. As President Obama has said, he will have to compromise with the Republicans in the House in order to get legislation, but he will not have to go as far as Clinton did. In addition, the Republicans will have to compromise with the President and the Democrats in the Senate if they want to pass any legislation. Otherwise they will revert to the kind of obstructionist party they were before the election.
I hope that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress do not take their eyes off the ball. I hope that they will not surrender their values as a result of this midterm election.
The reason why the Republicans won this year was not because the Democrats are liberal and the Republicans are conservative. The Republicans won because of “the economy stupid.” The mass of independent voters, and many Democrats and Republicans, always vote their pocket-books. They do not care about, or know very much about, the big issues. They look at what is happening in the economy and how it is affecting or likely to affect their personal finances. They opposed the stimulus because they resented money going to big banks and stockbrokerages. They did not realize that much of the stimulus money was designed to go to jobs for lower and middle income Americans. They resented the health care reform bill because they believed that it would help only poor people and that it would raise taxes. They didn’t realize that it would benefit all people and that only the wealthy people would pay higher taxes. They also did not realize that the bill would actually lower the deficit.
Thus, it was not their political philosophy that hurt the Democrats. It was the continuation of a sluggish economy and unemployment from a recession started under a Republican administration and caused by Republicans’ anti-regulation policies.
So what should the President Obama and the Democrats do now? Should they retain the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthy as well as for the middle-class? Should they abandon all hope of getting legislation to stop global warming? Should they give-up on trying to have a public option attached to the health care legislation? Should they forget about trying to strengthen the Wall Street reforms? I say that, if anything, they should increase their efforts to pass these things and other liberal legislation. The last thing they should do is kowtow to the Conservatives and become more conservative themselves. By moving to the right the Democrats will have truly lost the election and given-in to the Republicans.
It is particularly important that President Obama not believe that the election was a referendum on his popularity. It was a referendum on the economy, which still suffers from high unemployment. Moreover, a large percentage of the people who voted Republican this time voted against Obama when he ran for president. President Obama won the White House by a 52 to 46 percent margin. That means that 46 percent of the electorate was already prepared to vote Republican two years later. All it took was a small shift of independent voters to insure a Republican victory in the midterm elections. There can be no doubt that those independents did so in the hope that it would improve their finances.
Conservatives will point to Bill Clinton who appeared to become more conservative after the Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1994 midterm election. But Clinton did not become more conservative. Rather, he recognized the necessity of working with a Republican congress in order to get anything done. In that sense, President Obama has it better than Clinton did. At least he has a Democratic Senate to work with. As President Obama has said, he will have to compromise with the Republicans in the House in order to get legislation, but he will not have to go as far as Clinton did. In addition, the Republicans will have to compromise with the President and the Democrats in the Senate if they want to pass any legislation. Otherwise they will revert to the kind of obstructionist party they were before the election.
I hope that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress do not take their eyes off the ball. I hope that they will not surrender their values as a result of this midterm election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
