The Bigger Picture
Published on June 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my previous column about President O’Bama’s visit to Ireland, I mentioned that the primary purpose of President Obama’s other stops in the UK, France and Poland during his trip to Europe, was to reassure his European neighbours that America’s longstanding alliance with Europe was still very important to him. So today I’m going to discuss why America is also questioning Europe’s commitment to that same longstanding alliance.
Since Defense Secretary Robert Gates is retiring at the end of this month, he used his final trip to meet with his NATO counterparts in Brussels to take some of America’s European NATO allies to the proverbial ‘woodshed.’ Secretary Gates made his public remarks following two days of intense and even more critical private meetings with NATO representatives.
Secretary Gates used the recent NATO airstrikes on Libya to drive home his point that America’s European allies are not doing their fair share by noting that less half the NATO allies are engaged in Libya and less than a third are involved in the airstrikes. This is in spite of the fact that NATO ministers voted unanimously to launch air strikes to protect Libyan civilians from Khadafi. As a result, Gates said “The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country; yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.”
Make no mistake, Secretary Gates remarks were not just another airing of private grievances by a soon to be retired American government official. His comments were a very accurate reflection of President O’Bama’s feelings as well as those of members of Congress from both parties and American voters, because President O’Bama and Congress are under increasing pressure to cut defense spending as part of a larger plan to rein in America’s budget deficits.
Secretary Gates noted that while America’s defense spending had doubled during the past decade, European defense spending had fallen by 15%. Secretary Gates then warned NATO that the American people and US Congress have a “dwindling appetite and patience for continuing to spend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”
Since the purpose of his final trip was to discuss America’s plans to begin withdrawing American troops as well as NATO forces from Afghanistan, Secretary Gates also complimented Germany, France, Canada and the UK for increasing their troop commitments in line with America’s increase of military forces as part President O’Bama’s 2009 troop ‘surge.’ But Gates also noted that many NATO members rely on the US to provide helicopters to evacuate their wounded, yet place restrictions on where their forces can be deployed and if they can be used in combat despite pleas from America and other NATO allies for them to become more involved.
Nor is America alone in its thinking that many NATO allies are not carrying their own weight. NATO ministers from Canada, France and the UK also expressed their support for Secretary Gates critiques of NATO allies for not doing their part as members of the alliance during the two days of private consultations that preceded Secretary Gates public remarks. Many NATO allies like having the security blanket that being a member of NATO provides, but they are simply ‘free riders’ because they are unwilling to pay their share of the costs of membership.
Unfortunately for America, I don’t think the Secretary Gates blunt assessments will have much effect. Too many of our NATO allies have become complacent about defense issues ever since the ‘Iron Curtain’ was lifted. So as long as they do not feel any eminent security threats, I think they will continue to enjoy their ‘free ride’ at the expense of nations like France, Canada, the UK and America.
Monday, June 13, 2011
President O'Bama visits his ancestral home-Ireland
The Bigger Picture
Published on June 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Having already explained why I believe President Obama will win re-election in 2012 in my previous column, today I will discuss my impressions about his visit to Ireland last Monday.
To begin with I want to note that President Obama’s only public appearances on his weeklong European visit were the two he made in Ireland; his visit to his ancestral home in Moneygall and his public speech later that day at College Green in Dublin. Furthermore, the primary purpose of President Obama’s other stops in the UK, France and Poland, was to reassure his European neighbours that America’s longstanding alliance with Europe was still very important to him. But in the case of Ireland, President Obama and other Americans’ obvious affection for the ‘old sod’ made such reassurances totally unnecessary.
No, instead of seeking to reassure Ireland that it was still important to America, the real purpose of President Obama’s visit to the ‘Emerald Isle’ was to remind the Irish people of how important they are, not just to America, but to the rest of the world as well. He duly noted the fact that he is one of the more than forty million Americans with “blood links” to Ireland, thanks to over 150 years of Irish emigration to America, by joking to his audience that, “I’ve come home to find the apostrophe we lost somewhere along the way.”
But then President O’Bama (the Irish spelling of his name) went on to acknowledge Ireland’s broader contributions in the areas of food security, human rights and UN peacekeeping missions, by reminding everyone just how much Ireland also “punches above its weight” in the much larger global arena. I thought this was an excellent remark, because I think some Irish citizens may have forgotten this during the last three years of mind numbing economic recession.
President O’Bama’s speech on College Green included a message of hope for the future and solidarity with America. Just like you or I might tell an old friend going through tough times that we’re confident things will get better, President O’Bama told the Dublin crowd that “Ireland is a little country that inspires the biggest things. Your best days are still ahead.”
Then in an acknowledgement of America’s solidarity with Ireland and the Irish people, President O’Bama told the audience “Our greatest triumphs, in America and Ireland alike, are still to come.” He then closed his speech with a refrain that included the Irish translation of his Presidential campaign’s famous slogan, “Is féidir linn, yes we can! Is féidir linn, yes we can!”
Frankly, I was not at all surprised by President O’Bama’s rousing and inspiring speech to the assembled multitude on College Green. The President’s oratorical and rhetorical talents are both well known and well documented. I have also been fortunate enough to have been present for a few of his best speeches, some of which were very inspirational, while others, such as his 2009 Presidential Inaugural Address, were much more sobering.
But as an American who has also been a keen observer of President O’Bama’s demeanor and behavior in a variety of triumphant as well trying moments, I was struck by how relaxed and at home the President seemed to be throughout his entire visit. I observed some of this in person at College Green and witnessed the other moments courtesy of the wall to wall television coverage the President’s day long visit received.
Maybe I’m totally wrong about this and I was only seeing a great acting performance in front of the ever present TV cameras by President O’Bama. Regardless, I still had a very palpable sense that the President was in fact very relaxed and at ease while he was here in Ireland, more so in fact, than at any other time I have seen him since he became President.
Even before he was elected President, I never saw President O’Bama wade into a crowd of onlookers shaking hands and hoisting babies with the same kind of sheer joy and abandonment that I saw him display on the streets of Moneygall. Furthermore, although I have seen President O’Bama order and drink a beer before, I have never seen the President order another round and make a point of paying for it. Was that simply a reflection of the taste of a Guinness or of a man who felt at home even though he was among strangers?
But President O’Bama also appeared to be just as relaxed and among ‘old friends’ when I observed his behavior following his speech at College Green. He didn’t just spend the obligatory time shaking hands and posing for pictures with the guests on the stage behind him. He then went down to the crowd and shook hands with as many people as he could there as well. Indeed, time seems to stand still when you are truly at home and with your friends.
Published on June 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Having already explained why I believe President Obama will win re-election in 2012 in my previous column, today I will discuss my impressions about his visit to Ireland last Monday.
To begin with I want to note that President Obama’s only public appearances on his weeklong European visit were the two he made in Ireland; his visit to his ancestral home in Moneygall and his public speech later that day at College Green in Dublin. Furthermore, the primary purpose of President Obama’s other stops in the UK, France and Poland, was to reassure his European neighbours that America’s longstanding alliance with Europe was still very important to him. But in the case of Ireland, President Obama and other Americans’ obvious affection for the ‘old sod’ made such reassurances totally unnecessary.
No, instead of seeking to reassure Ireland that it was still important to America, the real purpose of President Obama’s visit to the ‘Emerald Isle’ was to remind the Irish people of how important they are, not just to America, but to the rest of the world as well. He duly noted the fact that he is one of the more than forty million Americans with “blood links” to Ireland, thanks to over 150 years of Irish emigration to America, by joking to his audience that, “I’ve come home to find the apostrophe we lost somewhere along the way.”
But then President O’Bama (the Irish spelling of his name) went on to acknowledge Ireland’s broader contributions in the areas of food security, human rights and UN peacekeeping missions, by reminding everyone just how much Ireland also “punches above its weight” in the much larger global arena. I thought this was an excellent remark, because I think some Irish citizens may have forgotten this during the last three years of mind numbing economic recession.
President O’Bama’s speech on College Green included a message of hope for the future and solidarity with America. Just like you or I might tell an old friend going through tough times that we’re confident things will get better, President O’Bama told the Dublin crowd that “Ireland is a little country that inspires the biggest things. Your best days are still ahead.”
Then in an acknowledgement of America’s solidarity with Ireland and the Irish people, President O’Bama told the audience “Our greatest triumphs, in America and Ireland alike, are still to come.” He then closed his speech with a refrain that included the Irish translation of his Presidential campaign’s famous slogan, “Is féidir linn, yes we can! Is féidir linn, yes we can!”
Frankly, I was not at all surprised by President O’Bama’s rousing and inspiring speech to the assembled multitude on College Green. The President’s oratorical and rhetorical talents are both well known and well documented. I have also been fortunate enough to have been present for a few of his best speeches, some of which were very inspirational, while others, such as his 2009 Presidential Inaugural Address, were much more sobering.
But as an American who has also been a keen observer of President O’Bama’s demeanor and behavior in a variety of triumphant as well trying moments, I was struck by how relaxed and at home the President seemed to be throughout his entire visit. I observed some of this in person at College Green and witnessed the other moments courtesy of the wall to wall television coverage the President’s day long visit received.
Maybe I’m totally wrong about this and I was only seeing a great acting performance in front of the ever present TV cameras by President O’Bama. Regardless, I still had a very palpable sense that the President was in fact very relaxed and at ease while he was here in Ireland, more so in fact, than at any other time I have seen him since he became President.
Even before he was elected President, I never saw President O’Bama wade into a crowd of onlookers shaking hands and hoisting babies with the same kind of sheer joy and abandonment that I saw him display on the streets of Moneygall. Furthermore, although I have seen President O’Bama order and drink a beer before, I have never seen the President order another round and make a point of paying for it. Was that simply a reflection of the taste of a Guinness or of a man who felt at home even though he was among strangers?
But President O’Bama also appeared to be just as relaxed and among ‘old friends’ when I observed his behavior following his speech at College Green. He didn’t just spend the obligatory time shaking hands and posing for pictures with the guests on the stage behind him. He then went down to the crowd and shook hands with as many people as he could there as well. Indeed, time seems to stand still when you are truly at home and with your friends.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Why President Obama will win re-election in 2012
The Bigger Picture
Published on May 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Even though the 2012 US Presidential and Congressional elections are still 18 months away, Republicans actually began their 2012 political campaigns just after the 112th Congress was sworn into office on January 3rd of this year.
First, on the heels of their November mid-term election victories, the leader of Republicans in the US Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell said “that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office.” Congressional Republicans then proceeded to propose and pass a series of bills to cut spending and enact their social conservative agenda instead of measures designed to reduce unemployment and spur the American economy.
Even though none of their spending bills had any hope of being passed by the US Senate, Republicans continued to reject attempts by President Obama to enact a federal budget for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year that would eliminate a smaller amount of federal spending. The end result was a series of small spending cut measures that did nothing to reduce unemployment, but instead threatened to shut down the federal government and damage America’s fragile economic recovery in the process.
Although President Obama truly desired to work with Republicans in crafting bi-partisan solutions to America’s economic and budget deficit problems, he is also a realist when it comes to politics. So after Republicans spent the first three months of their term rejecting attempts at bi-partisan compromise, President Obama decided that since Republicans only cared about defeating him in 2012, he would announce he was seeking re-election 19 months before Election Day.
But despite his many attempts to strike a compromise with Republicans, many Americans nonetheless blame President Obama, at least in part, for the gridlock that currently envelops Washington DC, instead of just the Republicans who refuse to compromise with the President. This is a reflection of the fact that many Americans don’t really understand the constraints our Constitution places on their President’s power. The President can veto laws that he doesn’t support, but is also powerless to force Congress to pass the laws America needs to address its problems.
So if President Obama is to succeed in his quest to win re-election in 2012, one of the most important tasks for the President and his campaign team is to educate American voters about the difficulty of running a country when his opponents’ top priority is preventing him from doing so. Many Americans, including myself, have long believed that a divided government leads to more bi-partisan and effective laws and policies. But this belief is also based on our assumption that politicians on both sides will be willing to strike a compromise.
However one of the main disadvantages of a divided government is the inability of the government to function effectively if politicians on one side determine they have more to gain politically by not compromising with their political opponents. Since the Tea Party movement doesn’t believe in making compromises, Republicans, who were elected to Congress in 2010 thanks to their support, believe they have more to gain by opposing President Obama than they do by compromising with him for the sake of our country.
But in addition to painting his Republican opponents in Congress as obstructionists more interested in advancing their Tea Party supporters right wing political agenda, the President’s other task is to compare and contrast his more ‘compassionate’ vision of America with the Republican and Tea Party movement’s more selfish and self serving vision of America. The President wisely began painting this picture of his vision versus that of his Republican opponents soon after he announced he was running for re-election last month.
Since the winner of American Presidential elections is decided by the votes of moderate, independent or swing voters rather than the more liberal and conservative voters who form the core of the Democratic and Republican parties, it is important that the President spend as much time as he can between now and the 2012 election painting the Republican Party as one that is dominated by hard line conservatives. By doing this it is more likely than not that the swing voters President Obama will need to win re-election will view whoever the Republicans nominate to run against him as an extension of the party’s right wing base.
Because the President will not have any viable Democratic opponents to run against in the 2012 Democratic primaries, he will also be able to conserve his campaign funds for the General Election. On the other hand President Obama’s Republican opponent will not only have to spend a lot of money waging a campaign to win the Republican Party’s nomination, but will also have to go on the record in favour of political positions that appeal to the Tea Party movement, but are a turnoff to many of America’s more moderate independent voters.
If President Obama succeeds in portraying Republicans in Congress as obstructionists and their candidate for President as beholden to the right wing views of the Republican base, then it won’t matter who his Republican Presidential opponent is because President Obama will win the independent voters as well as the national popular vote.
But the more important electoral calculus is winning at least 270 electoral votes. If President Obama succeeds in winning the same 28 states he won in 2008, then he will finish with 359 electoral votes. 17 of these are solidly Democratic states that guarantee him 229 votes and President Obama won another 7 states with 53 electoral votes by large margins ranging from 6% to 14%. Since these states are unlikely to swing back to a Republican, even if his Republican opponent is able to win all the big swing states like Florida, Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina that Obama carried in 2008, President Obama still wins the electoral vote by a margin of 282 to 256.
So although a lot can change in 18 months, this is why I predict President Obama will win re-election in 2012.
Published on May 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Even though the 2012 US Presidential and Congressional elections are still 18 months away, Republicans actually began their 2012 political campaigns just after the 112th Congress was sworn into office on January 3rd of this year.
First, on the heels of their November mid-term election victories, the leader of Republicans in the US Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell said “that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office.” Congressional Republicans then proceeded to propose and pass a series of bills to cut spending and enact their social conservative agenda instead of measures designed to reduce unemployment and spur the American economy.
Even though none of their spending bills had any hope of being passed by the US Senate, Republicans continued to reject attempts by President Obama to enact a federal budget for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year that would eliminate a smaller amount of federal spending. The end result was a series of small spending cut measures that did nothing to reduce unemployment, but instead threatened to shut down the federal government and damage America’s fragile economic recovery in the process.
Although President Obama truly desired to work with Republicans in crafting bi-partisan solutions to America’s economic and budget deficit problems, he is also a realist when it comes to politics. So after Republicans spent the first three months of their term rejecting attempts at bi-partisan compromise, President Obama decided that since Republicans only cared about defeating him in 2012, he would announce he was seeking re-election 19 months before Election Day.
But despite his many attempts to strike a compromise with Republicans, many Americans nonetheless blame President Obama, at least in part, for the gridlock that currently envelops Washington DC, instead of just the Republicans who refuse to compromise with the President. This is a reflection of the fact that many Americans don’t really understand the constraints our Constitution places on their President’s power. The President can veto laws that he doesn’t support, but is also powerless to force Congress to pass the laws America needs to address its problems.
So if President Obama is to succeed in his quest to win re-election in 2012, one of the most important tasks for the President and his campaign team is to educate American voters about the difficulty of running a country when his opponents’ top priority is preventing him from doing so. Many Americans, including myself, have long believed that a divided government leads to more bi-partisan and effective laws and policies. But this belief is also based on our assumption that politicians on both sides will be willing to strike a compromise.
However one of the main disadvantages of a divided government is the inability of the government to function effectively if politicians on one side determine they have more to gain politically by not compromising with their political opponents. Since the Tea Party movement doesn’t believe in making compromises, Republicans, who were elected to Congress in 2010 thanks to their support, believe they have more to gain by opposing President Obama than they do by compromising with him for the sake of our country.
But in addition to painting his Republican opponents in Congress as obstructionists more interested in advancing their Tea Party supporters right wing political agenda, the President’s other task is to compare and contrast his more ‘compassionate’ vision of America with the Republican and Tea Party movement’s more selfish and self serving vision of America. The President wisely began painting this picture of his vision versus that of his Republican opponents soon after he announced he was running for re-election last month.
Since the winner of American Presidential elections is decided by the votes of moderate, independent or swing voters rather than the more liberal and conservative voters who form the core of the Democratic and Republican parties, it is important that the President spend as much time as he can between now and the 2012 election painting the Republican Party as one that is dominated by hard line conservatives. By doing this it is more likely than not that the swing voters President Obama will need to win re-election will view whoever the Republicans nominate to run against him as an extension of the party’s right wing base.
Because the President will not have any viable Democratic opponents to run against in the 2012 Democratic primaries, he will also be able to conserve his campaign funds for the General Election. On the other hand President Obama’s Republican opponent will not only have to spend a lot of money waging a campaign to win the Republican Party’s nomination, but will also have to go on the record in favour of political positions that appeal to the Tea Party movement, but are a turnoff to many of America’s more moderate independent voters.
If President Obama succeeds in portraying Republicans in Congress as obstructionists and their candidate for President as beholden to the right wing views of the Republican base, then it won’t matter who his Republican Presidential opponent is because President Obama will win the independent voters as well as the national popular vote.
But the more important electoral calculus is winning at least 270 electoral votes. If President Obama succeeds in winning the same 28 states he won in 2008, then he will finish with 359 electoral votes. 17 of these are solidly Democratic states that guarantee him 229 votes and President Obama won another 7 states with 53 electoral votes by large margins ranging from 6% to 14%. Since these states are unlikely to swing back to a Republican, even if his Republican opponent is able to win all the big swing states like Florida, Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina that Obama carried in 2008, President Obama still wins the electoral vote by a margin of 282 to 256.
So although a lot can change in 18 months, this is why I predict President Obama will win re-election in 2012.
Why won't these 'children' just compromise?
The Bigger Picture
Published on May 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In order to understand why the US Congress and President Obama are finding it so difficult to reach a bi-partisan consensus on how to address America’s budget deficit problems, one first needs to understand the political parties’ respective voter constituencies.
Because most Republicans in Congress represent districts and states that are in predominately suburban or rural areas of the United States, a majority of their constituents also tend to be older members of America’s white ethnic majority. Many of these citizens are also retired and rely on government funded entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, as well as supplemental income from private employer pensions and healthcare plans, to provide for their pension and healthcare needs. So for these voters, America’s current high level of unemployment isn’t the problem; maintaining their current lifestyles is.
Although unemployment also tends to be lower than the national average in these suburban or rural districts and states, this is not the case in all areas of the country. In a number of Midwestern states such as Michigan, Ohio and Indiana the loss of higher paying manufacturing jobs has led to higher levels of unemployment. These job losses have in turn had ripple effects on the retail, restaurant and service businesses that once catered to the needs of these workers, leading to even more job losses in these local economic sectors.
But most of the jobs that have been lost in the manufacturing and service sectors of the economies in these districts and states also did not require a college education. As a result, many of the unemployed people living there lack the education needed to acquire better paying jobs in America’s more service oriented economy. Many of them are also either unwilling to move to other areas of the country for a job or unable to do so because they can’t sell their homes in America’s still depressed housing market. So confronted with either going back to school to get a university degree or accepting a lower paying job in the service sector, these workers react by becoming angry and frustrated with America’s political leaders.
Although white Americans still make up a majority of American voters and hold a diminished but still privileged position in American society when they are compared as a group with other ethnic minorities, their grasp on electoral and economic power has been eroding for quite some time. But rather than accept this as an inevitable consequence of life in a vibrant multicultural society, many older and less educated whites are looking for someone and or something to blame. Seeking to take advantage of their discontent, Republicans in turn blame Democrats since younger, better educated whites and members of America’s minority ethnic groups also tend to vote for Democrats like President Obama.
But even though the balance of power in Congress, as well as the US Presidency, has been shifting between the Democratic and Republican political parties for years, members of both parties have historically compromised with their political opponents in order to pass important legislation. So why can’t the current Congress muster the bi-partisan support that has always been used in past to pass important legislation like our nation’s annual budgets?
The answer lies in the way most state’s Congressional districts have been gerrymandered every ten years by the Republican or Democratic parties that are in power in those states. When US Congressional districts are redesigned, the new districts are designed to favor the incumbent legislators of their party. Since the conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats elected from these districts no longer have to worry about swing voters, they are also less inclined to compromise and pass the bi-partisan legislation that America needs.
But the gridlock in Congress also makes President Obama look like an ineffective leader. So next week I will discuss how President Obama can overcome the legislative gridlock induced by Congressional Republicans and win re-election in 2012.
Published on May 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In order to understand why the US Congress and President Obama are finding it so difficult to reach a bi-partisan consensus on how to address America’s budget deficit problems, one first needs to understand the political parties’ respective voter constituencies.
Because most Republicans in Congress represent districts and states that are in predominately suburban or rural areas of the United States, a majority of their constituents also tend to be older members of America’s white ethnic majority. Many of these citizens are also retired and rely on government funded entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, as well as supplemental income from private employer pensions and healthcare plans, to provide for their pension and healthcare needs. So for these voters, America’s current high level of unemployment isn’t the problem; maintaining their current lifestyles is.
Although unemployment also tends to be lower than the national average in these suburban or rural districts and states, this is not the case in all areas of the country. In a number of Midwestern states such as Michigan, Ohio and Indiana the loss of higher paying manufacturing jobs has led to higher levels of unemployment. These job losses have in turn had ripple effects on the retail, restaurant and service businesses that once catered to the needs of these workers, leading to even more job losses in these local economic sectors.
But most of the jobs that have been lost in the manufacturing and service sectors of the economies in these districts and states also did not require a college education. As a result, many of the unemployed people living there lack the education needed to acquire better paying jobs in America’s more service oriented economy. Many of them are also either unwilling to move to other areas of the country for a job or unable to do so because they can’t sell their homes in America’s still depressed housing market. So confronted with either going back to school to get a university degree or accepting a lower paying job in the service sector, these workers react by becoming angry and frustrated with America’s political leaders.
Although white Americans still make up a majority of American voters and hold a diminished but still privileged position in American society when they are compared as a group with other ethnic minorities, their grasp on electoral and economic power has been eroding for quite some time. But rather than accept this as an inevitable consequence of life in a vibrant multicultural society, many older and less educated whites are looking for someone and or something to blame. Seeking to take advantage of their discontent, Republicans in turn blame Democrats since younger, better educated whites and members of America’s minority ethnic groups also tend to vote for Democrats like President Obama.
But even though the balance of power in Congress, as well as the US Presidency, has been shifting between the Democratic and Republican political parties for years, members of both parties have historically compromised with their political opponents in order to pass important legislation. So why can’t the current Congress muster the bi-partisan support that has always been used in past to pass important legislation like our nation’s annual budgets?
The answer lies in the way most state’s Congressional districts have been gerrymandered every ten years by the Republican or Democratic parties that are in power in those states. When US Congressional districts are redesigned, the new districts are designed to favor the incumbent legislators of their party. Since the conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats elected from these districts no longer have to worry about swing voters, they are also less inclined to compromise and pass the bi-partisan legislation that America needs.
But the gridlock in Congress also makes President Obama look like an ineffective leader. So next week I will discuss how President Obama can overcome the legislative gridlock induced by Congressional Republicans and win re-election in 2012.
Now is not the time to cut federal spending
The Bigger Picture
Published on April 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
As I mentioned in previous columns, the Republican Party seems to be enamored of the German austerity diet as a cure for America’s budget obesity. So today I want to explore some more prudent methods than the German austerity diet or starting another world war that economists believe will trim America’s bloated budget deficit without hurting its economy.
Led by an incoming class of 87 new members, most of who campaigned on a promise to their Tea Party supporters that they would cut federal spending, House Republicans continue to claim that their proposed budget cuts will actually help the economy. They also argue that the Obama and Bush administrations’ economic stimulus measures and bank bailouts didn’t work because the US unemployment rate soared to almost ten percent, well above the eight percent mark these measures were supposed to cap unemployment at.
The problem with these Republican arguments is that virtually no economists agree with them. An independent analysis of the Republican spending cuts conducted by Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, who was also an economic advisor to Republican Presidential candidate John McCain in the 2008 election campaign, predicts that they will reduce America’s economic growth by .5% this year and .2% next year. Another analysis by economists at Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs forecasts that the effect will be even worse, reducing US economic growth by 2% and producing 700,000 fewer jobs this year.
Furthermore, economists around the country almost universally agree that America’s economic recession would have been far worse and the unemployment rate much higher had it not been for the government’s bank bailouts and other economic stimulus measures.
But Republicans dismiss these reports as well as the analysis of the effects of their spending cuts on early education programs like Head Start and Pell Grants for students pursuing university degrees provided by economists at the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Not surprisingly however, Republicans have also failed to come up with any independent economic analysis of their budget proposals that supports their claims that these spending cuts will help the economy and spur the creation of jobs in the private sector.
Republicans in Congress, as well as the slew of potential Republican presidential candidates currently trying to drum up support for their 2012 political campaigns, also bash Obama for the growth of jobs in the federal government and the public sector as a whole. They contend that 200,000 people have been added to the reducing federal payroll since Obama became President and that cutting these jobs will bring down unemployment by fostering the creation of more private sector jobs.
But these claims don’t jive with the facts. Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the federal government has actually only added 58, 000 jobs and most of these were jobs in Homeland Security and Defence, two departments that Republicans don’t want to cut back. Furthermore, during those same two years more than 400,000 public sector jobs have been cut by state and local governments, raising unemployment by .35%.
As an economic conservative I am acutely aware of the long term consequences of failing to rein in America’s ballooning federal budget deficit. A full economic recovery in America will not come close to accomplishing this task, which will still require a painful combination of both tax increases and spending cuts.
But given the still fragile state of America’s economic recovery, I believe the Republican Party’s proposals to cut federal spending immediately will be just as counterproductive as President Roosevelt’s austerity measures were back in 1937, and Germany and the UK’s austerity measures are today.
Though less emotionally satisfying, the more prudent economic course of action than an austerity diet is to wait until the economy is creating enough jobs to bring down unemployment before implementing the combination of tax increases and spending cuts required to bring our budget deficit under control. Now isn’t the time to cut spending.
Published on April 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
As I mentioned in previous columns, the Republican Party seems to be enamored of the German austerity diet as a cure for America’s budget obesity. So today I want to explore some more prudent methods than the German austerity diet or starting another world war that economists believe will trim America’s bloated budget deficit without hurting its economy.
Led by an incoming class of 87 new members, most of who campaigned on a promise to their Tea Party supporters that they would cut federal spending, House Republicans continue to claim that their proposed budget cuts will actually help the economy. They also argue that the Obama and Bush administrations’ economic stimulus measures and bank bailouts didn’t work because the US unemployment rate soared to almost ten percent, well above the eight percent mark these measures were supposed to cap unemployment at.
The problem with these Republican arguments is that virtually no economists agree with them. An independent analysis of the Republican spending cuts conducted by Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, who was also an economic advisor to Republican Presidential candidate John McCain in the 2008 election campaign, predicts that they will reduce America’s economic growth by .5% this year and .2% next year. Another analysis by economists at Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs forecasts that the effect will be even worse, reducing US economic growth by 2% and producing 700,000 fewer jobs this year.
Furthermore, economists around the country almost universally agree that America’s economic recession would have been far worse and the unemployment rate much higher had it not been for the government’s bank bailouts and other economic stimulus measures.
But Republicans dismiss these reports as well as the analysis of the effects of their spending cuts on early education programs like Head Start and Pell Grants for students pursuing university degrees provided by economists at the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Not surprisingly however, Republicans have also failed to come up with any independent economic analysis of their budget proposals that supports their claims that these spending cuts will help the economy and spur the creation of jobs in the private sector.
Republicans in Congress, as well as the slew of potential Republican presidential candidates currently trying to drum up support for their 2012 political campaigns, also bash Obama for the growth of jobs in the federal government and the public sector as a whole. They contend that 200,000 people have been added to the reducing federal payroll since Obama became President and that cutting these jobs will bring down unemployment by fostering the creation of more private sector jobs.
But these claims don’t jive with the facts. Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the federal government has actually only added 58, 000 jobs and most of these were jobs in Homeland Security and Defence, two departments that Republicans don’t want to cut back. Furthermore, during those same two years more than 400,000 public sector jobs have been cut by state and local governments, raising unemployment by .35%.
As an economic conservative I am acutely aware of the long term consequences of failing to rein in America’s ballooning federal budget deficit. A full economic recovery in America will not come close to accomplishing this task, which will still require a painful combination of both tax increases and spending cuts.
But given the still fragile state of America’s economic recovery, I believe the Republican Party’s proposals to cut federal spending immediately will be just as counterproductive as President Roosevelt’s austerity measures were back in 1937, and Germany and the UK’s austerity measures are today.
Though less emotionally satisfying, the more prudent economic course of action than an austerity diet is to wait until the economy is creating enough jobs to bring down unemployment before implementing the combination of tax increases and spending cuts required to bring our budget deficit under control. Now isn’t the time to cut spending.
Is an austerity diet the answer?
The Bigger Picture
Published on April 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
When Senate Republicans in last year’s Congress refused to allow a vote on President Obama’s 2011 federal government budget they essentially set the stage for the political theatrics currently on display in Washington DC. They were hoping that their party would gain control of the US House of Representatives in the mid-term elections and increase their leverage on President Obama. But despite their success in achieving this objective, at least three of those same Senate Republicans subsequently voted against the ridiculous spending bill their Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives sent them last month.
So given the fact that they can’t get the support of other Republicans in the Senate for their budget cutting proposals, what explains the irresponsible political behavior of House Republicans in continuing to push for spending cuts that have no hope of becoming law? I believe the political stew Republicans have been dining on the past two years is the culprit.
For starters, many Congressional Republicans have convinced themselves that the latest government budget fad diet called ‘German austerity’ is the answer for our national government’s ‘obesity’. Then to make it more palatable to Republicans who doubt the wisdom of this fad diet, Tea Party activists have liberally sprinkled it with their homegrown flavorings of fear that Republicans who don’t adhere to this diet will lose their seats in the next Congress. The final ingredient in this stew is the rather tasty prospect of even more power for Republicans in Congress if they succeed in beating Obama at the polls in 2012.
As a lifelong Republican and economic conservative, I can understand why so many Republicans think the German austerity diet sounds so appealing. But even though the idea of balancing our national government’s budget holds great emotional appeal for me, I believe the rationale for doing so must also be based on realistic economic principles; not emotions.
To that end, I will now discuss some of the fallacies that I believe underlie the myth that the German austerity diet is the best way to cure the economic ills which currently bedevil America as well as most of the world’s other more developed nations.
This myth had its roots in the economic recovery Germany experienced during the first half of last year. Commentators here in Europe and much of the rest of the world cited this as evidence that the more modest economic stimulus measures Germany had implemented in 2009 were the answer to the economic malaise that still gripped America and most other countries in Europe.
But ever since Germany’s growth slowed sharply in the second half of last year those same commentators have been noticeably silent. The cold hard economic facts are that once Germany’s modest economic stimulus measures had run their course, the German economy stagnated. As a result, Germany’s economic output is still well below the level it achieved before the 2008 financial meltdown and the onset of the 2009 global economic recession.
But the current economic situation in the UK, another country that adopted the German austerity diet, is even worse than that in Germany. The UK is actually now on the brink of experiencing the dreaded ‘double dip’ recession, thanks in large part to the Tory government’s tax increases that will soon be exacerbated by even larger spending cuts.
Furthermore, the history of post recession austerity measures underscores the fallacy of trying to move quickly to balance a government’s books. In his first presidential election Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly called for a balanced federal budget so, following his re-election, President Roosevelt moved to balance the government’s budget in 1937. This lead to another economic recession in an economy that was still weak from the Great Depression and what actually ended up saving the US economy was the industrial growth caused by World War II.
But in my next column I’ll discuss some more prudent economic alternatives than another world war.
Published on April 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
When Senate Republicans in last year’s Congress refused to allow a vote on President Obama’s 2011 federal government budget they essentially set the stage for the political theatrics currently on display in Washington DC. They were hoping that their party would gain control of the US House of Representatives in the mid-term elections and increase their leverage on President Obama. But despite their success in achieving this objective, at least three of those same Senate Republicans subsequently voted against the ridiculous spending bill their Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives sent them last month.
So given the fact that they can’t get the support of other Republicans in the Senate for their budget cutting proposals, what explains the irresponsible political behavior of House Republicans in continuing to push for spending cuts that have no hope of becoming law? I believe the political stew Republicans have been dining on the past two years is the culprit.
For starters, many Congressional Republicans have convinced themselves that the latest government budget fad diet called ‘German austerity’ is the answer for our national government’s ‘obesity’. Then to make it more palatable to Republicans who doubt the wisdom of this fad diet, Tea Party activists have liberally sprinkled it with their homegrown flavorings of fear that Republicans who don’t adhere to this diet will lose their seats in the next Congress. The final ingredient in this stew is the rather tasty prospect of even more power for Republicans in Congress if they succeed in beating Obama at the polls in 2012.
As a lifelong Republican and economic conservative, I can understand why so many Republicans think the German austerity diet sounds so appealing. But even though the idea of balancing our national government’s budget holds great emotional appeal for me, I believe the rationale for doing so must also be based on realistic economic principles; not emotions.
To that end, I will now discuss some of the fallacies that I believe underlie the myth that the German austerity diet is the best way to cure the economic ills which currently bedevil America as well as most of the world’s other more developed nations.
This myth had its roots in the economic recovery Germany experienced during the first half of last year. Commentators here in Europe and much of the rest of the world cited this as evidence that the more modest economic stimulus measures Germany had implemented in 2009 were the answer to the economic malaise that still gripped America and most other countries in Europe.
But ever since Germany’s growth slowed sharply in the second half of last year those same commentators have been noticeably silent. The cold hard economic facts are that once Germany’s modest economic stimulus measures had run their course, the German economy stagnated. As a result, Germany’s economic output is still well below the level it achieved before the 2008 financial meltdown and the onset of the 2009 global economic recession.
But the current economic situation in the UK, another country that adopted the German austerity diet, is even worse than that in Germany. The UK is actually now on the brink of experiencing the dreaded ‘double dip’ recession, thanks in large part to the Tory government’s tax increases that will soon be exacerbated by even larger spending cuts.
Furthermore, the history of post recession austerity measures underscores the fallacy of trying to move quickly to balance a government’s books. In his first presidential election Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly called for a balanced federal budget so, following his re-election, President Roosevelt moved to balance the government’s budget in 1937. This lead to another economic recession in an economy that was still weak from the Great Depression and what actually ended up saving the US economy was the industrial growth caused by World War II.
But in my next column I’ll discuss some more prudent economic alternatives than another world war.
The perils of divided government
The Bigger Picture
Published on March 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Two weeks ago, America’s divided national government averted a federal government shutdown when Congressional Republicans and Democrats reached agreement on some relatively minor spending cuts to the President’s 2011 budget. But the reality of this compromise was that politicians in both parties simply agreed to kick the can down the road for two weeks, thus setting the stage for another confrontation at the end of this week.
Now if you think the notion of funding your national government two weeks at a time sounds rather ridiculous, you would be correct. It is ridiculous! However, given the decidedly poisonous political atmosphere that currently pervades our nation’s capitol, it wouldn’t really come as much of a surprise to see this bi-monthly political brinksmanship continue until the end of this spring. That’s because some Republicans in Congress, despite all of their tough talk about reining in government spending, are afraid of how voters might react if the government shuts down because the President refuses to go along with their spending cuts.
The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is a veteran Republican lawmaker who remembers what happened the last time a newly elected Republican majority in Congress tried to cram its budget cuts down the throat of a Democratic President. In 1995, and at the behest of putative 2012 Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, Republicans refused to compromise with President Bill Clinton on the federal budget. This led to non-essential government workers being furloughed and the suspension of non-essential services from November 14 through November 19, 1995 and December 16, 1995 to January 6, 1996.
Like their present day Republican counterparts, the Gingrich Republicans had wrested control of Congress from the Democrats in the 1994 mid-term elections and were determined to force President Clinton to accept their cuts in government spending. The Gingrich led Congressional Republicans also initially avoided a government shutdown by agreeing to a series of continuing resolutions to fund the US Government’s spending, essentially kicking the can down the road just like present day Republicans are.
However, in order to continue operating the federal government when it is running a budget deficit, Congress also needs to periodically increase the cap or ceiling on the total amount of US Government debt that the US Treasury is authorized to issue. Gingrich believed that if he and his Republican colleagues refused to raise the US debt ceiling, President Clinton would then be forced to cave in to their demands for spending cuts.
But President Clinton proved himself to be an adept poker player by calling the Gingrich Republicans’ bluff of refusing to raise the debt ceiling, thus causing the federal government shut down. Republicans tried to blame President Clinton for the consequences, which included over 200,000 passport applications that were not processed, the closure of 368 national parks and a halt to the cleanup of toxic waste disposal sites around the country.
But despite 2012 Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s continuing claims to have won this standoff, most Republicans grudgingly acknowledge that President Clinton won this poker game because Republicans eventually ended the budget and debt ceiling stand off on Clinton’s terms rather than on their terms. As a consequence, voters also blamed Gingrich and Congressional Republicans for a pointless cessation of government services and re-elected President Clinton by a resounding margin in the subsequent 1996 national elections.
But the current Republican majority in Congress includes 87 newly elected members who have no memory of what happened to Republicans sixteen years ago and who have also promised their Tea Party supporters that they will not compromise with President Obama. So although the Tea Party types are currently willing to go along with their wiser Republican counterparts in kicking the can down the road to avoid a government shutdown, they are also girding for a confrontation in June when the federal debt ceiling will have to be raised. I’ll discuss their fallacious reasoning next week.
Published on March 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Two weeks ago, America’s divided national government averted a federal government shutdown when Congressional Republicans and Democrats reached agreement on some relatively minor spending cuts to the President’s 2011 budget. But the reality of this compromise was that politicians in both parties simply agreed to kick the can down the road for two weeks, thus setting the stage for another confrontation at the end of this week.
Now if you think the notion of funding your national government two weeks at a time sounds rather ridiculous, you would be correct. It is ridiculous! However, given the decidedly poisonous political atmosphere that currently pervades our nation’s capitol, it wouldn’t really come as much of a surprise to see this bi-monthly political brinksmanship continue until the end of this spring. That’s because some Republicans in Congress, despite all of their tough talk about reining in government spending, are afraid of how voters might react if the government shuts down because the President refuses to go along with their spending cuts.
The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is a veteran Republican lawmaker who remembers what happened the last time a newly elected Republican majority in Congress tried to cram its budget cuts down the throat of a Democratic President. In 1995, and at the behest of putative 2012 Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, Republicans refused to compromise with President Bill Clinton on the federal budget. This led to non-essential government workers being furloughed and the suspension of non-essential services from November 14 through November 19, 1995 and December 16, 1995 to January 6, 1996.
Like their present day Republican counterparts, the Gingrich Republicans had wrested control of Congress from the Democrats in the 1994 mid-term elections and were determined to force President Clinton to accept their cuts in government spending. The Gingrich led Congressional Republicans also initially avoided a government shutdown by agreeing to a series of continuing resolutions to fund the US Government’s spending, essentially kicking the can down the road just like present day Republicans are.
However, in order to continue operating the federal government when it is running a budget deficit, Congress also needs to periodically increase the cap or ceiling on the total amount of US Government debt that the US Treasury is authorized to issue. Gingrich believed that if he and his Republican colleagues refused to raise the US debt ceiling, President Clinton would then be forced to cave in to their demands for spending cuts.
But President Clinton proved himself to be an adept poker player by calling the Gingrich Republicans’ bluff of refusing to raise the debt ceiling, thus causing the federal government shut down. Republicans tried to blame President Clinton for the consequences, which included over 200,000 passport applications that were not processed, the closure of 368 national parks and a halt to the cleanup of toxic waste disposal sites around the country.
But despite 2012 Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s continuing claims to have won this standoff, most Republicans grudgingly acknowledge that President Clinton won this poker game because Republicans eventually ended the budget and debt ceiling stand off on Clinton’s terms rather than on their terms. As a consequence, voters also blamed Gingrich and Congressional Republicans for a pointless cessation of government services and re-elected President Clinton by a resounding margin in the subsequent 1996 national elections.
But the current Republican majority in Congress includes 87 newly elected members who have no memory of what happened to Republicans sixteen years ago and who have also promised their Tea Party supporters that they will not compromise with President Obama. So although the Tea Party types are currently willing to go along with their wiser Republican counterparts in kicking the can down the road to avoid a government shutdown, they are also girding for a confrontation in June when the federal debt ceiling will have to be raised. I’ll discuss their fallacious reasoning next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
