The Bigger Picture
Published on November 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
On November 6th 2012, exactly fifty three weeks from today, Americans will troop to the polls to cast their ballots in an extremely important Presidential and Congressional General election. While all elections involving the selection of America’s next president are usually considered vital for the future of the United States, in 2012 America truly stands at a crossroads because American voters will not only be choosing who the next President will be, they will also be making a decision about what they want their government to be.
After surveying the field of Republican Presidential candidates and their respective positions on a range of domestic as well as foreign policy issues, it is very apparent that regardless of who eventually emerges as the Republican nominee for President, Americans will still have a clear choice between either voting to elect a backward looking Republican Presidential candidate backed by an assortment of right wing political ideologues, or voting to re-elect a more forward looking Democratic President with a centrist legislative agenda.
But what makes the 2012 election even more significant, is what the American voters’ choices will say about what they believe our government’s role should be in stimulating the economy as well as its role in providing for and protecting the needs of American citizens. That is because the positions of the Republican presidential candidates reflect the narrow interests of Tea Party activists, evangelical Christians and other special interest groups.
The Tea Party minions claim that the solution for America’s economic ills is to eliminate the federal budget deficit by cutting government spending but they also refuse to countenance tax increases of any kind. However, most of the anti-tax Tea Partiers also don’t want to see any cuts in their Social Security and Medicare benefits, which together account for roughly 50% of government spending. Furthermore, a majority of them also don’t want to see any cuts in America’s defense spending which comprises another 25% of the budget.
The fact that no reputable economists agree with the Tea Party activists’ contention that America can eliminate its budget deficit by cutting government spending in other areas and without raising taxes is beside the point. Tea Partiers are wedded to their angry fantasy that federal government spending is the problem and cutting both spending and taxes is the solution. As a result, rather than risk the ire of these anti-tax extremists, all of the Republican presidential candidates have now adopted the Tea Party’s hard line stance and none of them will even agree to a compromise such as $1 in tax increases for every $9 in spending cuts.
But all of the Republican candidates must also appease socially conservative white evangelical Christians, many of whom were hoping Sarah Palin would run for President. Given their equally rigid anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and anti-immigration positions, it should come as no surprise that many of these so called “Christian Values” voters are also supporters of the rigidly anti-tax, anti-government spending Tea Party movement.
However, something the Tea Party and evangelical Christian movements don’t like to acknowledge is the extent to which they both rely on support and funding from corporate special interest groups to spread their antagonistic and ideologically extreme message. Fox News supports them with in kind donations of media publicity and Rupert Murdoch then reaps profits from advertisers using Fox employees like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to hawk gold and books that are aimed at this segment of the American public.
But the ultimate symbol of right wing hypocrisy is the billionaire Koch brothers funding and sponsorship of groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works that also train Tea Party activists and provide funding for the Republican candidates they support. These organizations support the Koch brothers’ opposition to an extension of unemployment benefits and federal regulation of the oil, finance, food and drug industries, but then ignore the fact that the Koch brothers’ companies also head the list of America’s biggest corporate beneficiaries of federal tax breaks for the oil and agriculture industries. I will discuss the effect they have had on the field of Republican presidential candidates in my next column.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
The latest Nobel Peace Prize recipients
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Now that the Republican Party’s field of presidential candidates finally looks complete, I guess it’s about time for me to begin analyzing these presidential hopefuls’ chances of winning the Republican nomination and then discuss how I think they would fare against President Obama in the November 2012 general election if they were the Republican nominee.
But before I begin discussing the next American Presidential election, I want to use today’s column to discuss the most recent Nobel Peace Prize recipients. So fresh on the heels of my previous columns about the un-liberal democracies that I am worried might emerge in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, I want to acknowledge the Nobel Peace Prizes that were just awarded to Ms. Tawakul Karman, a democracy and human rights activist who has been at the forefront of the Arab Spring protests in Yemen, as well as to Leymah Gbowee, a peace activist who organized women to help bring an end to war in Liberia, and the President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first democratically elected woman President of an African nation.
Given the fact that prior to this year 85 men but only 12 women had ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I thought it was more than appropriate that 3 more women were finally recognized for their courageous work on behalf of peace, democracy and women’s rights by the Nobel Peace Prize committee. While I do not dispute the worthiness of any of the 85 men previously awarded this honour, I also firmly believe that women should have won a lot more than 15% of the Nobel Peace Prizes awarded since 1901.
Although I am somewhat familiar with Ms. Gbowee’s work organizing women from different ethnic and religious backgrounds to bring an end to Liberia’s civil war and Ms. Sirleaf’s contributions to democratic governance in Liberia, as a fellow journalist I must confess that I am much more familiar with Tawakul Karman’s work. As a young mother of 3 children, Ms. Karman first began advocating for women’s rights and journalistic freedom back in 2003. Ms. Karman then founded Women Journalists Without Chains in 2005 as a part of her effort to obtain greater freedom of expression in Yemen and other countries on the Arabian peninsula.
In fact I actually had the privilege of meeting with Ms. Karman several years ago, in her capacity as the head of Women Journalists Without Chains, and discussing the aims of her organization with her. I must say that I was also extremely impressed by Ms. Karman’s willingness to risk her life in her ongoing efforts to obtain press freedom and greater civil rights for women in Yemen. Please note that long before this year’s Arab Spring uprisings began, Ms. Karman was organizing and leading demonstrations by journalists against censorship as well as protests on behalf of women’s rights and freedoms at the Girl’s College of Sana’a University.
In my previous columns I expressed my concerns about the true intentions of many Islamic political parties and my fear that if they gain power they will impose a ‘tyranny of the majority’ on minority ethnic and religious groups. A hopeful counterpoint to my concerns about these Islamic political parties is the fact that while Ms. Karman is also a member of Yemen’s Islamic Islah Party, she has never hesitated to criticize Islamic religious extremists.
Furthermore, even though Ms. Karman is a socially conservative Muslim woman, she removed her veil at a human rights conference in 2004 and no longer wears one because it was getting in the way of what she wanted to accomplish. Still, Ms. Karman does not advocate that other Muslim women should also remove their veils, only that they should do so if they want to.
So based on what I know about this Nobel Peace Prize recipient, if Islamic political parties decide to embrace the values of women like Tawakul Karman, then maybe my fears about a ‘tyranny of the majority’ taking hold in Arab democracies will prove to be unfounded.
Published on October 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
Now that the Republican Party’s field of presidential candidates finally looks complete, I guess it’s about time for me to begin analyzing these presidential hopefuls’ chances of winning the Republican nomination and then discuss how I think they would fare against President Obama in the November 2012 general election if they were the Republican nominee.
But before I begin discussing the next American Presidential election, I want to use today’s column to discuss the most recent Nobel Peace Prize recipients. So fresh on the heels of my previous columns about the un-liberal democracies that I am worried might emerge in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, I want to acknowledge the Nobel Peace Prizes that were just awarded to Ms. Tawakul Karman, a democracy and human rights activist who has been at the forefront of the Arab Spring protests in Yemen, as well as to Leymah Gbowee, a peace activist who organized women to help bring an end to war in Liberia, and the President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first democratically elected woman President of an African nation.
Given the fact that prior to this year 85 men but only 12 women had ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I thought it was more than appropriate that 3 more women were finally recognized for their courageous work on behalf of peace, democracy and women’s rights by the Nobel Peace Prize committee. While I do not dispute the worthiness of any of the 85 men previously awarded this honour, I also firmly believe that women should have won a lot more than 15% of the Nobel Peace Prizes awarded since 1901.
Although I am somewhat familiar with Ms. Gbowee’s work organizing women from different ethnic and religious backgrounds to bring an end to Liberia’s civil war and Ms. Sirleaf’s contributions to democratic governance in Liberia, as a fellow journalist I must confess that I am much more familiar with Tawakul Karman’s work. As a young mother of 3 children, Ms. Karman first began advocating for women’s rights and journalistic freedom back in 2003. Ms. Karman then founded Women Journalists Without Chains in 2005 as a part of her effort to obtain greater freedom of expression in Yemen and other countries on the Arabian peninsula.
In fact I actually had the privilege of meeting with Ms. Karman several years ago, in her capacity as the head of Women Journalists Without Chains, and discussing the aims of her organization with her. I must say that I was also extremely impressed by Ms. Karman’s willingness to risk her life in her ongoing efforts to obtain press freedom and greater civil rights for women in Yemen. Please note that long before this year’s Arab Spring uprisings began, Ms. Karman was organizing and leading demonstrations by journalists against censorship as well as protests on behalf of women’s rights and freedoms at the Girl’s College of Sana’a University.
In my previous columns I expressed my concerns about the true intentions of many Islamic political parties and my fear that if they gain power they will impose a ‘tyranny of the majority’ on minority ethnic and religious groups. A hopeful counterpoint to my concerns about these Islamic political parties is the fact that while Ms. Karman is also a member of Yemen’s Islamic Islah Party, she has never hesitated to criticize Islamic religious extremists.
Furthermore, even though Ms. Karman is a socially conservative Muslim woman, she removed her veil at a human rights conference in 2004 and no longer wears one because it was getting in the way of what she wanted to accomplish. Still, Ms. Karman does not advocate that other Muslim women should also remove their veils, only that they should do so if they want to.
So based on what I know about this Nobel Peace Prize recipient, if Islamic political parties decide to embrace the values of women like Tawakul Karman, then maybe my fears about a ‘tyranny of the majority’ taking hold in Arab democracies will prove to be unfounded.
The Tyranny of the Majority
The Bigger Picture
Published on October 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed my last column by expressing my concern is that with no judicial institutions to protect the rights of minorities, the flowers of freedom that have bloomed in countries like Egypt and Tunisia during the ‘Arab Spring’ will be trampled by the ‘tyranny of the majority’. But I am also concerned that many of us in the Western news media who have grown up in liberal democratic societies do not fully appreciate the important role that strong electoral and judicial institutions play in protecting the rights of minorities from the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
So today I will discuss some of the more specific concerns that both I and many other citizens living in the nations of North Africa and Middle East have about what might happen in their countries if and or when protesters succeed in toppling their authoritarian regimes. But I want to begin by first noting that India is the only nation with a significant Muslim population that also has a long history of liberal democracy experience. Furthermore, according to Freedom Watch, Indonesia and Mali (I would also include Malaysia) are the only majority Muslim countries that currently enjoy the political freedoms we associate with liberal democracies.
However, even though liberal democratic political governance is a rarity in majority Muslim nations, I disagree with those Islamosceptics who argue that Islam is somehow incompatible with the citizen equality principles of liberal democracy. The arguments I hear most often in America and Europe are that most Muslims either harbor a desire to live in a society based on the Sharīʿah religious law of Islam or wish to be governed by a religious political authority al-Qaeda refers to as the ‘grand caliphate’ that will enforce Sharīʿah.
I have no doubt that the pseudo-religious political extremists in al-Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), as well as many of the less extreme Muslims who support the Muslim Brotherhood, have a desire to be governed according to Islamic law. But I also know there are Jewish extremists who wish their societies were governed by the Halakha laws of the Torah and Christian extremists who believe Biblical laws should hold sway. In other words every religion has at least some adherents who believe their holy texts should be taken literally rather than interpreted within the context of the time when they were originally written.
No. I argue that the majority of modern Muslims are actually no different than the majority of modern Christians and Jews in that they believe their democratic societies’ civil and criminal laws should be drafted by their elected officials in accord with their national constitutions instead of the ancient texts of their respective religious faiths. In fact, if our modern laws were actually based on these ancient religious texts, then those of us who curse God or any children who curse their parents would all be condemned to death for these criminal ‘offences’.
This is why, in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’ upheavals that have already toppled the authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and threaten to do so in Syria, I believe most middle class Muslims in these nations share my concerns about the ethnic, political and societal instability that will result from attempting to establish liberal democracies in nations that do not have the institutional foundations or experience needed for effective democratic governance.
Middle class Muslims are afraid because they know Islamist groups will probably win the first democratic elections since they are better organized than the secular young activists who led and promoted the ‘Arab Spring’ protests. But despite assurances from Islamist groups that they will draft constitutions that promote an open-minded and peaceful version of Islam that does not discriminate against ethnic and religious minority groups, many Muslims seriously doubt this.
Middle class Muslims are afraid because they have seen the sectarian violence that engulfed Iraq after Hussein was toppled and the burning of Coptic Churches after Mubarak was driven from power in Egypt by Salafists who espouse the intolerant Wahhabist version of Islam. I hope I’m wrong, but based on what has happened thus far, I simply don’t believe that the kind of democracies that will emerge in the Arab world in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’ will bear much resemblance to the liberal democracy that the ‘Arab Spring’ protesters were hoping for.
Published on October 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed my last column by expressing my concern is that with no judicial institutions to protect the rights of minorities, the flowers of freedom that have bloomed in countries like Egypt and Tunisia during the ‘Arab Spring’ will be trampled by the ‘tyranny of the majority’. But I am also concerned that many of us in the Western news media who have grown up in liberal democratic societies do not fully appreciate the important role that strong electoral and judicial institutions play in protecting the rights of minorities from the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
So today I will discuss some of the more specific concerns that both I and many other citizens living in the nations of North Africa and Middle East have about what might happen in their countries if and or when protesters succeed in toppling their authoritarian regimes. But I want to begin by first noting that India is the only nation with a significant Muslim population that also has a long history of liberal democracy experience. Furthermore, according to Freedom Watch, Indonesia and Mali (I would also include Malaysia) are the only majority Muslim countries that currently enjoy the political freedoms we associate with liberal democracies.
However, even though liberal democratic political governance is a rarity in majority Muslim nations, I disagree with those Islamosceptics who argue that Islam is somehow incompatible with the citizen equality principles of liberal democracy. The arguments I hear most often in America and Europe are that most Muslims either harbor a desire to live in a society based on the Sharīʿah religious law of Islam or wish to be governed by a religious political authority al-Qaeda refers to as the ‘grand caliphate’ that will enforce Sharīʿah.
I have no doubt that the pseudo-religious political extremists in al-Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), as well as many of the less extreme Muslims who support the Muslim Brotherhood, have a desire to be governed according to Islamic law. But I also know there are Jewish extremists who wish their societies were governed by the Halakha laws of the Torah and Christian extremists who believe Biblical laws should hold sway. In other words every religion has at least some adherents who believe their holy texts should be taken literally rather than interpreted within the context of the time when they were originally written.
No. I argue that the majority of modern Muslims are actually no different than the majority of modern Christians and Jews in that they believe their democratic societies’ civil and criminal laws should be drafted by their elected officials in accord with their national constitutions instead of the ancient texts of their respective religious faiths. In fact, if our modern laws were actually based on these ancient religious texts, then those of us who curse God or any children who curse their parents would all be condemned to death for these criminal ‘offences’.
This is why, in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’ upheavals that have already toppled the authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and threaten to do so in Syria, I believe most middle class Muslims in these nations share my concerns about the ethnic, political and societal instability that will result from attempting to establish liberal democracies in nations that do not have the institutional foundations or experience needed for effective democratic governance.
Middle class Muslims are afraid because they know Islamist groups will probably win the first democratic elections since they are better organized than the secular young activists who led and promoted the ‘Arab Spring’ protests. But despite assurances from Islamist groups that they will draft constitutions that promote an open-minded and peaceful version of Islam that does not discriminate against ethnic and religious minority groups, many Muslims seriously doubt this.
Middle class Muslims are afraid because they have seen the sectarian violence that engulfed Iraq after Hussein was toppled and the burning of Coptic Churches after Mubarak was driven from power in Egypt by Salafists who espouse the intolerant Wahhabist version of Islam. I hope I’m wrong, but based on what has happened thus far, I simply don’t believe that the kind of democracies that will emerge in the Arab world in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring’ will bear much resemblance to the liberal democracy that the ‘Arab Spring’ protesters were hoping for.
Are the Arab Spring nations ready for democracy
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
While I was watching the first nationally televised Republican Presidential debate involving all of the major Republican contenders (except for Sarah Palin?), I couldn’t help but wonder how this quadrennial American election ritual would play out if it was also conducted in all other nations around the world. But while I could envision similar exercises of democracy occurring in Europe, I had much more difficulty imagining civil democratic debates like this happening in the so called ‘Arab Spring’ nations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
The nations mentioned as part of the ‘Arab Spring’ come to mind because most of the activists involved in protests that toppled the authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and most recently (with the help of NATO) the Gaddafi regime in Libya, seem to believe that democracy will solve their nations’ problems. So since I have also been discussing America’s partisan democratic political paralysis in my most recent columns, I thought it would be appropriate to spend some time discussing both the promise and the pitfalls of democratic political governance.
Make no mistake, I have been and always will be a staunch advocate of liberal political democracy, a political governance system where all citizens not only have the right to vote in free and fair elections, but also have equal rights in all other areas of daily life. I also count myself as fortunate to have been born and raised in a nation that was the world’s pioneer in developing the concept of liberal democracy and promoting the use of it in other countries.
But having said that, I must also say that I believe liberal democracy really only works in nations that have also established the strong judicial and electoral institutions that are required for liberal democracy to be an effective political governance system for all of those nations’ citizens. These institutions ensure that decisions made by the majority in liberal democracy political systems do not place the interests of the majority of citizens above the interests of dissenting individuals, thus effectively oppressing citizens who happen to be in the minority.
The renowned French historian and political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville discussed this very scenario in his book, On Democracy in America. In a chapter entitled, “The Tyranny of the Majority”, Tocqueville observed that the separation of powers defined in the American Constitution was designed to limit the power of the majority within America’s government while the individual citizen rights cited in the American Bill of Rights placed legal limits on the decisions made by citizen majorities in order to prevent them from oppressing minorities.
While the democratically elected American Congress operates under the same democratic principle of ‘majority rule’ that parliamentary democracies do, thanks to the separation of powers the separately elected American President still has the power to prevent legislation approved by a majority of members of Congress from becoming law. As a result, the political party with a majority in Congress cannot pass new laws or change existing ones without the consent of the President. The majority political party can more easily pass laws when the President is a member of the same party, but in practice the President is quite often a member of the minority party.
However, there have also been times in America’s history when both Congress and the President have approved of laws or refused to change laws that infringed on the rights of individuals or groups that were a part of the electoral minority. In these instances, laws that had the support of the majority of citizens were challenged by those in the minority and subsequently rejected by judges who were members of America’s independently appointed judicial system.
But America isn’t unique in having a politically independent judiciary that protects the rights of minorities since this is a defining characteristic of many parliamentary democracies. My concern is that with no judicial institutions to protect the rights of minorities, the flowers of freedom that bloomed during the ‘Arab Spring’ will be trampled by the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
Published on September 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
While I was watching the first nationally televised Republican Presidential debate involving all of the major Republican contenders (except for Sarah Palin?), I couldn’t help but wonder how this quadrennial American election ritual would play out if it was also conducted in all other nations around the world. But while I could envision similar exercises of democracy occurring in Europe, I had much more difficulty imagining civil democratic debates like this happening in the so called ‘Arab Spring’ nations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
The nations mentioned as part of the ‘Arab Spring’ come to mind because most of the activists involved in protests that toppled the authoritarian regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and most recently (with the help of NATO) the Gaddafi regime in Libya, seem to believe that democracy will solve their nations’ problems. So since I have also been discussing America’s partisan democratic political paralysis in my most recent columns, I thought it would be appropriate to spend some time discussing both the promise and the pitfalls of democratic political governance.
Make no mistake, I have been and always will be a staunch advocate of liberal political democracy, a political governance system where all citizens not only have the right to vote in free and fair elections, but also have equal rights in all other areas of daily life. I also count myself as fortunate to have been born and raised in a nation that was the world’s pioneer in developing the concept of liberal democracy and promoting the use of it in other countries.
But having said that, I must also say that I believe liberal democracy really only works in nations that have also established the strong judicial and electoral institutions that are required for liberal democracy to be an effective political governance system for all of those nations’ citizens. These institutions ensure that decisions made by the majority in liberal democracy political systems do not place the interests of the majority of citizens above the interests of dissenting individuals, thus effectively oppressing citizens who happen to be in the minority.
The renowned French historian and political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville discussed this very scenario in his book, On Democracy in America. In a chapter entitled, “The Tyranny of the Majority”, Tocqueville observed that the separation of powers defined in the American Constitution was designed to limit the power of the majority within America’s government while the individual citizen rights cited in the American Bill of Rights placed legal limits on the decisions made by citizen majorities in order to prevent them from oppressing minorities.
While the democratically elected American Congress operates under the same democratic principle of ‘majority rule’ that parliamentary democracies do, thanks to the separation of powers the separately elected American President still has the power to prevent legislation approved by a majority of members of Congress from becoming law. As a result, the political party with a majority in Congress cannot pass new laws or change existing ones without the consent of the President. The majority political party can more easily pass laws when the President is a member of the same party, but in practice the President is quite often a member of the minority party.
However, there have also been times in America’s history when both Congress and the President have approved of laws or refused to change laws that infringed on the rights of individuals or groups that were a part of the electoral minority. In these instances, laws that had the support of the majority of citizens were challenged by those in the minority and subsequently rejected by judges who were members of America’s independently appointed judicial system.
But America isn’t unique in having a politically independent judiciary that protects the rights of minorities since this is a defining characteristic of many parliamentary democracies. My concern is that with no judicial institutions to protect the rights of minorities, the flowers of freedom that bloomed during the ‘Arab Spring’ will be trampled by the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
What do Americans want their government to do
The Bigger Picture
Published on September 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed my last column by observing that Congressional Republicans are putting their selfish personal political interests ahead of their country by pandering to no-compromise Tea Party activists in order to get re-elected. However, Republicans in Congress are not the only ones pandering to narrow minded, right wing interest groups in a bid to win elections. Almost all of the Republican Presidential candidates are also tripping over each other in an effort to appease Tea Party members as well as Christian fundamentalists. So what does this mean going forward?
In the more distant future, the impact is positive because it means the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate will in all likelihood endorse public policies and ideological positions that appeal to the extremist elements that currently control the Republican Party. However, as a consequence, American voters will also have a clear choice between either voting for a backward looking Republican Presidential candidate with a right wing political agenda or voting to re-elect a Democratic President with a much more forward looking and centrist legislative program.
Unfortunately the near term effect is decidedly negative because it means the partisan political paralysis in Washington DC, which almost lead to a historic default on America’s debt, will continue for at least another 18 months. With a national election looming, Republican candidates, whether they are running for Congress or for President, will be loathe to compromise with their Democratic counterparts on legislation that will address America’s anemic economic recovery and stubbornly high unemployment or the country’s bloated federal budget deficit.
Furthermore, even after the 2012 elections, any real action on these issues will still be contingent on the results of those elections. I believe Standard & Poor’s cut America’s AAA debt rating because its analysts agree with me that Republicans will not be able to win both the 2012 Presidential election and the 60 seats in the Senate they need so they will no longer have to compromise with Democrats after 2012. Given the fact that Republicans are unlikely to compromise regardless of the 2012 election results, a political solution for America’s debt problems also appears to be unlikely for at least one or two more election cycles.
Granted, as a part of the ‘deal’ Congressional Republicans and Democrats made with President Obama in order to avoid a bond default, a Congressional ‘Supercommittee’ will be created this month to decide by November 23 how America will cut more than $1.2 trillion of its debt. But given the Republican Party’s unwillingness to compromise, I seriously doubt that the 6 Republican and 6 Democratic members of this ‘Supercommittee’ will ever be able to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget cuts. Furthermore, even if they do reach an agreement by 23 November, both the Democratic controlled Senate and the Republican led House of Representatives will debate the ‘Supercommittee’s recommendations until Christmas or well into the New Year.
But the ‘Supercommittee’s’ budget cuts really only address the federal budget deficit over the next decade. In the meantime, Congress still has to approve the budget for the upcoming 2012 fiscal year which begins in October. Since Congress didn’t approve the 2011 budget until April of this year due to Republican intransigence, it is likely we will see more partisan political wrangling and the possibility of another government shutdown just in time for Christmas.
If the ‘Supercommittee’ is unable to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget cuts or if Congress does not approve the cuts it recommends, this will trigger automatic budget cuts for all US domestic programs as well as for the Defense Department. But as Standard & Poor’s noted, they downgraded America’s AAA debt rating because these cuts don’t demonstrate any significant progress by America’s dysfunctional Republican Party towards balancing America’s books.
So it will be up to America’s voters to decide what our government’s role in stimulating the economy and protecting the needs of its citizens should be when the cast their votes in 2012. I remain cautiously optimistic that they will choose more wisely than they did in 2010.
Published on September 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
I closed my last column by observing that Congressional Republicans are putting their selfish personal political interests ahead of their country by pandering to no-compromise Tea Party activists in order to get re-elected. However, Republicans in Congress are not the only ones pandering to narrow minded, right wing interest groups in a bid to win elections. Almost all of the Republican Presidential candidates are also tripping over each other in an effort to appease Tea Party members as well as Christian fundamentalists. So what does this mean going forward?
In the more distant future, the impact is positive because it means the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate will in all likelihood endorse public policies and ideological positions that appeal to the extremist elements that currently control the Republican Party. However, as a consequence, American voters will also have a clear choice between either voting for a backward looking Republican Presidential candidate with a right wing political agenda or voting to re-elect a Democratic President with a much more forward looking and centrist legislative program.
Unfortunately the near term effect is decidedly negative because it means the partisan political paralysis in Washington DC, which almost lead to a historic default on America’s debt, will continue for at least another 18 months. With a national election looming, Republican candidates, whether they are running for Congress or for President, will be loathe to compromise with their Democratic counterparts on legislation that will address America’s anemic economic recovery and stubbornly high unemployment or the country’s bloated federal budget deficit.
Furthermore, even after the 2012 elections, any real action on these issues will still be contingent on the results of those elections. I believe Standard & Poor’s cut America’s AAA debt rating because its analysts agree with me that Republicans will not be able to win both the 2012 Presidential election and the 60 seats in the Senate they need so they will no longer have to compromise with Democrats after 2012. Given the fact that Republicans are unlikely to compromise regardless of the 2012 election results, a political solution for America’s debt problems also appears to be unlikely for at least one or two more election cycles.
Granted, as a part of the ‘deal’ Congressional Republicans and Democrats made with President Obama in order to avoid a bond default, a Congressional ‘Supercommittee’ will be created this month to decide by November 23 how America will cut more than $1.2 trillion of its debt. But given the Republican Party’s unwillingness to compromise, I seriously doubt that the 6 Republican and 6 Democratic members of this ‘Supercommittee’ will ever be able to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget cuts. Furthermore, even if they do reach an agreement by 23 November, both the Democratic controlled Senate and the Republican led House of Representatives will debate the ‘Supercommittee’s recommendations until Christmas or well into the New Year.
But the ‘Supercommittee’s’ budget cuts really only address the federal budget deficit over the next decade. In the meantime, Congress still has to approve the budget for the upcoming 2012 fiscal year which begins in October. Since Congress didn’t approve the 2011 budget until April of this year due to Republican intransigence, it is likely we will see more partisan political wrangling and the possibility of another government shutdown just in time for Christmas.
If the ‘Supercommittee’ is unable to agree on $1.2 trillion in budget cuts or if Congress does not approve the cuts it recommends, this will trigger automatic budget cuts for all US domestic programs as well as for the Defense Department. But as Standard & Poor’s noted, they downgraded America’s AAA debt rating because these cuts don’t demonstrate any significant progress by America’s dysfunctional Republican Party towards balancing America’s books.
So it will be up to America’s voters to decide what our government’s role in stimulating the economy and protecting the needs of its citizens should be when the cast their votes in 2012. I remain cautiously optimistic that they will choose more wisely than they did in 2010.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Republicans Put Re-election Ahead of Their Country
The Bigger Picture
Published on August 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I accused Republicans of ‘kicking the can down the road’ by using a bit of legislative sleight of hand to allow an increase in America’s debt ceiling without agreeing to a plan to address the deficit.
While I applaud the fact that cooler heads within the Republican ranks were able to come up with a way to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a bond default, I nonetheless condemn Republicans for their failure to embrace a plan to take action on the ballooning federal budget deficit in conjunction with raising America’s debt ceiling. By failing to act responsibly to address the budget deficit Republicans in the US House of Representatives have shown that their real priority is getting re-elected rather than doing what is best for their country.
On the other hand, in the US Senate a coalition of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats put partisan politics aside and drafted a very pragmatic agreement which used a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to cut the current 14 trillion dollar deficit by more than 4 trillion dollars over the next decade. The Senators used the recommendations of President Obama’s bi-partisan deficit reduction panel as a blueprint for developing their own plan to address the nation’s budget deficit while protecting America’s social welfare programs.
In contrast to the uncompromising ‘no tax increases’ stance of House Republicans, Republican Senators agreed with their Democratic Party counterparts that an increase in taxes was an essential part of any practical plan to cut the nation’s deficit. However, the Senate Republicans did not endorse President Obama’s proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans making over $250,000 per year expire in 2013. Instead they proposed to raise over one trillion dollars in new tax revenues by drastically changing the US tax code.
The US Senate plan proposes to raise tax revenues by eliminating almost all of the current tax deductions and subsidies and then lowering tax rates for all levels of household income. In turn, middle class and lower income households would see their taxes reduced or remain the same while wealthier Americans would see their taxes rise even though their tax rate was lowered because they are the primary beneficiaries of the current tax deductions.
The Senate plan also addresses the deficiencies in the America’s entitlement programs which are the biggest contributor to the budget deficit. The Senators would shore up America’s retiree healthcare program by using means tests and other cost saving measures to cut Medicare costs and would change the way cost of living increases are computed, increase contributions and raise the retirement age in order to ensure that the Social Security program remains self supporting for the next 75 years. The plan would also cut spending by eliminating agricultural and ethanol subsidies and by trimming the budgets of all federal agencies including the budget of the Republican Party’s most sacred cow; the US Defense Department.
Both the Senate and President Obama’s proposals to reduce America’s budget deficit rightly spread the pain of spending cuts and tax increases across all segments of American society. But both plans also lean heavily on spending cuts rather than tax increases to close the budget gap with roughly 85% of the measures reducing expenditures and only 15% raising taxes. As such one would think Republicans would be happy to accept such a tax friendly compromise.
So why do House Republicans refuse to compromise and accept some small tax increases as part of a deal to cut the budget deficit and raise the debt ceiling? Do they really think Republicans will win both the 2012 Presidential election and the 60 seats in the Senate they need so they will no longer have to compromise with Democrats after 2012? No. Congressional Republicans are putting their selfish personal political interests ahead of their country by pandering to no-compromise Tea Party activists in order to get re-elected.
Published on August 15th 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I accused Republicans of ‘kicking the can down the road’ by using a bit of legislative sleight of hand to allow an increase in America’s debt ceiling without agreeing to a plan to address the deficit.
While I applaud the fact that cooler heads within the Republican ranks were able to come up with a way to raise the debt ceiling and avoid a bond default, I nonetheless condemn Republicans for their failure to embrace a plan to take action on the ballooning federal budget deficit in conjunction with raising America’s debt ceiling. By failing to act responsibly to address the budget deficit Republicans in the US House of Representatives have shown that their real priority is getting re-elected rather than doing what is best for their country.
On the other hand, in the US Senate a coalition of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats put partisan politics aside and drafted a very pragmatic agreement which used a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to cut the current 14 trillion dollar deficit by more than 4 trillion dollars over the next decade. The Senators used the recommendations of President Obama’s bi-partisan deficit reduction panel as a blueprint for developing their own plan to address the nation’s budget deficit while protecting America’s social welfare programs.
In contrast to the uncompromising ‘no tax increases’ stance of House Republicans, Republican Senators agreed with their Democratic Party counterparts that an increase in taxes was an essential part of any practical plan to cut the nation’s deficit. However, the Senate Republicans did not endorse President Obama’s proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans making over $250,000 per year expire in 2013. Instead they proposed to raise over one trillion dollars in new tax revenues by drastically changing the US tax code.
The US Senate plan proposes to raise tax revenues by eliminating almost all of the current tax deductions and subsidies and then lowering tax rates for all levels of household income. In turn, middle class and lower income households would see their taxes reduced or remain the same while wealthier Americans would see their taxes rise even though their tax rate was lowered because they are the primary beneficiaries of the current tax deductions.
The Senate plan also addresses the deficiencies in the America’s entitlement programs which are the biggest contributor to the budget deficit. The Senators would shore up America’s retiree healthcare program by using means tests and other cost saving measures to cut Medicare costs and would change the way cost of living increases are computed, increase contributions and raise the retirement age in order to ensure that the Social Security program remains self supporting for the next 75 years. The plan would also cut spending by eliminating agricultural and ethanol subsidies and by trimming the budgets of all federal agencies including the budget of the Republican Party’s most sacred cow; the US Defense Department.
Both the Senate and President Obama’s proposals to reduce America’s budget deficit rightly spread the pain of spending cuts and tax increases across all segments of American society. But both plans also lean heavily on spending cuts rather than tax increases to close the budget gap with roughly 85% of the measures reducing expenditures and only 15% raising taxes. As such one would think Republicans would be happy to accept such a tax friendly compromise.
So why do House Republicans refuse to compromise and accept some small tax increases as part of a deal to cut the budget deficit and raise the debt ceiling? Do they really think Republicans will win both the 2012 Presidential election and the 60 seats in the Senate they need so they will no longer have to compromise with Democrats after 2012? No. Congressional Republicans are putting their selfish personal political interests ahead of their country by pandering to no-compromise Tea Party activists in order to get re-elected.
Legislative Sleight of Hand
The Bigger Picture
Published on August 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I discussed some of the misconceptions Tea Party activists and the ‘debtors’ have regarding raising America’s debt ceiling. But what dismays me even more is the fact that the Republican Majority leader, Eric Cantor, and the Republicans in Congress who are catering to these anti-tax right wing voters, refuse to challenge the ‘debtors’ utterly false notions.
The US Chamber of Commerce, a frequent foe of many of President Obama’s legislative proposals, as well as many American CEOs have spent much of the past year holding numerous educational meetings with members of Congress who are opposed to raising the debt ceiling. In these meetings they have repeatedly warned lawmakers of the adverse impact a US Treasury bond ‘default’ will have on America’s deficit as well as both the American and global economy.
More specifically, they have warned Congress that failing to raise America’s debt ceiling will not only lead to an increase in the interest America pays on its future bonds, but that these increased interest payments will also add to America’s budget deficit rather than reduce it. They have also warned legislators that an increase in the interest rate for US Treasury bonds, also known as ‘T-bills’, will do serious damage to America’s still fragile economic recovery.
This is due to the fact that the interest rates consumers pay for auto and home loans as well as their credit cards is tied to the interest rate paid on T-bills. Furthermore, the ripple effect of an increase in T-bill interest rates also extends to the interest rates businesses pay on the bank loans they use to finance their businesses as well as the corporate bonds they issue to finance expansions of their business operations. These higher interest rates have a chilling effect on the American economy because they leave consumers and businesses with less money to spend.
Economists from across the political spectrum have warned that a Treasury bond default will probably push the American and global economy back into a recession since the resulting higher interest rates act like a tax increase. Higher interest charges amount to a tax increase for American consumers and businesses with outstanding loans because they reduce the amount of money available to purchase goods and services as well as the money available to pay wages.
While the rise of developing economies in China and India has reduced the world’s reliance on the American economy as the sole engine of global economic growth, the fact remains that the American economy is still the world’s largest economy. America is not only China and India’s largest trading partner; it is also the largest or second largest destination for exports from the EU and Japan as well as many other developed and developing countries. As such, when America sneezes (economically), the rest of the world still catches a nasty cold.
Despite the pleas of economists and business executives to Republicans in the House of Representatives that they stop playing Russian Roulette with the American and global economy by refusing to raise America’s debt ceiling, lawmakers like Eric Cantor persist in doing so. They also know full well that more than 60% of America’s current debt bill is due to budget deficits Republicans ran up during better economic times to finance things like tax cuts for wealthier Americans, a prescription drug benefit for American retirees and the Iraq war.
Fortunately for holders of American bonds, less ideological Republicans have crafted a compromise measure to avoid a bond ‘default’. Thanks to a bit of legislative sleight of hand, Republicans in Congress will appease their Tea Party activists by voting against an increase in the debt ceiling. This will make President Obama solely responsible for increasing America’s debt ceiling when he vetoes their bill. Unfortunately, this bit of legislative trickery also means Republicans have decided to kick the can down the road when it comes to dealing with America’s budget deficit.
Published on August 1st 2011 in Metro Éireann By Charles Laffiteau
In my last column I discussed some of the misconceptions Tea Party activists and the ‘debtors’ have regarding raising America’s debt ceiling. But what dismays me even more is the fact that the Republican Majority leader, Eric Cantor, and the Republicans in Congress who are catering to these anti-tax right wing voters, refuse to challenge the ‘debtors’ utterly false notions.
The US Chamber of Commerce, a frequent foe of many of President Obama’s legislative proposals, as well as many American CEOs have spent much of the past year holding numerous educational meetings with members of Congress who are opposed to raising the debt ceiling. In these meetings they have repeatedly warned lawmakers of the adverse impact a US Treasury bond ‘default’ will have on America’s deficit as well as both the American and global economy.
More specifically, they have warned Congress that failing to raise America’s debt ceiling will not only lead to an increase in the interest America pays on its future bonds, but that these increased interest payments will also add to America’s budget deficit rather than reduce it. They have also warned legislators that an increase in the interest rate for US Treasury bonds, also known as ‘T-bills’, will do serious damage to America’s still fragile economic recovery.
This is due to the fact that the interest rates consumers pay for auto and home loans as well as their credit cards is tied to the interest rate paid on T-bills. Furthermore, the ripple effect of an increase in T-bill interest rates also extends to the interest rates businesses pay on the bank loans they use to finance their businesses as well as the corporate bonds they issue to finance expansions of their business operations. These higher interest rates have a chilling effect on the American economy because they leave consumers and businesses with less money to spend.
Economists from across the political spectrum have warned that a Treasury bond default will probably push the American and global economy back into a recession since the resulting higher interest rates act like a tax increase. Higher interest charges amount to a tax increase for American consumers and businesses with outstanding loans because they reduce the amount of money available to purchase goods and services as well as the money available to pay wages.
While the rise of developing economies in China and India has reduced the world’s reliance on the American economy as the sole engine of global economic growth, the fact remains that the American economy is still the world’s largest economy. America is not only China and India’s largest trading partner; it is also the largest or second largest destination for exports from the EU and Japan as well as many other developed and developing countries. As such, when America sneezes (economically), the rest of the world still catches a nasty cold.
Despite the pleas of economists and business executives to Republicans in the House of Representatives that they stop playing Russian Roulette with the American and global economy by refusing to raise America’s debt ceiling, lawmakers like Eric Cantor persist in doing so. They also know full well that more than 60% of America’s current debt bill is due to budget deficits Republicans ran up during better economic times to finance things like tax cuts for wealthier Americans, a prescription drug benefit for American retirees and the Iraq war.
Fortunately for holders of American bonds, less ideological Republicans have crafted a compromise measure to avoid a bond ‘default’. Thanks to a bit of legislative sleight of hand, Republicans in Congress will appease their Tea Party activists by voting against an increase in the debt ceiling. This will make President Obama solely responsible for increasing America’s debt ceiling when he vetoes their bill. Unfortunately, this bit of legislative trickery also means Republicans have decided to kick the can down the road when it comes to dealing with America’s budget deficit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
