The Gazette Opinion StaffOpinion Page Editor, The Gazette |
|
Email the author
Obama’s ideology, failures are linked
Charles Krauthammer’s Aug. 12 piece “The case against re-election,” cogently lays out two potent strategies for guiding the GOP campaign to unseat the current U.S. president. One is to capitalize on the president’s spectacularly unsuccessful effort to end the nation’s economic stagnation. The other is to attack his ideological tunnel vision.
Krauthammer couches his discussion as an either-or proposition. I suggest that the two arguments actually dovetail with each other. The president’s accomplishments fall far short of satisfactory because of his flawed philosophy of governance. The Republicans could handily impale him on this connection.
The Associated Press reports this as the weakest economic recovery since the 1930s. While the recession did begin during the previous administration, candidate Obama was presented to the electorate as an over-hyped superhero with vast powers to heal and restore. What has followed since the inauguration, however, is a series of spastic and incomprehensible big government spending stunts, nightmarish regulatory expansion, and a specter of paralyzing tax increases. The president’s obsessive and toxic war on the wealthy — the producers, the job creators — can only perpetuate this paralysis.
All this was foreseeable in 2009 as the administration began unrolling its naive and gimmick-riddled program. It is this jarring disconnect between presidential promise and presidential attainment, underscored by an obvious witlessness of economic fundamentals, that provides the GOP a fertile field to link Obama’s ideology to his consequent failures.
Dale Fitzgibbons
Cedar Rapids
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Mr. or Ms. Fitzgibbons, I think it’s a lot simpler than that.
First of all, Charles Krauthammer is one of the least reliable pundit around today—of whatever political persuasion. There are several others, again of whatever political persuasion, who are equally preposterous.
Second, the Republican plan for overthrowing Mr. Obama has been transparent since the day the president was inaugurated, if not the day after he was ekected:
1. Do everything possible to prevent an economic recovery.
2. Wait for the 2012 presidential election.
3. Run a campaign based on a bad economy, and blame the president for the economic woes.
Some Republican leaders in and out of Congress have been very clear on this strategy since at least 2009. None will admit that their economic policies dating back more than 30 years had anything to do with causing the American economy to crash in 2008.
John as usual your comments make nune sense. The GOP has deflected as much spending, debt and bad policy whenever possible. Obama has been President for 3+ years and his campighn is to pretend his actual record doesn’t matter. Obama asked to be leader thanb then spend the past few years campaigning – - waiting for the next election.
Whatever, Mr. Ellis. That’s certainly what the record shows.
Care to provide documentation?
Mr Ellis,
There’s no point in providing documentation . You wouldn’t believe it. But just for the record, here it is
“Speaking with National Journal magazine about Republican Party priorities for the 2008-2010 Congress, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explained that ‘the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president’.”
Louisville Courier Journal, Editorial “McConnell’s True Colors” Nov 12 2010.
This has been out there, wide open, for the last two years. Wherre have you been?
And while we’re at it, Mr Ellis, Obama’s wild spending spree is pure fiction
“Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.”
“Obama spending binge never happened” Rex Nutting, Market Watch Wall St Journal, 5/22/12
And if, Mr Ellis, last summer’s Congressional standoff with regard to the debt ceiling is any example of the GOP deflecting “as much spending, debt and bad policy whenever possible”, then you, and they, are out of your ever loving minds
Gladly, Mr. Ellis!
Ms. Bell has provided some excellent sources, and I’m certain you will follow up by reading them. In addition, I suggest you read Robert Draper’s non-judgmental and unbiased book “Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives.” If you’re too lazy to go to the library and read a book, you can get the gist of the January 20, 2009 meeting of Republican movers and shakers in this article from the Daily Kos last April: http://tinyurl.com/7yzmdyg
or this from San Stein’s HuffPost blog last June: http://tinyurl.com/6qja37v
These two sources are, of course, not unbiased, but they also summarize Mr. Draper’s investigations well. If you want the whole annotated story, read the book.
There are many other examples in this Congress, since the Republicans have been able to filibuster to block legislation, and the House has been in Republican hands since 2010. I’m sure you do not want an exhaustive list of executive proposals this Congress has blocked—but there are many.
Another example is the ACA, most of which is based on Republican proposals from the 1990s, but, because it was passed by a Congress led by Democrats and signed by Mr. Obama, has become a lightning rod for Republican shouts of derision (most of them foolish, and many of them conscious lies).
And they yelled and cussed in public and waited for 2012—which is now.
Now they’re running on an agenda that claims the present administration created our economic problems.
If you need more documentation, please don’t hesitate to ask. There’s plenty of it!
Thanks for asking!
Roberta: To say that there was not a spending spree under Obama….or Bush…is pure bunk propaganda. America is technically broke and Obama is escalating the spending in the years to come with various entitlements the country can’t fund in the current or near future economy.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
From your very own source, Mr. Ahart:
“Since fiscal 2009, however, it cannot be denied that spending has increased only modestly. Total federal outlays actually went down 1.7 percent in fiscal 2010, for example, then rose a little more than 4 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Spending was projected by CBO to rise less than 1 percent in fiscal 2012. In fact, CBO reported on May 7 in its most recent monthly budget report that spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year was 3.4 percent below the same period a year ago. That was mostly due to differences in timing of certain payments, but even adjusting for those, CBO figured spending is 0.8 percent lower so far this year.
“Update, June 7: A new CBO monthly report, issued after this article was posted, showed outlays for the first eight months of the fiscal year running 1.2 percent higher than the same period a year earlier, after adjusting for timing of payments and also after taking account of an unusual adjustment to TARP outlays booked in May 2011. The June 7 CBO report thus shows fiscal 2012 spending to be on track to increase only slightly for the full fiscal year ending Sept. 30.
“But CBO also projected on June 5 that by the end of the year, due to the continued mismatch between outlays and receipts, “the federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest percentage since shortly after World War II.”
“All of the yearly changes under Obama are well below the 7 percent average annual increase under Bush prior to fiscal 2009. And in that year — for which we assign most of the increase to Bush — the rise amounted to a staggering 17.9 percent.”
In other words, it’s Dubya who busted the bank, and President Obama who’s trying to reverse the flow. Add to that the loss of income caused by Dubya’s Depression and his tax cuts, and we’ve got a problem. And, yes, I’m blaming Dubya, because that’s where the blame belongs.
And Nunn: I’ve also printed this more than once…..so “rock on” and weep. Read it well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/university-of-colorado-pr_n_1822933.html
With 50 trillion in “unfunded entitlements” between the states and federal government regarding retirement benefits….mostly creations of the liberal left over several decades….. just how much longer do you think this silly little charade is going to last??????????????? That’s just the beginning. Why we won’t even mention the growing list of cities, towns, and states under Dem control that are in, or about to declare bankruptcy.
I’m not so uninformed nor so illiterate as you may think, Mr. Ahart. I read your HuffPost article over coffee this morning.
The two professors are welcome to their models, but such predictions are a dime a dozen. Some of them this morning show a post-convention bump for the Republicans. Some are projecting an Obama win, and some a Romney win.
To be honest, I don’t place much faith in such predictions. I prefer to believe the projections of the ballot box, and that won’t take place until November.
But by all means, whoop it up if that makes you feel good!
Oh–and rock on!
Mr Fitzgibbons, explain please, just what is Preseident Obama’s philosophy of governance.
If your only answer is “series of spastic and incomprehensible big government spending stunts, nightmarish regulatory expansion, and a specter of paralyzing tax increases”, then you are either hideously misled or you are lying.
There has not been an excessive regulatory expansion nor paralyzing tax increases. And as for the big government spending stunts, I assume you mean the stimulus spending that saved the American auto industry and jumped started recovery which would have continued at a faster pace if it weren’t for Republicans in Congress with their just say no to everything and throwing both the government and the economy into virtual paralysis.
Republicans have nothing to offer except more of the same that got us into this mess in the first place
Just how stupid do Republicans think the rest of us are
“Mr Fitzgibbons, explain please, just what is Preseident Obama’s philosophy of governance.”
Apologize for America, spend like a sailor adrift in tax-payer money, stop energu exploration on government lands and restrict enrgy development under the EPA, divide the country along racial lines, gender lines, religious lines and along any line he thinks will engender his re-election.
He hasn’t saved the auto industry – he gave his union buddies a free gift and GM is teetoring. At the same time he raped the bond holders, deprived 20,000 Delphi employees from their pensions and destroyed thousands of jobs and auto dealerships. Tell the whole story.
There is no leadership coming from Obama. It took him more than a year before he even met with the GOP congressional leadership. It’s very hard to stand in Obama’s way when he is flying around the country in Air Force One and campaigning.
“Just how stupid do Republicans think the rest of us are”
Obviously you are uninformed and listening only to those who are trying to re-elect Obama.
Mr Ellis,
I asked Mr Fitzgibbons to explain what he thought Obama’s philosophy of governance was, not you.
And besides, you have explained anything. You’ve just dumped a litany of complaints
Talk about a load of meadow muffins!
“. . . toxic war on the wealthy . . . ” If Obama is indeed waging such a war just where is the evidence he’s winning ? Isn’t the wealth gap between the rich and the rest of the population continuing to widen ? Hardly an example of a successful war ! (Just another outlandish statement.appealing to emotion and not to reason.)
70 Percent of the U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan, now over 2,000, have been since Obama took office. This war is owned by the current occupant of the White House, and where is the outrage? This is one statistic that he cannot blame on the previous administration. But he DOES own the current economy. It’s hard for some to admit they made a grave error back in 2008 after seeing the results of their choice.
I’m sure that’s true about the military deaths in Afghanistan though perhaps it wouldn’t have been if we had maintained focus on the ones who attacked us instead of breaking up nearly a world-wide coalition to get the terrorists. It’s kind of understandable why they did it, they recognized fighting in Afghanistan was going to take years with few quick victories to parade in the press. Iraq was seen to be an easy target that would bring the headlines they wanted, a quick mission accomplished. It’s a good thing the war in Afghanistan is owned by this administration since the previous one saw fit to seek headlines rather then results.
Also, the natural result of war is death and lots of it, not to mention maimed bodies and minds. If you don’t like the deaths in Afghanistan remember when you vote which party prefers military action over sanctions, the repub convention should have pointed that out. If along with Afghanistan you want our troops fighting in Iran, Syria, and from the sound of some of the speeches renewing our cold war with Russia then by all means vote the repub ticket. Btw: I voted Bush the first time and supported him till he started creating the fictional case for attacking Iraq.
Obama does own the current economy which despite partisan efforts to slow it down is much better then it was in 2008, anyone who thinks we are worse off now has some serious memory problems.
If any of this hooey about President Obama is true (most of it is not) the Republicans still lack a critical component for beating President Obama in November, a credible alternative.
Romney and Ryan offer an economic plan that simply makes no sense and is completely unrealistic. I still challenge anyone to provide a realistic and rational explanation of how large tax cuts for the rich, tax increases for everyone else and severe spending cuts that hurt the poor will cause the economy to prosper.
It is estimated that the Ryan budget would cost over 4 million jobs in the first 2 years
http://www.epi.org/blog/paul-ryan-budget-discretionary-cuts-cost-jobs/
How does cutting 4 million jobs help the economy? Seriously, I want someone to explain this.
Why hasn’t Romney provided any detailed explanation of how his plan will work? Could it be that it will not work?
Rich, you have asked and asked over the last weeks for someone to explain how the Romney job creation plan will work. Still no answer. Just a shift of topic.
I would also like someone to explain to me the “specter of paralyzing tax increases” that have come from Obama and the “nightmarish regulatory expansion” that has occurred.
Terry no one is going to bother to explain something that you would understand if you paid attention. The comment that “no one has explained it” is simply a ploy to deflect the obvious. You’re not interested in Economics 101 or the facts of the current fiscal situation. Based on just those facts Romney’s plan is the opposite of Obama’s:
- Stop spending money we don’t have.
- Reform tax policy to make America competitive and to incentivize Americans to build business and create jobs.
- Reform entitlements so they can survive in the future.
- Bring Americans together instead of dividing America as Obama does.
- Take advantage of American energy reserves to enhance the the economy, produce jobs and eliminate funding terrorists.
- Stop the government from passing oppressive regulation like Dodd-Frank and the EPA rules on electric generation.
- Stop government from oppressing religious freedom under the guise of healthcare.
- Replace Obamacare with something that will preserve Medicare and make healthcare economic and sustainable.
The majority of Americans have lost hope in this President and realized the changes he brings are not what we hoped for.
Let’s just take your first bullet. To say “stop spending we do not have” is a meaningless statement until you specify what you are going to cut. Romney has not done that and you have not done that.
Gary, I have taught Econ 101 and I understand it. There is nothing close to Econ 101 in your answer. Please explain how cutting government spending to 20% of GDP is going to improve our employment. Or how any of those other “fairy dust” answers will help employment.
I have my doubts that Romney/The Party will ever provide a detailed plan but rather just rely on “we’ll do different than Obama and we’ll be a success — trust us”. That and a vague implication that they will turn back the clock and make American and the World what it was may be enough. If it is they’ll likely soon find they’ve inherited the wind of times that have changed and there’s no going back. Sooner or later reality wins.
I hope you enjoy the Democratic Party convention. It won’e be about:
- How I lead the country to a better economy,
- Or how I supported Red States and Blues states while the DOJ sues everyone they can,
- Or about transparency in how Obamacare was passed and how Obamacare is full of sweetheart deals picking some Americans as winners and some asd losers,
- Or how they oppress the religious
No the Democratic convention will be an orgy of smear, half truths and innuendos with no one behind them. I will be interested in what little you can find that will be positive and uplifting.
Who is “they”, and how exactly are they oppressing the religious?
As we all know, Mr. Stutler, Mr. Ellis lives in a parallel universe and receives definitive information through his tinfoil hat. He is very long on assertions, and almost always very short on documentation. I’m beginning to think he seldom understands what he’s complaining about.
“Mr. Ellis lives in a parallel universe and receives definitive information through his tinfoil hat.”
Liberal response John – have no way to respond to the specifics so you immediately go with ad hominen attacks.
“He is very long on assertions, and almost always very short on documentation”
I provided a basis – you did not.
“I’m beginning to think he seldom understands what he’s complaining about.”
I bet thinking is a new experience. Perhaps eventually you will also be able to reason and discuss an issue without resorting to personal attacks.
Perhaps you’d care to exercise your great powers and provide something specific besides a smear.
The basis, Mr. Ellis, is in the bullet points you provided in your commentary, each of which is a jump to a conclusion on your part (since all occur in the future), and each of which is completely without substantiation of any sort. It is your usual approach to these matters. Thus I stand by my comments.
Oh—and you might note that when you have requested that I provide substantiation, I have done so gladly and, as quickly as I read your comments, expeditiously. Can you say the same? I thought not…
They is the Obama administration forcing religious institutions to pay for abortions and contraceptions that they oppose is oppression.
Mr Ellis,
We are talking about standards for employer provided health insurance. Churches, temples, synagogues, mosques et al are exempt. Institutions, like hospitals, affiliated with various religions but serving a seculalr purpose are not.
Employers cannot impose their religious beliefs on their employees. First Amendment protections with regard to freedom of religion apply to everyone