Lately I've been very critical of our Democratic Congress and President Obama. With a new progressive President and huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a public that wanted change, liberals had a right to be optimistic. Since then we've had little to feel good about.
My gut feeling is that the Democratic House under Nancy Pelosi performed quite well, but the Senate under Harry Reid was so dysfunctional that in the end very little was accomplished. Some of this could have been avoided by strong leadership from the top but President Obama chose to stay above the frey and look bipartisan. I believe Obama's biggest mistake was the people he chose as advisers. If he's as smart as many believe, he will begin shedding these advisers and choosing better ones.
Of course these are my gut feelings, but I could be wrong (really?). When criticizing someone, however, it's only fair to let them defend themselves, so I'm encouraging everyone to read the President's interview with the NY Time's Peter Baker last week.
He makes some very good points, and there is no doubt the Democrats have accomplished a lot more than we give them credit for (because we were expecting so much more), but then obviously the administration didn't do a very good job touting these achievements to the voters, which is the responsibility of his advisers (I'm so glad to see Rahm go!!!!).
Here is the part of the interview I was most interested in:
On what issues he would be willing to tackle even if it meant being a one-term president:
...[o]ne last issue that obviously is going to be overriding is going to be debt and deficits, ... the big debate that we’re going to have to have as a country is what is important enough to us that we’re willing to pay for it — and then who pays for it? I think Social Security is important and we have to pay for it. I think Medicare is important and we have to pay for it. I think both programs can be more efficient, but I think those provide a core safety net to the American people. I think that our investments in education are absolutely critical to our long-term economic health.
I think we have to have infrastructure that keeps up with the demands of the 21st century. We can’t have a China that has the best airports, the best railways, the best roads, and we are still relying on infrastructure that was built 200 years ago or 100 years ago or even 50 years ago when it comes to things like broadband lines.
I’m going to have to make an argument that if we say we revere our veterans, then when our veterans come home, we’ve got to pay for treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. We’ve got to pay for traumatic brain injury. And we’ve got to care for families who have lost a loved one. And all that stuff costs money.
And when you tally it all up, then it turns out that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. And one of the most frustrating things that I see in the political environment right now is the Republican Party is still selling this notion somehow that they can cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires and preserve things that they know poll well like Social Security and Medicare and veterans affairs and this and that and the other, and somehow they’re going to balance the budget.
We have not had a serious conversation about that since Bill Clinton was in office. It was a huge accomplishment of President Clinton’s. It required enormous courage. And I still don’t think he gets enough credit for that.
Now what’s going to make it even more difficult is the fact that he was able to balance the budget and achieve a surplus in the context of an economy that was growing fairly rapidly and that was coming out of a recession that was fairly shallow.
Trying to do this when the economy is still very weak and we lost 8 million jobs means that you’ve got to apply the brake and the accelerator at the same time, and that’s a tricky thing to pull off. [emphasis mine]
I'm very encouraged by the way he expresses this argument: what are the things important enough to us that we’re willing to pay for it — and then who pays for it? In a rational world this is what we should be debating, but I'm certain the Republicans will do everything they can to distort this to: we can no longer afford these things and it's unfair to tax hard-working Americans and give their money to those who should have planned their lives better and been more responsible. I suspect this is going to be a horrific battle.
I am encouraged by the examples Obama used as things he believes we need, and must pay for: Social Security, Medicare, education, improved infrastructure, and care for our veterans. I'm very worried about the increasingly shrill demands from the right that we must make drastic cuts to our entitlements. Entitlements can be made more efficient, but not until we significantly cut our military's budget, end the wars, reform farm subsidies, end the oil subsidies, etc. End the subsidies and tax breaks for the wealthy first, then take a look at entitlements.
I'm hoping Obama will make adjustments in the next two years based on the failures of the first two years, and that he will learn how to exploit the Republican's ignorance and obstinance to his advantage.
I'm still not optimistic. I still think the Democrats on the whole are hopeless as a party.
--Trakker
Comments