HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT OBAMA‘S ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

Elsewhere on this Blog, I have criticized President Obama for not trumpeting certain of his accomplishments in health care, the economy, and foreign policy.  However, his reticence does not restrain the rest of us.  In light of the refusal of the Congress to deal forthrightly with deficit reduction, we have to begin to point out what the President’s administration has done for us, sometimes with congressional backing, sometimes without their participation because of Congressional gridlock.  The 112th Congress (and perhaps the 111th as well, depending how you look at it) has failed miserably, even in mundane matters, mainly because the Republican Party has become captive to the policies and philosophy of the Tea Party represented in Congress by a do-nothing minority who have simply scared the Republican leadership with their intransigent no-taxes, no-more-spending mantras. 

It is no secret that the primary objective for the Tea Party, thus the Republican Party, is to defeat President Obama in November 2012 (don’t forget, the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell announced this as their priority), which explains why the Republicans have consistently supported rich power-brokers with their tax breaks and loopholes, de-regulation, and protections for the rich 1% of society.  No matter how you slice it, Republicans are not working for reform or citizen support; for fairness or justice.  They care nothing for these principles.

Their platform is one of cow-towing to the privileged in order to keep themselves in their positions as shills for the rich.  A large part of this is diminishment or destruction of all social welfare or entitlement programs for the broad middle class and the poor.  After all, 47% of the current members of Congress are millionaires!  They have partial control; they want more (i.e. the Senate and the Presidency).  Give it to them, and you will be in for the most overt and covert attack upon the middle class ever seen in this country.  If you don’t believe that, just look around at certain states where, under Republican Governors, you find the slashing of teachers, police, firemen, government workers, and of benefit programs for the poor and the middle class. 

So the time has come to understand why this 2012 election is about where you will end up if you fail to give Barack Obama another term, and equally important, if you don’t turn out of office the millionaires, the Tea Party, the radical Republicans, while maintaining a democratic Congress.  It’s time to talk about Obama administration accomplishments about which you may not have a lot of information.   

Let’s start with one of the bigger pieces of legislation that has drawn Republican ire and criticism:  the “bailout” or economic “stimulus package” (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) which the Republicans characterize as a “failure.”  Have they ever told you exactly what part of ARRA is a failure?  Just exactly what failed?  Don’t be bamboozled by the right-wing; they are (in)famous for their distortions and big lies repeated endlessly.

Did you know that the bill actually was constructed for “making supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009“?  More specifically, its purposes included:

(1) To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery.
(2) To assist those most impacted by the recession.
(3) To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health.
(4) To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.
(5) To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases.

Division A of the Act made appropriations to a broad number of departments and agencies of government to aid in this stated effort.  For instance, the Labor Department received $3.65 billion to use for adult employment and job training, for youth employment, for dislocated workers and their training, for a program of competitive grants for worker training and placement in high growth and emerging industry sectors, preparing workers for careers in energy efficiency and renewable energy and priority to projects that prepare workers for careers in the health care sector.  This careful targeting of money for particular areas of need is what characterizes this legislation throughout.

Did You Know that one-third of the $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts? Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000. (USA Today).

Did You Know that most of the stimulus money went to states to help with saving the jobs of teachers and police and other first responders?  And now we learn that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has revised the numbers of jobs saved, indicating that at least 5 million jobs were saved and that without the stimulus, the economy would have gotten much worse.  The non-political CBO has essentially vindicated the President’s stimulus program while Republicans continue their ill-informed and un-informed attacks on the stimulus as a “failure.”  It isn’t a failure; it is one of the many major accomplishments of the Obama administration!

In fact, according to the Liberal Examiner of Nov. 23, 2011:  “in the CBO report, ‘Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from July 2011 Through September 2011,’ a breakdown by year shows that the ARRA created or saved from 5 million to 25.4 million jobs from March 2009 through September 2011, as follows:

   2009:  a low estimate of .9 million jobs to a high estimate of 3.6 million jobs     2010:  a low estimate of 2.6 million jobs to a high estimate of 13.2 million jobs     2011:  a low estimate of 1.5 million jobs to a high estimate of 8.6 million jobs

“In addition, according to the CBO, the stimulus is expected to help create or save another .3 million to 2 million jobs in the fourth quarter of 2011, another .8 million to 4.6 million jobs in 2012.
“According to the CBO report, the ARRA contained programs designed to help the struggling economy on several levels by:
‘Providing funds to states and localities, for example, by raising federal matching rates under Medicaid, providing aid for education, and increasing financial support for some transportation projects;
Supporting people in need, such as by extending and expanding unemployment benefits and increasing benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly the Food Stamp program);
Purchasing goods and services, for instance, by funding construction and other investment activities that could take several years to complete;
Providing temporary tax relief for individuals and businesses, such as by raising exemption amounts for the alternative minimum tax, adding a new Making Work Pay tax credit, and creating enhanced deductions for depreciation of business equipment.’

“Through these actions, the ARRA resulted in the creation of millions of public sector jobs as well as millions of private sector jobs.  The bill also significantly helped to grow the ailing Gross Domestic Product, which would have remained in negative territory for a greater and more substantial amount of time without such aid.”

So there you have it.  Now what do we see happening?  Consider this gem from the Examiner of Nov. 10th:

“Increasingly frustrated by CBO analyses showing that the 2009 economic stimulus worked as designed, that the Paul Ryan GOP Medicare rationing plan would massively shift costs to seniors, that income inequality is at record levels and, most damning of all, the Affordable Care Act reduces the national debt, Republican leaders have slandered the agency's work as ‘smoke and mirrors’ and ‘budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline.’  Now in the latest escalation of the GOP's attack, former House Speaker and resurrected 2012 Republican presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, wants to abolish the CBO altogether.”

That’s exactly what we can expect from Republican ideologues: when facts go against them, they will lash out with lies, or distortions, or smears, or threats to abolish an offending agency or department.  No matter where you look -- from Newt Gingrich to Rick Perry to Mitt Romney to Eric Cantor to Mitch McConnell to Dick Armey to Grover Norquist to Rush Limbaugh -- you will find this same pattern.  The Republican radicals cannot stand criticism, facts, or Democrat success, especially when each refutes their cherished concepts and underlying assumptions.  More on Obama administration accomplishments next time.  

Disconnected Republicans

Recently, we spoke of a major disconnect between the Republicans in Congress and the reality of their constitutional responsibility, i.e. their control of the national purse strings.  Their attempts to blame others -- particularly the President -- for the national debt is simply misguided.  The Congress has the constitutional duty to appropriate taxpayer funds, with the proviso that they must use those funds to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.  The Executive is not given power over those purse strings.  The President cannot legislate nor can he appropriate funds; he cannot pay on the debt or borrow money or coin money unless directed to do so by legislation.  All of these responsibilities fall to the Congress in Article I of the Constitution. 

So, if we have a huge national debt, or expenditures that are out-of-control, or lack of adequate revenue, a bloated bureaucracy or loans from foreign countries like China, the Congress must bear the responsibility -- and blame -- for all of it!  The Congress has legislated it all -- they passed the bills that got us into the financial mess we are currently in.  No amount of political rhetoric can make this fact into fiction.  The Congress owns these problems, even if the bills they passed were recommended by the President.  Just as they legislated us into this mess, they must legislate the way out of it.  Unfortunately, their greatest disconnect is that they are acting as though they do not bear any responsibility for solving real national problems!

Let us take a look at some of the other problems that demand attention from the Congress, and at the same time note the disconnects that exist between reality (the facts) and what the Congress has created as the fiction (disconnect).  And, what better place to start than with a very obvious fact of modern life: there are not enough jobs available, unemployment is way too high and manufacturing jobs are moving overseas at an alarming rate.  Let’s take a brief look at some facts about this.

On Nov. 4th, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported:

--  Both the number of unemployed persons (13.9 million) and the unemployment rate (9.0 percent) changed little over the month. The unemployment rate has remained in a narrow range from 9.0 to 9.2 percent since April
--  Although employment in the private sector rose, with modest job growth continuing in professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, health care, and mining,  manufacturing employment changed little in October 2011 (+5,000) and has remained flat for 3 months. In October, a job gain in transportation equipment (+10,000) was partly offset by small losses in other manufacturing industries.
--  The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was 8.9 million in October. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.
-- In October, 2.6 million persons were “marginally attached” to the labor force, meaning that they wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months but were not in the labor force.
--  In October, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) stood at 5.9 million, or 42.4 percent of total unemployment.
--  In October,  no major private-sector industry stood out with significant employment changes over the month
-- Construction employment declined by 20,000 in October, largely offsetting an increase of 27,000 in September. Employment changes in both months were concentrated in nonresidential Construction
-- Government has lost 323,000 jobs over the past year.  In October, government jobs losses were concentrated in state government, excluding education, which lost 16,000 jobs as budgets remained tight.

It is also a fact that multi-national corporations almost uniformly report that their largest growth is in their foreign markets.  Companies on the S&P 500 generate 46% of their profits outside the U.S., and many, like Coca-Cola, report much larger foreign profit percentages (80% for Coke), with a larger percentage of employees in foreign countries.

It is more than fair to ask:  how do these statistics (facts) fit into the problem-solving that is needed from both the Executive and Legislative branches on the national level?  

Republicans say that one of the major problems we face is that taxes are too high on the “job creators” -- presumably those who are at the top of the income ladder, e.g. corporate CEOs.  Republicans claim that high tax rates prevent “job creators” from creating jobs because they lack confidence to innovate or invest, and therefore, they signed a pledge not to raise any taxes.  Secondly, they insist that over-regulation by government agencies contributes to this lack of confidence.  But this statement of the problems we face flies in the face of certain facts and statistics.  It is abundantly clear that the job creators are choosing to create jobs in foreign countries, not here, in spite of what the Republican presidential candidates claim for their plans to grow the economy.   It is also clear that corporations are sitting on almost $2 trillion in profits that they are not investing.

Problems should be defined carefully using facts and reputable studies (statistics, e.g.) to back up the definition of a particular problem.  When asked to identify the “job creators,” and the specific jobs the “creators” have created or will create, the silence is deafening.  When asked to identify the specific regulations that are preventing the creation of jobs, we are met with more silence, or the absence of specifics.  Instead, we are bombarded with agencies that should be “deep-sixed” like the EPA or FEMA or the Departments of Education, Commerce, and uh-h-h, um-m-m - that 3rd one -- ENERGY.  Not once have we been given specific facts or statistics that link job creators to job creation, or current taxes to lack of jobs, or regulatory agencies and specific regulations causing specific job reduction.  Where are the facts that link the claims to the realities?

Statistics indicate that one of our problems is that jobs are disappearing overseas.  Or, to put it another way, job creators are going where the biggest profits are.  They are going to developing countries who have the ability to offer all the things that corporations most desire: very low or no taxes; much lower wages; incentives to build; lack of regulations on safety and health; lack of unions; infrastructure creation; areas of growing consumerism, etc.  Thus, if the richest 1% are truly “job creators,” they are creating jobs elsewhere because that’s where the profits continue to be. 

So, one of the problems we have in reality is that certain jobs are not going to be retrieved from abroad, unless this country regresses to the status of a developing country willing to give the same huge favors to corporations -- lower taxes, very low wages, no unions, etc. -- as those entities now receive from the countries in which they exist.

Thus, it is necessary that we concentrate on creating new industries, new services, innovative processes.  Instead of concentrating on lower taxes for the richest 1%, we need to concentrate our efforts on how best government at all levels can work directly with innovators in such areas as alternative energies, bio-tech and computer science to move us forward into leadership in these areas.  Some of these businesses -- like the solar company Solyndra -- will not succeed but that is not a valid reason to back off such support.  It is my opinion that government needs to concentrate on creating immediate jobs, but at the same time, gather its resources to assist new businesses -- especially in high-tech areas -- to start-up and then to flourish.  This takes strategic planning, and must involve all agencies of government taking part in that Plan.

Another real problem we have is that of competition from everywhere in the world.  Therefore, we must raise education in this country to the highest possible level in order to provide a workforce with the highest skill sets for the new industries and processes that will save our economy and our society.  Instead, we find Republicans concentrating on the dubious solution of laying off teachers, refusing to improve school buildings, and downgrading the place of science in our lives.  Their rationale is that budget-cutting is more important than investment and that education is being compromised by teacher unions.  Of course, once again, we have been given no facts or statistics to back up these made-up problems.  This is simply political rhetoric designed to get them elected so they can control the purse strings at all levels of government.

Are you ready to face some more of the Republican disconnects?  Here are just a few to think about:

-- cutting back on research because of a suspicion of, and opposition to, scientific method and inquiry in a world that needs more scientists
-- cutting back on college grants, Pell grants, and tuition relief while the competitive world demands greater skills and more education
--  cutting Medicare and Medicaid at the same time that aged and disabled population is growing: baby boomers reaching 60-65.
--  decreasing school days and weeks; cutting back on federal grants to schools when new world demands world-class education
--  cutting school programs like art and music when it has been demonstrated that the effects of art and music on the brain are considerable, indicating that children with such influence also seem to do well in math and science.
-- claiming that job creation is their highest priority, they refuse to pass jobs & infrastructure bills, propose no solutions of their own, filibuster to death almost every part of the President’s jobs bill (except incentives to hire veterans), and through their Senate leader, admit that their top priority is to make President Obama a one-term president.

Finally, it is clear that because Republicans do not define problems in a specific, fact-supported manner, they end up wasting resources and energy on false or manufactured problems and their solutions.  This is the greatest disconnect of all: solutions offered for manufactured problems.  Take the country’s motto: is there evidence anywhere to show that this is a problem?  Hardly.  It’s a distraction; an attempt to distract people from their real concerns, such as the need for immediate jobs.  Another one: the bargaining rights of public employees: when did this become a real problem for the nation?  Republicans reply that it is costing taxpayers and the states a great deal.  But the evidence for such claims is refuted by the repudiation of this approach in Ohio, and the blow-back from taxpayers in other states.

And that brings us to the made-up problem of when life begins.  Is this a true problem for the citizens of the United States?  No; it is a problem for a minority of fanatics who think that their view is the only view to hold, and that they must make everyone else agree.  The defeat of the proposition on the ballot in Mississippi shows that even in conservative states, voters are basically opposed to the idea of the government defining life’s beginnings. 

Oh yes, and how about “ObamaCare?”  We have never been told specifically what is wrong with this legislation (except perhaps for the mandate that all must have insurance), nor have we been told what Republicans would put in its place.  Instead, we get made-up problems:  cuts to Medicare (I thought Republicans favored cuts to Medicare -- these cuts are mainly related to hospital administration and to subsidies for higher income folk); government control of the patient-doctor relationship (a totally bogus proposition since there is no data to indicate any change in such relationships); new taxes on employers (there are penalties or fees for both employers and individuals who fail to comply with mandated coverage, but nothing is said about the subsidies to individuals and tax credits for small businesses to assist with obtaining coverage). 

So it comes down to Republicans having ascribed a name to this legislation that raises the specter of a problem, but does not actually produce a defined problem backed-up by facts, statistics, studies, actual cases.  What most Republicans will never indicate is that millions of people - especially the young and the old -- have already benefited from initial changes made in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (there are more to come which will also be beneficial).  And, to their detriment, those benefits are going to keep growing and people who opposed the bill because they never knew of its benefits, are going to change their minds.  At that point, Republicans will reap the fruits of their lies, innuendos, and false claims.

That seems to be the modus operandi for Republicans: get people to believe there is a problem where none exists, and do not deal in facts, ever.  Republicans love to make-up problems that distract voters or that play well in elections.  Republicans have no ideas for solving real problems because they don’t define those problems accurately.  The more bamboozled people are -- especially independent voters -- the easier it is for Republicans to take advantage and to be elected.  This time around, their office-holding could be disastrous, just as it has been already in Wisconsin and Ohio and Florida.  Solving manufactured bogus problems is not what this country needs!

Republican Candidates for What?

Are you kidding me?  These are Presidential candidates?  The Republicans have lost their marbles in proposing any of these clowns as presidential timber.  The Presidential “debate” of Nov. 9th on economic matters reached an all-time low of disingenuousness and lack of specifics.

Take Herman Cain…please!  He blamed everyone but himself for the allegations of sexual harassment made against him.  And, to make matters worse, the audience booed the questioners and applauded his blaming of the media!  But that’s not the worst of it. 

He continued backing the absurd 9-9-9 Plan displaying an intransigence and lack of intelligence that is mind-boggling.  Perhaps the only saving grace is that his Plan wants to rid us of the current tax code.  But he has never demonstrated to anyone that he knows what that entails or what it will engender in the execution of it.  Above all, the flat tax of 9-9-9 is a giveaway to the rich and a further burdening of the poor and middle class.  Can you imagine paying a tax on goods that includes a federal tax of 9% on top of a state/local tax of somewhere between 5-9%?  You buy an item of clothing for $30 and pay another $4.20-5.40 in tax?  Or how about when you buy a new car for $20,000 -- are you ready for the extra $2800-3600 you will owe the national, state and local governments?  Herman Cain is a joke.

Speaking of jokes… just what we need: another Texas buffoon.  Rick Perry doesn’t just have a memory problem (what‘s that third agency?…oops!); he’s got an intelligence problem (not unlike another Texan who unfortunately made it to the WH).  This man wants a flat tax of 20% for everyone, but will give those who don’t want or like it the option to stay with the current tax rates and tax code with all its attendant improprieties.  He’s so anxious to bring the tax rates for the richest 1% down to 20% that he can’t see the forest for the trees.  And, above all, that 20% is not the effective tax rate, it’s just what the corporations and the rich will start at before they use existing tax loopholes to lower that to 0-10% actually paid!    It’s like the MSRP of car-selling: no one believes that is the actual rate to be paid!  Ah-h-h-h Texas: the promised land for oil tycoons, corrupt judges, state executions, pseudo-education textbook publishers, land speculators, scams, and secessionists!

And then there’s Mitt Romney, who’s never seen the side of an issue that he didn’t like!   Here’s the man who established a health care reform plan in Massachusetts that served as a model for so-called “Obamacare.”  He denies the approbation.  Here’s the man who wants Medicaid to be handed to the states to run, but he never makes it clear that each state already administers its own Medicaid program while the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) monitors the state-run programs and establishes requirements for service delivery, quality, funding, and eligibility standards.  Apparently, he wants the states to take on those latter responsibilities, which would price Medicaid administration out-of-reach for many states.  Because state programs already differ from one another, according to each state’s needs (which Romney says he wants to have happen even though it already exists), a few states even have their own names for Medicaid, such as "Medi-Cal" in California and  "MassHealth" in Massachusetts. States may bundle together the administration of Medicaid with other programs such as the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), so the same organization that handles Medicaid in a state may also manage additional programs. Separate programs may also exist in some localities that are funded by the states or their political subdivisions to provide health coverage for indigents and minors.  In some states Medicaid is also subcontracted to private health insurance companies, while other states pay providers (i.e., doctors, clinics and hospitals) directly.

Something else that Romney doesn’t tell his audience is that State participation in Medicaid is voluntary; however, all states have participated since 1982.  Since he now opposes the way Medicaid is managed, perhaps he should have dropped Massachusetts from the mix during his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2007.

In his own state of Massachusetts, their version of Medicaid doesn’t adequately cover people under age 65 with other than a developmental disability.  They don’t cover case coordination, for example, nor do they provide other essential services needed for community integration, such as adequate counseling or housing support.  To put it mildly, their coverage stinks -- and that’s exactly what we know about several other states.  With completely state-run programs, we could expect that many other states would have to use federal block grants to increase administrative cost coverage, but not the enhancement of services.  Devolvement of Medicaid to the states would be the death knell of adequate Medicaid programming for the poor and disabled.  

Let’s also call out Mitt Romney for his inaccurate claim that the current Medicaid program is a “one size fits all” program.  Does he know anything about Medicaid Waivers that allow states to develop their own versions of Home & Community Based services to meet particular needs of particular populations: those with mental challenges, the aged, others with brain injury or HIV/AIDs?  Maybe if he had taken the leadership to obtain the “Nursing Home Transition and Diversion” waiver, he might have been able to develop more appropriate community services for adults with MS or Parkinson’s Disease who wanted to stay out of nursing homes, or who wanted to transition from such facilities to community housing and services.

Give me a break, Governor.  When you had the chance, you accessed only three of the many existing waivers allowed under Home & Community-Based Waivers, section 1915(c) (MR/DD, TBI, and Aged).  North Dakota and West Virginia are the only states to have fewer Waivers.  New York state, on the other hand, has eight HCBS Waivers including: MR/DD, Aged, Aged & Disabled, TBI, NHTD, HIV/AIDs, children, and CDPAP. 

So, Mitt, are you sure you know how these programs -- and Medicaid itself -- work?  If you do know how Medicaid works, why don’t you tell the truth, instead of leading us down a primrose path?  Medicaid is already a state-run program, funded by both state and federal funds.  There are already enough options within Medicaid to allow for development of programs for particular needs.  State programs already differ substantially from each other, and use different names to emphasize that fact.  Why don’t you admit that Massachusetts had its chance to develop home and community-based services for special populations and chose not to, leaving a child and adult population of disabled persons in great need.    

And distortions don’t stop there.  Romney (and others on the stage) wrongly blamed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as primary causes of the housing crash.  But, in truth, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that the FMs were not primary causes of the crash; it was private lenders who were the main causes of the crisis with their lack of down-payments, anything-goes lending practices that did not take into account ability to pay, aggressive accounting practices, and their questionable terms and liquidity. 

Let’s take a minute to look at some of the history of Fannie Mae (based on “Reckless Endangerment” by G. Morgenson and J. Rosner).  One of the things that can be strongly said about this agency is that it made many friends in Congress in order to keep its government subsidies flowing into its coffers.  After facing certain critics in Congress, the Chairman of Fannie Mae, Jim Johnson, came up with an idea in 1993 that Fannie Mae needed a local presence in communities across the country in order to win the hearts of people on Main Street and to insulate itself against its critics.  Soon Johnson’s company was opening storefronts in cities and towns where it was possible to partner with local officials, first, to promote home ownership and second, to promote its reputation as a good-deed doer.  His so-called Partnership Offices cemented the company’s relationships with members of Congress, by encouraging lawmakers to take credit for housing initiatives in their districts.  Fannie Mae even provided the publicity for the very congressmen and women whom it relied on for help and protection in Washington.

Guess what?  When Johnson traveled to Atlanta in February 1995, to open the new Partnership Office there, he made sure to invite some powerful Republicans to join him on the podium.  The focus of the Atlanta Office would be to create mortgage products for first time homebuyers, and low and moderate-income consumers.  There to celebrate the Fannie Mae commitment, and office-opening, was none other than the Georgia Republican who happened to be Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who was a big proponent of reducing the size of government.  Here’s what Gingrich had to say on that occasion:

“Fannie Mae is an excellent example of a former government institution fulfilling its mandate while functioning in the market economy.”  Strange, you say; wasn’t Gingrich one of those on the debate stage on Nov. 10th who was bemoaning the government status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  That’s right; there was nothing “former” about Fannie Mae’s government status in 1995 -- it was receiving government subsidies even then.  And here at this Atlanta podium was Newt Gingrich wrongly telling people that this was a private entity functioning in the market economy.  Please Newt, say it isn’t so.  He went on to laud the agency:  “Fannie Mae has had a regional presence in Atlanta for over 40 years, and the announcement of a partnership office demonstrates its continued commitment to affordable housing in the Atlanta metropolitan area.” 

So which is it Newt?  Is Fannie Mae to blame for the housing crisis, or not?  Is it a government entity, or not?  Is it part of the market economy, or not?  Should it be privatized, or not?  Newt Gingrich likes to extol his own penchant for history.  Too bad he can’t remember a lot of his own history before he shoots off his know-it-all mouth.  He’s as bad as Mitt Romney in covering multiple sides of an issue.

The lesson to be learned:  watch out voters!  These candidates are out to bamboozle you -- to “treat you as baboons.”  They are so far away from the middle class and the poor that they live in another world devoid of concern for your needs.  Their programs and principles have been in effect since the Reagan years, and since that time, our economy has favored the rich over anyone else.  We have seen lowered top tax rates, deregulation in many areas, cut-backs in government spending, and incentives and breaks of all kinds for corporations, resulting in tremendous profits.  What we have also seen is the movement of manufacturing jobs overseas, effective tax payments and rates of 0-15% for top corporations, and the outrageous growth of wealth for the 1% of our population known to Republicans as “job creators.”  Problem is: although these measures have not worked to produce many new jobs (but a deep torrent of layoffs instead), Republicans propose more of the same as their only Plan for Prosperity. 

Beware!  You are being taken for the proverbial ride!  We will not recover manufacturing jobs that have gone overseas!  We will not see multinationals innovating here when they can make more profit in other countries.  We will not recover our economic leadership without investment in education, infrastructure,  new industries, single-payer health insurance, and new alternative energy companies.  Republicans since Reagan have led us into the current banking, investing, lending, housing, and unemployment crises.  To give them another chance to produce the same results is the definition of insanity.  Are YOU being bamboozled?

Republicans Are Disconnected

The Republicans in Congress seem to me to be disconnected, not only from what is needed in our nation, but from what they need to be doing as elected representatives of the people.

First of all, they are in a budget-cutting mode and mood.  But nowhere do we have a definition of a problem that will be solved by such budget-cutting.  Nor do we have any strong data that backs up the budget-cutting propounded by the Republicans in Congress.  For instance, what data exists to prove that budget-cutting is more effective than say government reform and raising the taxes of the rich?  Oh yes, we hear over and over that we are spending too much and that our children and grandchildren will be stuck with the bill.  That is not the definition of a problem; that is a statement based on political rhetoric; nothing more.  The problem we face is multi-faceted: not simply that we are spending too much; rather, the basic problem is that Congress is spending taxpayers’ money in poorly-conceived ways, and raising revenue in poorly-constructed methods that do not advance the welfare of our commonweal.  That is the fault of our elected leaders, but let us be careful to examine which leaders.

Let us not forget that it is the constitutional responsibility of the Congress to  “provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States…to borrow money on the credit of the United States… to regulate Commerce…” It is Congress’s duty to sponsor bills for raising revenue (which must originate in the House of Representatives);  ...all money drawn from the Treasury must be appropriated by the Congress… and Congress has the responsibility “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” 

In stark contrast, we note in Article II of the Constitution that the Executive -- the President -- is much more limited in his responsibility, especially concerning the power of the purse.  He can recommend measures to the Congress “for their consideration” as “he shall judge necessary and expedient…”, but it is Congress that ultimately legislates what it wishes of such recommendations: the President proposes; Congress disposes.  So, although the President can propose plans, and legislation, and budgets, and ideas, it is Congress that has the responsibility for the purse and for all legislation.  Yes, the President has great power that is recognized throughout the world, but that power has evolved because of his role as Commander-in-Chief, because of his responsibility for foreign relations in the area of treaty making and diplomacy, and perhaps because of the need, in this modern and complicated world, to be able to act decisively whenever the nation is confronted with outside forces (of many kinds) that could negatively impact our welfare and our very existence. 

In spite of this recognized “imperial” power, the Executive does not have the power to make laws or to appropriate funds.  It is not the constitutional duty of the President to raise revenues, nor to give a regular accounting of the receipts and expenditures of public money (except as the Congress may legislate for him to do); nor to draw money from the Treasury except as authorized by the Congress; nor to borrow money on the credit of the United States; nor to coin money or regulate its value.  It is not the President’s constitutional duty to pay the debts, nor to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.  All of that is part of the constitutional duty of the Congress! 

My point?  Congress is not living up to its responsibility to legislate, to appropriate, to borrow, to raise revenue and to control, oversee, and report on its actions.  Yes, that’s right: the Congress is required by the Constitution to make “a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money (which) shall be published from time to time.”  Are you getting your report on ALL receipts and expenditures of ALL public money?  I’m not.  As a matter of fact sometimes it is almost impossible to obtain such information (for instance on “member items” or “earmarks”) and often requires an FOIA to get such information from the Congress or from a federal department or agency. 

Why isn’t the Congress living up to this responsibility?  Because Congress doesn’t want you to know how poorly they are doing their job!   They do not want you to know how poorly they spend your money.  They do not want you to know where they spend the most and on what they spend the least.  They do not want you to know that they are not living up to their constitutional responsibility to oversee all spending.  Which means, my friends, that it is the Congress that is responsible for the fiscal mess we find ourselves in.  It means that the responsibility for the deficit does not fall to the Executive, but to the Congress which has a constitutional mandate to oversee all public expenditures.

So, are we being bamboozled?  You bet.  The Congress, as it is wont to do, has tried to blame the budget deficits and the national debt on the President.  They say that his “stimulus package” was a failure; that “Obamacare” will run up the deficit and the debt; that his budgets will add trillions to the national debt.  Wait a minute….are the Republicans in Congress trying to tell us that the President has the power of the purse and not them?  Are they trying to shift blame to the Executive who constitutionally has to carry out the legislative mandates given him by the Congress?  Are they telling us that it is the President who legislates and that the Congress is just a puppet?  NONSENSE!

Whether Republican or Democrat, the Congress is to blame for all of our deficits and debts.  They have the power to legislate our way out of this, but if they fail to act, or act timidly (more accurately: in a political manner) then they cannot shift the blame.  It is the fault of Congress that we are in the fiscal mess that we are in, and no amount of rhetoric can change that fact.  They make the laws; they appropriate the money; they approve draws on the Treasury; they oversee the Executive branch’s execution of the laws they enact; they have the power of the purse.  The rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of Boehner and Cantor, and Ryan; of Sen. McConnell and his cohorts is nothing but misleading, overblown, false: it is meant to make baboons of (“to bamboozle”) the public.

It is my contention that the Republican Congress, and the Republican minority in the Senate, are abusing the legislative process, and therefore acting against their constitutional mandates.  They are disconnected from their main task: to provide for the general welfare of the people of the United States.  Congress is now led by people who think it acceptable to block legislation, to say no to anything that would give the President a legislative “win,”  to bring government operations to a halt if it serves their ends; all of this being contrary to their duty to “make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the…powers…vested by this Constitution…”  Instead of resolving problems with innovative legislation, this Congress is content to repeal existing legislation that addresses national problems like health care, rapacious Wall Street activities and environmental cleanup.   At its worst, the Congress has obstructed the creation of jobs that would address a crumbling infrastructure, even while claiming that their number one priority is to put people back to work.  The disconnect between reality and rhetoric is overwhelmingly obvious.  You are definitely being bamboozled!

More next time on other disconnects exhibited by the Tea Party-controlled-Republicans in the Congress, and why we must elect Representatives and Senators dedicated to a new era of problem-solving that will redound to the health and welfare of this nation.