Absolutely the best article I’ve ever read on the origins of our economic problems. Once again, Rolling Stone is responsible for great investigative journalism!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109
I confess that I’ve long been confused about the intense (and, I believe irrational) hatred of President Obama, when it appears to me that he has been guilty of nothing more than trying to correct the problems created by the previous administration.
Upon reflection, I believe it stems from the Right’s unfailing belief in the so-called “free” market.
When the economy, led by the housing market and a lack of common-sense regulations, careened off a cliff in late 2008, the Bush administration recommended a bill to Congress that called for the US to spend billions in order to prop up the failing banks. Lacking the support of Republican leaders in Congress, the measure initially failed. But when the stock markets crashed as a result, enough Congressmen were persuaded to change their votes and the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) went into effect.
The program ultimately stabilized the markets and the economy enough to prevent the Great Recession from turning into a second Great Depresssion. Yet many Republicans were furious. They believed TARP to be a government intrusion into the infallibility of free market principles. When President Obama subsequently offered government-backed loans to General Motors and Chrysler in order to stave off the collapse of the American automobile industry, the free market Republicans and Libertarians went ballistic.
Capitalizing on an idea by a Republican strategist, groups such as the Koch-funded American FreedomWorks spent millions to rally free market believers to protest. They labeled the movement a modern day Tea Party. It turned out to be the perfect way to inspire the Republican base which was dispirited following the 2008 elections.
Teapublicans deluded themselves into believing that the Great Recession was not the fault of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act or the Bush administrations lax oversight of the financial industry.
They focused, instead, on President Obamas attempts to fend off an economic Armegeddon. In addition, they convinced themselves that the national debt, which had doubled under President Bush, was now the fault of President Obama. They believed the auto bail-outs and economic stimulus were evidence that the administration was moving toward socialism. The Presidents eventual signing of a bill to reform the out-of-control healthcare system added even more fuel to the torches being carried by the Tea Party.
When viewed in context, the Teapublican fears seem irrational. But when viewed through a partisan lens and slavish devotion to free market principles, regardless of their consequences, the fears are understandable, if not logical.
Moreover, this helps to explain why so many lower and middle class Americans vote against their self-interest by supporting Republican candidates determined to transfer wealth upward through tax breaks for the wealthy.
Over many years of listening to Fox News pundits and Rush-to-the-table Limbaugh, these people have become convinced that all of their problems will be solved if only we rid ourselves of government intrusion and allow Teapublican leaders to work their free market magic. Indeed, these voters are likely convinced that the only thing standing between them and unimagined riches are evil Democrats, who in their Teapublican minds, are trying to replace capitalism with socialism, or worse yet, communism or fascism.
Never mind that many of these people dont have a clue of what any of these isms actually mean. Hence the Tea Party signs that read Keep your government hands off my Medicare.”
Will Richard, The Dick, Cheney never take the hint and just fade into retirement?
Previous former presidents and vice presidents retired to their compounds surrounded by Secret Service (such as George W. Bush) or devoted themselves to humanitarian causes (such as Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton). Former vice-president and presidential election winner, Al Gore, has occupied his time by trying to convince Teapublicans that science exists.
On the other hand, The Dick keeps elbowing his way onto cable TV to push his particular brand of hate and meanness. His most recent such foray was on CNNs State of the Union, where he said that President Obama owes the Bush administration an apology.
An apology? For what? For cleaning up the two unfunded wars started by The Dick and his puppet Bush? For cleaning up the economic disaster left behind? For cleaning up the oil and financial industries run wild? For trying to restore our nations stature in the world after years of violating the Geneva Conventions? For finally tracking down the leaders of Al-Qaeda?
No, according to The Dick, President Obama should take back his criticism of the Bush administration’s tactics in the war on terrorism. More specifically, The Dick wants President Obama to take back statements from his 2009 speech in Cairo, in which he said the trauma of 9/11 caused America to act contrary to our ideals.
It appears The Dick had his feelings hurt (yeah, I know, its hard to imagine that he of the bionic heart has feelings) when President Obama denounced The Dicks “enhanced interrogation as torture. Of course, The Dicks waterboarding technique is specifically defined as torture by the Geneva Conventions. But, despite that inconvenient truth, The Dick claims, “We were never torturing anyone in the first place. He (Obama) said we walked away from our basic fundamental ideals. That simply wasn’t the case.”
Even The Dicks daughter piled on the current President. “He slandered the nation,” said Liz Cheney, “and I think he owes an apology to the American people.”
Proving that you dont have to be male to be a Dick.
When the housing market crashed bringing down the financial industry along with it (or was it the other way around?), trillions of dollars vanished. The question is where did the money go?
The Federal Reserve along with the Bush administration started propping up the financial industry and the economy beginning in 2007. Mostly this was done quietly with little to no media attention. By the time President Obama was sworn in, taxpayers had already shelled out more than $3.46 trillion and the world economy was on the verge of collapse.
Since Obamas inauguration, the federal government has committed another $3.77 trillion in loans, bailout funds and stimulus spending to stave off what most economists concluded would be a 2nd Great Depression.
And people are outraged! Not at the ones who created this mess and originally hid it from the public. But at the administration who inherited it. That kind of logic could only be demonstrated by the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Armey. Where are their Teabagger demonstrations against CitiGroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo? Wheres the right-wing fury for AIG? Where are the posters calling Bush and Cheney Socialists and Communists for having allowed (or encouraged) this to happen?
More important, wheres the money?
Of the $7.244 trillion total, $168 billion was mailed to taxpayers in the form of stimulus checks. $787 billion is dedicated to stimulus spending on infrastructure and new jobs. $275 billion is targeted at foreclosure relief. And $15 billion is aimed at supporting small businesses.
The rest of the money ($6.167 trillion) went to prop up the very institutions that created the mess. For example, $234 billion went to CitiGroup, $137.5 billion to AIG, $118 billion to Bank of America and $29 billion went to Bear Stearns. Another $700 billion was dedicated to the Troubled Asset Relief Program. $1 trillion was set aside for the Term-Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to make it less risky for banks to lend money to businesses and consumers. $720 billion was set aside to help banks remove toxic assets from their balance sheets. Indeed, almost all the rest of the money has been allocated to help our banks recover from their own risky behavior.
And it has worked really well for the banks. Thanks to government aid, the CEOs, fund managers, and other financial executives are still able to afford new vacation homes, yachts and other necessities with their bonuses. Theyve been able to raise fees on checking accounts and interest rates on credit cards. And theyve been able to return to the risky behavior that led to this mess in the first place.
Best of all, thanks to their lobbying efforts, paid for in large part by taxpayers money, theyve so far been able to fend off serious regulation.
In baseball, bush league refers to the lowest level a metaphor that perfectly fits the economic performance of the George W. Bush administration. Its even more appropriate given that Bush made millions by gaming the City of Arlington and its citizens as Managing Partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.
In short, the people of Arlington got screwed. Not entirely unlike what Bush did to the people of the United States as our 43rd President.
This is no longer just opinion. Its fact.
According to a recent report by the Census Bureau, the median household income in the U.S. declined 4.2 percent during Bushs two terms. At the same time, the number of Americans living in poverty increased 1.9 percent to 39.8 million (the most since 1960). More disturbing is the number of children now living in poverty: When Bush entered office 11.6 million children were living in poverty. When Bush left office, that number had swollen to nearly 14.1 million. Thats an astonishing increase of more than 21 percent! Under Bush, job growth was a dismal .28 percent the worst performance since World War II. The number of Americans employed in manufacturing dropped beneath 10 percent for the first time in history. And the number of Americans without health insurance increased to 15.4 percent.
On every major measurement, the economic condition of American people declined during the Bush administration! The housing industry crashed, the financial industry collapsed under the weight of its own risky gambles, stock markets crashed and two out of the Big Three U.S. auto makers faced bankruptcy. About the only people who didnt suffer under Bushs watch were oil executives, military contractors, hedge fund managers and the extremely wealthy.
Predictably, the Republicans are now trying to reassign the economic blame to President Obama. They accuse him of increasing the size of government, increasing the size of the federal debt, and taking over private businesses. Lets look at the facts:
The government, the deficit and the national debt all grew under President Bush. The Department of Homeland Security represented a huge growth in government. But the growth of government under Bush wasn’t confined to just the one department. (In the first 3 months of 2008 alone, the federal government added 13,800 jobs under Bush.) The deficit and debt under Bush increased in large part as the result of Bushs misadventures in Iraq. The real cost of that war is estimated at anywhere from $2-3 trillion, and some estimate that the cost of the Afghan war will overtake the Iraq war in 2010.
The bailout of financial institutions is estimated at $3 trillion. Approximately one-half of that was approved by the Bush administration. And none of the money would have been necessary if not for the Republicans aversion to regulation of financial institutions.
Finally, you cant blame President Obama for the takeover of the U.S. auto industry. Indeed, we all should thank him for it. Had the Bush administration not allowed wild speculation of commodities, oil would not have spiked as they did in 2008. Had that artificial spike not been followed by the collapse of our financial institutions, the auto industry would never have experience such severe problems. And had the Obama administration not stepped in to help, the economy may well have fallen into another depression.
On the anniversary of 9/11, Republican spokesperson and renowned liar, Rush Limbaugh, chastised President Obama for trying to turn 9/11 into a day of public service. Wow! How dare the President want to commemorate the attacks on U.S. soil with something positive! How dare the President try to encourage Americans to serve their nation!
Certainly, the past President never encouraged public service and sacrifice. In the wake of 9/11, Bush asked us to go shopping. And while our young people were serving and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, he pushed for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. (I guess he believed that only the middle class and poor should sacrifice for their country.) Bush refused to allow press coverage and photographs of the true cost of war. Indeed, Republicans treated war much as the Wizard of Oz would. Pay no attention to whats behind that curtain.
But, in reality, Republican criticism has nothing to do with President Obamas statements and actions. Hell be criticized by Republican pundits no matter what he says or does. Thats not surprising. After all, were talking about the same people who accused then-First Lady Hillary Clinton with murder relating to the so-called Travel-gate. Theyre the people who spent $60 million of taxpayers money to investigate Clintons investment loss in Whitewater. Theyre the same people who called Democrats whack jobs and conspiracy nuts for crying foul over the 2000 Florida election. (Never mind the findings of an independent group of journalists who stated, Its clear that a significant majority of Floridians intended to vote for Al Gore.) And these are the same people who attacked the patriotism of a Vietnam War hero while supporting a candidate who got his powerful daddy to help him avoid the draft by getting him into the Air National Guard.
Republicans are good at attacking. In fact, theyre great at it. Many of todays Republican strategists learned at the knee of the masters; Tricky Dick Nixon and Spiro Agnew. Republican attacks and tricks should not come as a surprise to anyone – least of all Democrats.
What is surprising is that Democrats continue to try to reason with them. And, by doing so, they continue to encourage their bad behavior. Its astounding that Representative Joe Wilson can bellow You lie to President Obama in an address to a joint session of Congress. Its even more astounding that Democratic Senators reword the health care reform bill because of Wilsons outburst. (Despite the fact that the bill already clearly stated that health care coverage will be denied to illegal aliens, the wording was strengthened in response to Wilson.)
The message to Republican extremists is that their extreme accusations and tactics work.
So Republicans and their media supporters will continue to scare citizens with fabricated issues like Death Panels. Theyll continue to raise fears that a Presidential speech to school children is an attempt to indoctrinate them. And theyll continue to compare a centrist African-American President who continues to search for bipartisanship to Adolph Hitler. (How can anyone actually believe this stuff?)
Someone once said, You cant reason with unreasonable people. Yet Democrats continue to try to reason with Republicans. Why?
Theres a long-standing tradition in the U.S. surrounding a change in administration. Typically, the former president simply fades away. If hes public service minded, he occupies his time with large scale charities (ala Jimmy Carter), relief efforts (ala George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton) and occasional foreign relations issues (ala Bill Clintons recent trip to N. Korea). And with rare exceptions (Al Gore), the former vice-president simply fades into obscurity. Whens the last time you heard anything about Dan Quayle?
How I wish that were the case with Richard (the Dick) Cheney!
Instead, the former vice-president and his daughter regularly deem it necessary to come out of their badger dens to eviscerate any who have dared to examine the former administrations failings, of which there were many.
Its bad enough to read accounts of Cheneys torture programs from the past 8 years. But its darn near unbearable to listen to Cheneys tortured logic in his attempts to justify it. Even if the program did yield information that couldnt have been gathered any other way (and, despite Cheneys insistence, its uncertain that it did), it was patently illegal and immoral for torture to have been authorized.
However, the fact that Cheney would encourage and authorize such a program should have come as no surprise to anyone. His hunting accident was indication enough of the Dicks moral and ethical standards. Im not referring to the fact that he mistook a friends face for a bird, or that he waited hours to inform authorities (probably until he sobered up). What was most revealing about the incident was the reality that he was hunting for captive birds that had been raised to become fodder for fat cats too lazy and too impatient to hunt in the wild. Indeed, the game farm had provided Cheney and his friend with a menu of available birds, along with a hunting dog to flush them out of the areas where game farm employees hid them moments earlier.
How on Earth can it be considered sport to kill creatures in such circumstances? Thats no more hunting than ordering chicken from the menu in a restaurant. And its an indication of someone almost totally devoid of character.
I believe that Attorney General Holder was correct to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Dicks torture program. But I think the investigation is much too limited in scope. In my opinion, President Obama should live up to his campaign pledge that he will ask his Attorney General to examine the legality of every Bush administration directive. And, if I were president, I would subject Cheney to the same interrogation methods he so gleefully defends.
But since Im not president, all I can hope for is that the Dick and Liz will decide to go hunting together. May the best shot win.
President Ronald Reagan is famous for saying, Government isnt the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. The quote eloquently expressed his contempt for government. An opinion I dont share.
I have difficulty believing that my high school classmate who served as a Postman is an enemy. Im not frightened of another classmate who served as an engineer for the Navy. And I certainly dont view my Marine nephew who served in Iraq as an enemy.
The government is comprised of many hard-working, well-intentioned people who provide valuable services to the rest of us. Without the government, we would have no military, Coast Guard, police, fire fighters, park rangers, air controllers, customs officials, border patrol, immigration officials, highway engineers, sanitation workers and postal workers. There would be no FDA, EPA, FEMA, FDIC or CDC. No NASA. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and VA services. Without government subsidies, many family farmers could not make a living. And most academic and research institutions would be unable to explore the limits of science and medicine.
All of this is not to say that government agencies wouldnt benefit from some reform and restructuring. But vilifying them is disingenuous at best. In general, government fulfills all of the tasks that are too important, too difficult or too unprofitable for private enterprise.
Health insurance is a good case in point.
According to most estimates there are nearly 47 million uninsured in the U.S. and many millions more who are under-insured. Why? They either cant afford health insurance, or they are not viewed as profitable enough for insurance companies. Sounds like a perfect situation for a government-run health insurance option, doesnt it?
Not according to Republicans and their media mouthpieces. To them, that would be Socialism, indeed Nazism. It has also been said that a public option would represent unfair competition for privately run insurance companies. Seriously? To me, it sounds more like helping those who are falling through the cracks of our current system.
But dont count on logic permeating the thick skulls of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill OReilly. And dont count on Republicans stooping to something as unsavory as bipartisanship. Look no further than recent statements made by two Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee who are alleged to be negotiating on health care reform. Despite polls that show a significant majority of Americans want health care reform, including a public option, Senator Grassley stated that he wont vote for any bill he negotiates unless hes certain that a significant number of Republican Senators vote for it. And Senator Enzi stated that hes only continuing to negotiate with Democrats on the committee in order to delay and kill the legislation.
In other words, if there is to be any reasonable health care reform, Democrats are going to have to pass it by themselves.
It makes one wonder, if Republicans believe our government is so bad, why didn’t they simply abolish the abhorrent programs and departments when they had control of the Presidency and Congress? And why did George W. Bush preside over historys largest increase in the size of government during his administration?
The next time you hear conservatives bash our government, remember this: Our government was created of the people, by the people and for the people. It is what weve created through our votes. All the disciples of that slick-talking former actor cant change that.
The continuing revelations of unethical, illegal and unconstitutional actions by the George W. Bush administration caused me to revisit the scandals of previous administrations during my lifetime. Im not talking about prurient sexual affairs. Im talking about the abuse of power by the Executive Branch and attempts to subvert our Constitution.
Lets examine the record. President Richard Nixon was forced out of office when it was discovered that he ordered his operatives to break into the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee. He also authorized illegal wiretaps, improper tax audits, campaign fraud, and a variety of dirty tricks. Then, when the actions of his operatives became public, he authorized an illegal slush fund to buy the operatives silence.
In other words, Nixon not only tried to subvert our electoral process. He obstructed justice.
Lost in the Watergate scandal is the fact that Nixons Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, pleaded no contest to charges of tax evasion and money-laundering. His replacement, Gerald Ford, assumed the office of the Presidency after Nixons resignation in 1974 and became embroiled in controversy when he pardoned Nixon.
Under President Ronald Reagan, the administration sold weapons to the Iranian government in order to finance Nicaraguan rebels (Contras) in violation of U.S. law. The entire affair was kept secret from Congressional oversight committees, and when the affair was investigated, it was found that large volumes of documents had been destroyed by administration officials. Although it was never proven that Reagan was directly involved in the scandal, its difficult to believe that he had no knowledge of the program.
President George H.W. Bush not only pardoned most of those involved in the Iran-Contra affair. On his watch, Savings & Loan institutions collapsed as the result of deregulation and overzealous lending as part of the real estate boom. (Can it be possible that a near identical collapse of financial institutions during his son’s administration is just some sort of an eerie coincidence?)
Under President George W. Bush, the scandals were so numerous that Wikipedia has been forced to divide them into nine subcategories. And Wikipedia doesnt even list what may be the biggest failing of his presidency ignoring clear warning of 9/11. It has been well-documented that Bush ignored an August 2001 memo titled Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S. It even mentioned the possibility of hijackings.
Neither does Wikipedia list Tom Ridges assertions that Bush officials asked him to raise the terrorist alert levels to help manipulate voters leading up to the 2004 election.
Wikipedia does, however, list the abuses at Abu Grahib, the false statements made during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, false claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the outing of a CIA operative as payback for her husband exposing one of the claims used to sell the Iraq invasion, the politicization of the Justice Department through the dismissal of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, the extraordinary renditions (read torture) of political prisoners, possible war crimes in Afghanistan, the imprisonment of detainees in Guantanamo without trial and without the right to know the charges against them, and the use of recess appointments to circumvent the Senates confirmation process.
Of course, there were also the no-bid contracts in Iraq for Halliburton and others, the out-sourcing of many of our military ops to Blackwater (aka Xe), the secret “hit squad” created by the CIA and Blackwater, the supposed legal foundation for torture, and many other issues which would be considered scandalous in more respectable administrations.
I can think of no equivalent scandals for Democratic administrations. No attempts to subvert the Constitution. No shadow governments. No wars of convenience.
Yet one of the true ironies of our current political climate is that conservatives have the unmitigated gall to accuse President Obama of perverting the Constitution by trying to rescue our economy and attempting to provide health care for all U.S. citizens. They want to manufacture a scandal out of his birth certificate. And they want to compare him to Hitler.
Are conservatives so angry they lost the election that they can’t see the utter nonsense of their statements? Or are they simply so gullible they’ll repeat anything Fox Noise, Rush Limbaugh and the NRA tell them to? Whatever their reasons, the real question is this: Given past performance, why would anyone vote for a Republican President ever again?