Category Archives: President Obama

Teapublican Lie #7.

Posted on by

“Raising taxes on millionaires will hurt small business.”

After all, most small businesses are owned by millionaires, right? Rrrrright!

This whopper seems to stem from the Teapublican definition of small business. You see, they define small business by ownership rather than brands, offices, employees or income. In other words, since Cargill is a closely held, privately-owned company, Teapublicans define it as a “small” business. Similarly, they define Koch Industries as a “small” business. In case you don’t already know, these are the two largest privately-held corporations in the world! Both measure their profits by the billions. Yet Teapublicans lump them into the same category as the owners of the small clothing store on Main Street or the corner café!

In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve been a small business owner since 1987. Moreover, I’ve served hundreds of small businesses as clients. As it happens, I have also completed projects for Cargill and Koch Industries. I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt that those companies have absolutely nothing in common with small businesses. And I can tell you that 99 percent of the other clients are not owned by millionaires, let alone billionaires.

So, President Obama and Congress, go ahead, raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. Most small business owners will thank you for it.

Teapublican Lie #6.

Posted on by

“President Obama’s economic stimulus failed.”

You’ve heard this over and over again from the mouths of virtually every Teapublican. They all loudly proclaim President Obama’s stimulus plan “a complete and utter failure.” They make it sound as if Democrats wasted $787 billion of taxpayer money. But as you’ll see, it’s just another Teapublican lie. To learn the truth, I turned to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

In the second quarter of 2010 (one year after it’s passage), CBO estimated that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had:

– Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent
– Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points
– Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million
– Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million

Similarly, in the second quarter of 2011, the CBO estimated that ARRA’s policies had the following effects compared with what would have occurred otherwise:

– Raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product by between 0.8 percent and 2.5 percent
– Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.6 percentage points
– Increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.9 million
– Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.4 million to 4.0 million

And even though CBO has said that the employment effects will wane in 2012, it estimates “ARRA will raise real GDP in 2012 by between 0.3 percent and 0.8 percent and will increase the number of people employed in 2012 by between 0.4 million and 1.1 million.”

Some failure!

The real question about the economic stimulus is, “Where would we now be without it?”

Teapublican Lie #4.

Posted on by

“The national debt was created by President Obama.”

I’ve addressed this figment of the Teapublican imagination before. They know it’s a lie, but they’re fond of saying it anyway. Indeed, they’re fond of blaming President Obama for everything bad and taking credit for everything good.

Who created the Great Recession? According to Teapublicans, it wasn’t Bush. It was Obama.

Who’s responsible for the high unemployment rate? Why Obama, of course, even though 8 million jobs were lost on Bush’s watch while the Obama administration has overseen a net increase in jobs.

Who was responsible for tracking down Osama bin Laden? According to Teapublicans it was certainly not Obama. Bin Laden’s death was the direct result of Bush/Cheney policies. You’ve heard all these lies and more.

Now, back to the national debt:

No less an authority than Bruce Bartlett, Ronald Reagan’s former policy adviser, has said that of the more than $14 trillion national debt, more than $7 trillion is a direct result of George W. Bush’s policies – most especially his tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Only $1.4 trillion is the result of President Obama’s attempts to get our economy moving in the right direction! The remainder can be credited to all of the presidents prior to Bush.

I’ll finish by quoting David Stockman, Reagan’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget who began a NY Times op-ed by stating, “How my GOP destroyed the US economy.”

Apparently, at least some Republicans are willing to speak the truth.

What If FDR, Truman Or Eisenhower Faced This Congress?

Posted on by

Despite the fact that our economy was in freefall when President Obama entered office, people are fond of blaming him for our current misery.  Instead of supporting Obama’s attempts to right our sinking ship, Teapublicans have chosen to fight him every step of the way. 

No matter that the record number of Senate filibusters paralyzed our government.  No matter that the cries of “Socialist” have further divided our nation.  Teapublicans seem only to care about ensuring that Obama is a one-term president.

And just when it appeared that the economy was growing again, Teapublicans chose to turn the debt ceiling into a “crisis” resulting in a downgrade of US Treasury Securities and further despair.

All this got me wondering: What if today’s Teapublicans had been around following the Great Depression? Would they have been willing to fund Social Security? Would they have opened the US Treasury to build our infrastructure? Would our nation’s most iconic structures have ever been funded? Would there be a Hoover Dam? Would the Tennessee Valley Authority exist?

What if Teapublicans had been around following WWII? Would they have approved the post WWII-era top tax rate of 91 perecent? Would they have approved of the billions spent to expand our Universities? Would they have supported the GI Bill? Would they have approved of Eisenhower’s interstate highway system?

Looking at more recent history, would they have approved of raising the debt ceiling as Reagan was tripling the national debt? Would they have approved of his tax increases?

I think you know the answers. 

Now ask yourself this: What would have become of the US if today’s Teapublicans had been around during the founding of our nation? Would they even have been willing to spend their money to fund the Revolution?

Downgraded Expectations

Posted on by

I’m not just referring to the lowered credit rating for US Treasury notes. If Teapublicans are allowed to continue the same political obstructionism they’ve displayed in the first 2-1/2 years of the Obama administration, we should all become accustomed to expecting less. Less jobs. Less retirement benefits. Less access to health care. Less government services. Less civility in public discourse. And less honesty.

Just consider: Despite being elected by an overwhelming majority of the voting public, President Obama has, thus far, been stonewalled by Teapublicans who, the day after the election, stated that their main goal is to make Obama a one-term president. Many on the right immediately called for Obama to fail despite the obvious implication that that would mean the US would also fail.

No previous president has been subjected to such organized obstruction and nonsense. Teapublicans have questioned his legitimacy by saying he was born in Kenya. They have called him a socialist, a communist, a facist and a Nazi. And they have blamed him for the economic disaster created by his predecessor.

In Congress, Teapublicans have filibustered a record number of legislative initiatives. They have blocked a record number of cabinet and judicial nominations. They have blocked nearly every attempt to stimulate the economy and create jobs. And they created a debt ceiling “crisis” when their own tax cuts led to massive increases in the national debt.

It’s all part of their “starve the beast” philosophy of less government. So what has it gotten us? An economy that is still struggling more than three years after their less-government-no-regulation policies led to the worst economic crash since the Great Depression. And now that US Treasury bonds have been downgraded as a result of their brinksmanship, the economy is once again teetering on the edge of disaster.

Given that S&P clearly stated its reason for downgrading our bond rating is our dysfunctional Congress, one might assume that Teapublicans will come to their collective senses and begin to compromise in order to create jobs, generate more revenue and cut our deficit.

That is the lesson sane people might take away from S&P’s message. But, that’s not who we’re dealing with.  Instead, we have to rely on John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Michelle Bachmann and Eric Cantor correctly reading their tea leaves.

If Teapublicans Have Such Great Ideas, Why Do They Lie So Much?

Posted on by

Why do they generate and circulate a seemingly endless number of blatantly false and misleading chain emails that demean our President?
Why do they try to shout down everyone with whom they disagree?
Why do they parrot talking points instead of rationally debating issues?
Why do they protect the obscenely wealthy and attack the poor?
Why do they complain about immigration then hire illegal immigrants to do their landscaping or repair their roofs?
Why do they preach small government then pass laws giving government power to prevent gay marriages and lawful abortions?
Why do they fight to ban abortions while, at the same time, fighting against sex education and the contraceptive practices that would help avoid them?
Why do they revere police and firefighters for responding to 9/11 then try to take away their right to collective bargaining and health care?
Why do they praise those in the military and ignore veterans in need of help?
Why do they revere President Bush for adding $7 trillion to our national debt and crashing our economy then attack President Obama for adding $1.4 trillion in trying to fix it?
Why do they complain about the excesses of Wall Street bankers while trying to block laws that will regulate them?
Why do they slash budgets for education while complaining that the US is falling behind other nations?
Why do they complain about unemployment as they cut federal budgets to force even more layoffs?
Why do they complain about government health care while telling the government to keep its hands off their Medicare?
Why do they complain about passing health care reform after a 10-month debate then pass a bill to kill entitlements with virtually no debate.
Why do they talk about helping small businesses then undercut them with policies that only benefit large corporations?
Why do they refuse to eliminate tax loopholes for corporations that claim an offshore P.O. Box as their corporate headquarters?
Why do they subsidize big oil companies and refuse to subsidize renewable alternatives?
Why do they call themselves conservatives when they’re against conservation of our environment?
Why do they demand compromise then refuse to consider alternate ideas?

A Primer On The National Debt From Reagan’s Economic Advisers.

Posted on by

Teapublicans have elevated Ronald Reagan to God-like status. They have named a Washington D.C. airport after him. They worship at his presidential library. They even want to add his image to Mount Rushmore National Monument.

So why don’t they follow his economic example?

This has never been more puzzling than during the current debt ceiling debate. Under Reagan, Congress was forced to raise the debt ceiling 17 times. But under Obama, Teapublicans refuse to raise the debt limit even once. To save Social Security, Reagan raised the income cap on FICA deductions. But under Obama, Teapublicans want to destroy Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Reagan raised capital gains taxes to 28 percent. But under Obama, Teapublicans consider the current rate of 15 percent too high. Under Reagan, the highest income tax rate was 50 percent or more. But under Obama, the highest rate is 35 percent. And under Reagan, tax revenues averaged 18.2 percent of GDP. But under Obama, tax revenues are just 14.9 percent of GDP as reported by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Indeed, former Reagan Policy Adviser, Bruce Bartlett, recently stated on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, “The dirty secret is that Obama’s a moderate conservative.“ Further, he noted that $7 trillion of the national debt is due to George W. Bush’s policies and tax cuts. $2 trillion is due to the Great Recession that President Obama inherited. And only $1.4 trillion of the debt is due to Obama’s policies, including the measures taken to keep our economy from sliding into the abyss.

And speaking about the Teapublican refusal to increase revenues as part of their plan to cut the deficit, the father of “Reaganomics” and former Reagan Budget Director, David Stockman, said, “When I look at the Republican plan, I have to say I think it’s half right on some things, and it’s half-baked on a lot of others… you’re telling the people of America that we can solve this issue – which is very dangerous, the deficit that we’re facing and the debt we’re building up – by not raising taxes on anyone. That, in my judgment, is a big lie.”

Bartlett was even stronger in response to a question about the Teapublican-dominated Congress. “A good chunk of the Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant, or craven cowards who are desperately afraid of the Tea Party people. And rightly so,” he said.

An Economic Lesson For Teapublican Nincompoops

Posted on by

Upon discussing the debt crisis with some conservative friends, I realized that few of them know the difference between the national debt, the budget and the deficit. Like Michelle Bachmann and other Teapublicans, they wrongly believe that refusing to increase the debt ceiling will result in cutting spending and reducing taxes.

Faced with such stupidity, it’s difficult to know where to begin. But I’ll start with some definitions:

Budget – The annual spending plan authorized by Congress based on anticipated revenue and anticipated spending needs. (For Teapublicans, a budget is the money that Congress authorizes the President to spend.)

Deficit – The negative difference between actual spending and actual revenue.

Surplus – Thanks to Bush, we haven’t seen one of these since the Clinton era. But just for the sake of conversation, a surplus is the positive difference between actual revenue and actual spending.

National Debt – The accumulation of deficits from our nation’s history. It is money that has already been spent.

Debt Ceiling – This is an arbitrary number established by Congress based on paranoia. Since the 1970s, the debt ceiling has been raised more than 70 times; 17 times by Reagan and 7 times by George W. Bush.

Now here’s where it gets really difficult. Failing to raise the debt ceiling will cut spending. But only because there will not be enough money to pay our bills. It forces the Secretary of Treasury to decide which bills to pay; money that Congress already agreed to spend. Failing to raise the debt ceiling will effectively cause the US to default on its bills. (For Teapublicans like Bachmann, Cantor and Palin, it’s as if you went on a spending spree at Walmart and then decided not to pay your credit card company.)

In effect, failure to raise the debt ceiling turns the US into a bunch of deadbeats. Other nations and individuals will not want to invest in our country. Interest rates will rise dramatically. And world stock markets will crash. Indeed, most experts say default will make the Great Recession of 2008 seem like…well…like a tea party.

Why President Obama Can’t Fix The Economy.

Posted on by

It’s not his fault. And it’s not for lack of trying. But he’s dealing with a stacked deck.

For decades, the cornerstone of the US economy has been durable goods, driven primarily by housing starts. In other words, our economy has depended mostly on housing construction.

For example, in 2004, more than 2 million home-building permits were authorized nationwide. In 2005, the number had risen to more than 2.1 million. Then in 2007, the number dropped to less than 1.4 million. By 2009, the number was just 583,000. And even though the number increased to more than 604,000 last year, you can see that it’s only slightly more than a third of the annual building permits from just prior to the Great Recession!  And half the number in 1959!

Now think of what those numbers mean. Each of those permits requires building contractors, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, roofers, sheet rockers, flooring contractors and more. In addition, the homes need new appliances, furnaces, air conditioners, cabinets, light fixtures, plumbing fixtures, garage doors, etc.

Get the picture?

When the financial giants swindled billions from American homeowners, they destroyed confidence in homeownership. And, as the same crooks are now disposing of their inventory of foreclosed homes, they are driving down home prices which puts more homeowners in foreclosure and prices drop even farther. The end result is massive unemployment. And, if you’re unemployed, what’s the last thing you’re going to do? That’s right. The last thing you want to do is buy a home.

So what’s a President to do after the real estate industry has been driven off a cliff? The problem certainly wasn’t of President Obama’s making. Indeed, his administration has done Herculean work getting things moving back in the right direction. But he needs to do more. He needs to push for additional stimulus that will create more jobs which will encourage more people to buy homes which will create even more jobs.

But don’t hold your breath. Because, in addition to the GOP (Grand Obstructionist Party) in the Senate, he’s now faced with a Republican/Teabagger majority in the House. And all of them are determined to deny him another term in office.

If you think you hear the faint strains of Nero fiddling, you can be certain that he’s now a Republican.

What Happened To Journalism?

Posted on by

No recent event has better exemplified the utter collapse of journalism in the U.S. than coverage of President Obama’s speech on the Middle East. The headlines following the speech all reported the “outrage” of Republicans, the Jewish community, etc. as the result of the President’s statement that a return to the pre-1967 borders is a condition for peace.

There was only problem with those news stories. The President’s statement wasn’t news. The U.S. position on peace talks has always been based on the pre-1967 borders!

Now you may ask, how could the media be so wrong? In a word, laziness. A few minutes searching for the truth would have yielded information that would have led to a more accurate interpretation. But none of the media seem concerned with reporting the truth. They seem much more interested in reporting controversy and reactions from the President’s political opponents. In other words, they’re willing to sacrifice the truth for a bunch of irrelevant “facts.”

However, one news source did report the story correctly – Real Time with Bill Maher.

So this is what journalism has come to? A comedian provided a more accurate report on a major policy speech than established news organizations! Small wonder that some surveys have listed another comedian, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, as America’s most trusted newsman.