O'Dowd Politics
A call for pragmatism in politics.
Archive for the tag “Obama”
Promises Schwamises. Do the Right Thing Boehner!
Grover Norquist ruined our Republican caucus. Enough said. Now I know that some of you will immediately de-follow this blog and burn an effigy of my likeness but perhaps a few of you will read through to the end and understand exactly what my position is. First of all, Republicans don’t run the country. I know this may be a shock to those of you who failed high school civics but there are three branches of government and two of them are responsible for creating laws (Executive and Legislative). Of these two, there are three centers of power: the Senate, the House, and the President. All of these are required to pass a law (unless of course a supermajority can be secured in Congress which is going to happen at about the same time as when we establish a colony on Alpha Centauri). Now consider that Republicans only have one of these three centers of power in the lawmaking process–that’s right; Republicans are beholding to Democrats to achieve anything at all.
Now look back all of eight months to the Republican primary where in the MSNBC debate, all eight elephants on the stage agreed that they would not increase taxes at all. Even, as it was proposed by the moderator, if tax hikes occurred on a 1 to 10 ratio with budget cuts (raise taxes and cut the federal budget by ten times that much). This would have been an excellent opportunity for one of the field to demonstrate real leadership but since most of them had signed the Grover Norquist “no new taxes pledge”, they were trapped into looking hardheaded and as nonnegotiable as a three-dollar bill with Clinton’s name on it. Pragmatic? No. Dumb? Yep!
Look, I’m not saying that tax increases are the answer; I believe that the federal government is way too big and that it is high time to skinny up Uncle Sam who is currently the unwitting mascot for the First Lady’s “Let’s Move” campaign. In spite of these emphatic beliefs, I also believe in pragmatic governance which is exactly the opposite of John Boehner’s $800 billion answer to the fiscal cliff crisis which can be summed up as follows:
“House Republicans have prepared their excellent and thoughtful response to the crisis that holds our economy in hostage. We are asking the Senate and the President to raise taxes in strange and unexplainable areas without raising taxes at all.” –John Boehner
Intriguing. That’s like burning down your house without burning down your house. I know that these Republicans are really struggling with how to break a promise without breaking it but seriously? If you’re going to break it then at least break it in a way that is good for somebody! The $800 billion broken-promise-that-wasn’t did little to solve the problem and only served to deepen the public’s perception that the elephants are in the pockets of the top 1%. It would have been better to say they would provide no additional revenue and that Obama and the donkeys could just pound sand right after decreasing the size of the government.
Here’s the reality of the situation: Obama’s holding the trump of the trump cards because if the cliff happens he gets everything he wants and can propose to permanently lower taxes for the 98% right after the country takes the plunge. In that event he looks like the hero and the Republicans get smashed for not being reasonable about their compromise. Not good.
Here’s what Republicans should do: Axe the promise to Norquist and explain to their constituents that it was a dumb idea to sign something that left them no room to compromise. Sure, the tea party conservatives and most of the rest of us won’t be happy, but this isn’t 2010 and pragmatism is now in-vogue. This is an opportunity for Republicans to both stand on principles and make up lost ground with moderates, the middle class, and the rest of America that doesn’t often dine at the Four Seasons. Remember that a promise that shouldn’t have been made shouldn’t be kept and that you should always trade a buck for a crisp ten dollar bill. Ten-to-one isn’t all bad. Back to the negotiating table people!
O’Dowd
Young People are Narrow-Sighted
Having just passed my third decade, I’m absolutely appalled by how narrow-sighted young people have become. The departure of America from capitalism to selfishism has completely changed the electoral dynamic in this country. At one time people voted on principle: conservatives voted for smaller government, more individual liberty, business-friendly policies, and religious freedom; liberals on the other hand, voted to gain a larger, more centralized government, entitlements for the poor, elderly, and downtrodden, fewer moral restrictions, and the removal of religion as a central element of our society–principles no doubt that many on each side still espouse in their selections for public office. An increasing factor, however, has become the power of the selfish pocketbook in the political arena.
It is no secret that campaign financing has been a major issue over the past few years in U.S. elections, court battles, and public discourse. McCain-Feingold’s attempt to limit campaign contributions from corporations and special interest groups went down in flames when the Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to promoting their interests. (Interesting topic as courts recently found that for-profit corporations cannot exercise religious liberty in the case of Hobby Lobby vs. Obamacare–a ruling that is being appealed.) Individuals, in a similar vein have become increasingly concerned about protecting their own financial interests in elections, in much the same way that corporations do. The major problem? Individuals vote while corporations do not. While buying, bribing, and blackmailing for votes is illegal; promising real and tangible economic benefits to specific key voting groups is not. President Obama did not have hoards of representatives at polling places handing out crisp twenties to everyone who promised to vote for the Democratic candidate, but he did promise to provide thousands of dollars in benefits to the youth, free healthcare to the poor, free assistance to the elderly, and free citizenship waivers to the young illegal immigrants in the form of differed action. Bribes? Maybe not. Bribes? Certainly.
News outlets reported today that 60% of voters under 30 years of age voted for Obama, though down from his high in 2008 of 2 in 3 young people, it was enough to push him over the finish line in key battle-ground states. Why? Again I ask why did so many young people vote for the democrat? Because they took the bribe–and forgot to read the fine print.
No doubt most people missed the key details–that annoying voice that spoke really fast at the end of every Obama campaign ad. In it’s entirety it went something like this:
“Young people of America, if you care about your education, your health, your aging parents, or your kitty at home you have no other choice than to vote for President Obama this November.
He will stand up for your right to have limitless unprotected intercourse with the other gender, your gender, or no gender at all. Plus he guarantees you free healthcare and will personally ensure that you will have double the funding from educational grants and limitless student loans.
The choice is clear! Vote for Obama for a funner, happier, and carefree lifestyle today!”
(Following in a fast, almost undecipherable voice:) This candidate makes no guarantees regarding the possibility of contracting incurable sexually transmitted diseases, a lifetime of regrets from your abortion(s), or likely limits to your future success. There is no such thing as a free lunch, free healthcare, or free college tuition; this is a loan that must be repaid in your future including low probability of finding a job out of college, no federal retirement, high inflation, and an unlikelihood of having a stable, happy family life. Vote Obama for a great now! No guarantees for your future!
Back to my point. Young people are too narrow-sighted to consider their future. Historically their natural desire for instant gratification would have been tempered by concern for their moral upbringing, consideration for their parents or grandparents, and a true appreciation for American values and freedom. All this is gone now–replaced by the seduction of lies, pandering, and bribery. Youth vote for a care-free present with no consideration for the day when the loan comes due–a debt we will all pay with interest.
O’Dowd
O'Dowd Politics 