Looking back on 2009, much of the discussion on TV news shows is whether President Obama and the Democrats in Congress correctly handled the problems facing the country. Somehow, a narrative seems to have emerged that the Democrats failed and would pay the price in the 2010 midterm elections.
But where is the discussion of how the Republicans have behaved in the last year?
It has been less than one year since President Obama was sworn in. When he sat behind the big desk in the Oval Office for the first time, he found himself responsible for a free-falling economy (and mounting staggering job losses), a massive deficit, the manpower and financial burden of hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, and a militant Islamic movement looking to inflict damage on America and American interests, all of which came as a direct result of the failed policies of his predecessor. Obama also had a host of other problems to address, from global warming to energy dependence to a corrupt and dangerous Iranian government struggling to hold onto power and capable of real danger, just to name a few.
The president didn't create any of these problems. Not one of them. And it is completely unrealistic to think that any person or party could solve these issues in less than a year.
Now, there has been much debate over whether Obama's handling of these issues was up to snuff. From listening to the ridiculous rhetoric from the right, you would think that the president was trying to turn the country into some bizarre combination of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. And many progressives are unsatisfied with Obama's handling of the re-regulation of the financial industry, as well as his approach to health care, LGBT issues and other points of contention.
But another way to put it is that the criticism form the right is not only unfounded, but the Republicans have offered no real alternatives to address the issues, aside from advocating for the failed Bush policies of the last decade. And progressives seem to forget that the arcane rules in the Senate limit what can be done with only a majority, while Republicans in Congress are single-minded and united to do anything they can to politically damage the president, without any concern for actually governing for the American people. We saw that in play in the health care debate, as the 40 Republican senators remained rock solid in support of the insurance companies and the status quo (the current system is a disaster, as health care costs chew up more and more of the country's GDP while leaving Americans with more and more health care expenses and less and less coverage).
What have the Republicans offered aside from "no"?
To me, that should be the real story of the first year of the Obama administration. The discussion should be about the utter disdain the Republicans have shown for the American people, as the party has put political games and protecting its corporate interests in the first position on every issue. That, and the out-and-out lies that have become the go-to strategy of the party (death panels anyone?).
Consider that in the last two weeks alone, we have been treated to:
- GOP senators blocking confirmation of Obama appointees as a way of securing petty political victories. (What kind of system allows a single senator to hold up confirmation of an appointee? How is it that a party can control 60 seats in the Senate and still not have the ability to confirm the president's appointments? Does this seem like a good idea to anyone interested in maintaining a functioning government?)
- Republican senators holding up funding for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as a tactic to slow down health care reform. (When Democrats in Congress during the Bush years balked at writing a blank check for a failed war in Iraq, Republicans questioned their patriotism. But now, to Republicans, it's okay to block funding the troops as a way of slowing down health care reform? How is this not a story? Why is this not provoking voter outrage?)
- Republicans opposing health care reform on fiscal grounds, even though the bill will lower the deficit, and despite the fact that the same Republicans had no trouble ballooning the deficit in the Bush years by approving massive tax cuts for the rich, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Medicare prescription drug program without paying for any of them.
- Sen. James Inhofe traveling to Copenhagen to undermine President Obama at the Copenhagen climate change summit. (Can you imagine the charges Republicans would have thrown at a Democrat who traveled to a conference Bush was attending to undermine his position? I promise you the words "patriotism" -- as in lack of -- and "treason" would have come up.)
- GOP senators calling for the watering down of financial reform legislation, just a year after the misconduct of the banks caused the economy to go into a death spiral. (If there is a lot of anti-bank feeling in the country now, why isn't the biggest defender of the finance industry, the Republican party, getting hit with the blame? And how can any legislator oppose reform in the face of developments like a credit card legally charging 79.9 percent interest?)
- Sen. John Thune lying on the floor of the Senate as to when benefits take effect in health care reform legislation. (Thanks to Al Franken for not being intimidated and pointing out a lie when he saw one.)
- Republican superstar Sarah Palin reiterating the lie that health care legislation called for death panels, and changing the basis for the accusation when her original charge was proven untrue. (This kind of dishonest fear-mongering is more contrary to American ideals of democracy than anything in the health care legislation itself could ever possibly be.)
- Sen. Tom Coburn demanding a reading of an amendment to the health care reform bill calling for a single-payer program (which would have taken 12 hours, but which only went several hours before Sen. Bernie Sanders withdrew the amendment) as a way to slow down health care reform. (If the Democrats had tried something like that during the Bush years, they would have been pilloried by Republicans for not respecting the American people's wishes as expressed by the election results.)
Again, these events are only from the last two weeks. And the list is hardly complete.
So if the Republicans are supposed to be guaranteed to win seats in 2010, on what will these victories be won? What have the Republicans done to help the American people with the grave problems they face? (Sen. Mitch McConnell seems to think that the health care reform bill will be enough. Will Americans really support the Republicans on this one?)
To be clear, I am not arguing that the president and the Democrats in Congress have been beyond reproach in 2009. I think there is a lot of fair criticism to be levied, and a fair debate can be had as to whether the Democrats handled health care reform and other issues as well as they could have. But any deficiency in the Democratic approach pales when compared to the shameful conduct of Republicans during this time. The Democrats were making an effort to clean up Bush's messes. The Republican motives in the last year have not in any way involved actually trying to fix problems (or, even worse, they don't even acknowledge that many of the problems exist in the first place).
The story for 2010 should be the Republican party's complete disregard for the needs of the American people. The party's decision to prioritize scoring political victories over the president, protecting corporate interests, and relying on lies to do it over solving problems and governing should be clear to anyone paying attention. Let's hope that when voters go to the polls in 2010, they remember who was trying to solve problems and who wasn't. Time will tell if we will ever fully recover from what Bush did to the country. The last thing we need is more Republican rule, offering more of the same failed policies.
Follow Mitchell Bard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MitchellBard
Where are those campaign activists that got organized and got President Obama elected in the first place? If they're wallowing and whining about not getting that cushy gummint job as a reward, or whining about their pet issue not being A-1 in priority, shame on them! Get busy, get back to work, just because Obama got elected doesn't mean you should be resting on your laurels.
The Republicans had their obstructionist "status quo" machinery up and running before Bush invited his last crony to stay at the Blair House instead of clearing it out so the Obamas could stay there. The Republicans have been cur dogs this entire past year.
One of the Republican's falsehoods is the oft-repeated refrain, "liberal mainstream media" (or as Sarah Palin more accurately puts it, "lamestream media"). Only an American media that's firmly under the thumb of the corporations that pay for every Republican in Congress could ignore the Republicans' misdeeds of this past year so egregiously, turning instead to deride the failures of Democrats to overcome the roadblocks Republicans have put in their path at every turn.
What this country needs is a decent ad executive turned congressman who can get the progressive Democratic message out -- put him in charge of a 24/7 offensive against the lies of the Republicans. Who needs the bought-and-paid-for mainstream media? Start up your own!
This is what you come up with on the Presidential Transition? Do you have any memory of the Clinton transition. Classic.
The Republican Senate has made use of the filibuster routine, something that was never intended. I predict that they will also start to use impeachment as a routine tool against Democratic Presidents if they can.
However, that is not what is happening now. We are neck deep in manure & the Thugs are most interested in creating political "Waterloos" despite the cost & the great needs of the nation. I remember when this nation was rich, powerful, great & mostly good. It no longer is any of those.
ALL of our politicians should be extremely proud of how they have "fiddled" as the nation burned to the ground. Rome only had Nero. We have the White House & Congress.
how 'bout keeping your eye on whats important...
First, Americans start paying now for a bill they won't see the effects of for FOUR YEARS. Doesn't that raise a bit of a flag to you? Harry Reid talks about 13,000 people losing coverage every day -- well, they'll still be losing coverage after this 'urgent' bill gets passed -- and will continue to do so until 2013. How's that for compassion?
Second, the bill looks at reforming health insurance (sort of), but DOESN'T look at the other high-cost actors in the system: Big Pharma (who paid Obama money to keep from having real reform), Hospitals (the Mayo Cliinic in Phoenix has stopped accepting Medicare patients because they don't get 'paid enough') and doctors (many of whom become specialists so they can earn $400k/year+ rather than working in the community where they're needed (and earn about $150k/year+).
Candidate Obama had the right idea -- let's target the whole system, and do it in a transparent manner...
There are portions of the health care legislation that will take place immediately, like that which will help children, those whom the insurance companies refuse to help because even as children they have pre-existing conditions.
Tax credits to help businesses with up to 25 workers buy insurance will also be available right away.
The House and Senate versions of the bill haven't yet been combined, but eginning in 2010, the House version allows children to stay on their parents' insurance plans through age 26; the Senate's through 25, and insurers could not impose lifetime benefit limits or nullify a customer's policy when they file a claim for benefits. All those are critical issues, to be dealt with immediately, and will likely remain in the final version.
The House bill would immediately give people who have left their jobs the right to extend company insurance, known as COBRA, for years longer, but the Senate version does not contain that provision. That, too, probably will be an immediate benefit that remains in the final version of the bill.
Both chambers' legislation also would immediately start to close the Medicare prescription drug "doughnut hole," which is the gap in benefits that costs seniors who spend a certain amount on medication.
Then to terrorism:
Do you seriously believe the terrorism started with Bush? Under President Clinton, we had a World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole incident and an attempted plan to blow up airliners over the Pacific. Remember too that Clinton did his own invasion of Iraq as well.
9/11 happened only 9 months after Bush came into office -- there were intelligence threats looming beforehand, but I assure you those plans didn't start the day Bush became President. Using your logicy, Bush didn't even have a year to settle into office and he too 'inherited' problems -- so do you excuse him as well?
Health care:
This is perhaps the best example of all. Let's not forget that Obama came into the White House preaching 'hope and change' -- he would end the 'old Washington politics' and bring about a transparency that would make government accountable to the people.
He even promised to make the negotiations so tranparent that the American people could watch them on C-SPAN: Where did the negotiations take place? Behind closed doors... with only selected people participating. How did it pass? Changing whatever rules possible to ram it through sounds like politics as usual to me...
Do you wonder why so many Americans are becoming disillusioned with Obama? It was that message of 'hope and change'... It's like having a politician preach family values whilst proudly having an affair... That doesn't work with the left, just like Obama's 'change' isn't working with the
Those who are truly disillusioned by Obama don't know much history or politics.They are easily persuadable by those who attempt to misinform them about Bush's will-full ignorance of history .
They will always be that way until they wake up and start to think for themselves.
If you want to know the real facts about 9/11 and the attempts of FBI agent John O'Neill to warn us about Yemen and its roll , go to www.pbs.org and then Nightline.Read the story,"The Man Who Knew". Be informed,not misinformed.
The rest of your points are of similar logic & correctness.
Let's start with the deficits:
Yes, Bush signed a disastrous bill to 'save the banks' -- but that bill would NOT have passed without the support of Democrats (including then-Senator Obama -- go ahead, check the records for yourself). Don't forget that it took TWO attempts for the 'emergency' bill to pass, and that was because Republicans opposed it.
To make matters worse, Obama turned around and rammed a SECOND stimulus bill through Congress, making our debt even higher. He then pushed for a bailout for GM and Chrysler that ended up being handouts for labour unions (he did this by defying established rules--agreed by participating parties--for repaying debt).
Our current debt: 12 trillion
Debt that Bush passed on to Obama: 10 trillion
And most of that 2 trillion is social security, medicare, and continuing Bush's wars.
And Obama's stimulus? Before you turn back to FOX to hear them try to credit Bush for the recovery because of the $700 billion bailout you terrorists started a phoney, "independent" revolt over (Larry Kudlow has already started this spin):
Jobs lost in 2008 under Bush's policies: 3.5 million (Where was all the hoopla about lost jobs then?)
Jobs lost lost in 2009 under Obama: 3.5 million
Jobs lost the month Obama signed the Stimulus Bill in February, 2009: 750,000
Jobs lost in November, 2009: 10,000
And the MSM has spent the three months spinning that the Stimulus did not create or SAVE any jobs. WTF!
Let's look at some more republican spending that FOX does not want you to know:
Bush tax cut: 1.2 trillion. Actually cost in debt: 3 trillion.
Medicare Part D (this pays for prescription drugs for seniors making up to $170,000 per year!); per Joe Scarborough, this will end up adding 7 trillion in debt.
Both passed through reconciliation,
But, of course you will yell, "that's not true" without anything to refute these facts. You'll just turn back to FOX to get more, "fact free" talking points.
why don't you also fill me in on the debt projections according to Obama's own budget? if you don't know, then let me help you out : Obama's own budget projects an annual deficit of $700 billion 2010 and 2019. That puts the total deficit (again, according to Obama's budget projections) to $24.5 trillion by 2019 -- that's more than our GDP...
I for one think that's a bit excessive, but if Obama wants to spend the country into the ground, he's on the right track -- well done! (Too bad that the poor people he claims to defend will be the ones who bear the brunt of this fall-out... Don't believe me? Look at what happened in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union...).