Monthly Archives: January 2013

The conservative and evolving mainstream narrative regarding the Obama administration’s second term cabinet nominations has concentrated on the rejuvenated and re-elected president’s intention to pick a fight with his political adversaries.  More importantly, Mr. Obama has reinforced the implementation of a progressive agenda through loyalist, and not particularly autonomous, cabinet secretaries.

Dr. Charles Krauthammer argued last Friday in his column that the nomination of former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel was a message from President Obama that he will go forward with scaling back America’s role on the world stage through defense cuts and a smaller military. 

The Wall Street Journal editorial board last Thursday commented that the selection of Jack Lew is a signal that the administration has no intention of working with Republicans on spending or entitlement reform, as Mr. Lew’s recalcitrance to work with Republicans when serving as the President’s Chief-of-Staff is well known in the capital.  His views on spending, which are in line with the man who has nominated him for Treasury Secretary, serve as even more of a non-starter for negotiation.   

It appears now Senator Hagel- a former Republican- will be more difficult to confirm than it seemed at first glance, and may cause Mr. Obama to spend significant political capital.  Others have stated that the selection of Mr. Lew at Treasury will only sharpen the ideological divide on the federal government’s fiscal state between the President and legislative Republicans.

The new bounce in the President’s re-elected step has geared him into a controlled bellicosity towards his political foes.  Free of the restraints of another election, Mr. Obama seems determined to govern in a continuation of his first two years in office as an ideological progressive. The President’s estimation after re-election is he can achieve his progressive goals without the counsel or consent of his opposing colleagues in the legislative branch.   

With nominations lined up and resistance in the Senate certain, the question begs to be asked: why did he retreat last month from nominating U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for Secretary of State?

The initial reaction to Ms. Rice’s probable nomination was a vociferous one- specifically from republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain.  President Obama took exception to their tone, challenging these two men at his November press conference to refrain from directing their post re-election resentment at Ms. Rice, and “go after me.”

It seemed like the perfect fight for the President emerging from his November victory.  He won his re-election handily, dominating in a wide array of demographics – specifically among women and minorities.  Two old white stalwarts of the Republican Party had just publicly and viciously attacked the President’s probable Secretary of State nomination who is both a woman and a person of color.  If he ever wanted to spike the football after his 2012 touchdown (see: Bin Laden mission political aftermath) and bury his former presidential rival, the president could have done so with the public focus on the lack of diversity in the Republican Party. 

So why not do it?  Benghazi.

Articles were churned out at a rapid pace after the President’s re-election about the landmines of a second term.  Clinton had Monica.  Reagan had Iran-Contra.  Lincoln never even had a chance.  To avoid such problems, Mr. Obama had to first side step a disaster that took place at the end of his first term, which thanks to a compliant American media went largely ignored for a long time.  This would not be the case once Ms. Rice was nominated.

Ms. Rice’s role in the government’s management of the situation after the capture and murder of four American diplomats was minimal, if existent at all.  This was a problem managed by the President’s national security team, mostly involving the State Department, CIA, and some military.  The U.N. ambassador has little influence in these departments.

Unfortunately for Ms. Rice, she was selected by the administration to be its stoic face in front of this tragedy, making her rounds on five Sunday morning talk shows the weekend following the massacre.  Republican senators would no doubt focus on her touring these shows, specifically on her explanation regarding “the video.”

She would be forced to answer questions from Senators as a representative not only of herself, but also the administration.  Inquisitions would be dominated by the inconsistent nature of the Obama administration’s narrative, which centered on the American made anti-Islamic “video” which supposedly caused the riots that led to the storming of the Benghazi annex and the ensuing massacre of four diplomats.  That theory was later dismissed, but only after weeks of back and forth between the staffers, the press and even the President in his appearance on Letterman.  129 days later we still do not know what happened in Benghazi, and we’d now be fast approaching Ambassador Rice’s nomination hearings. 

The President’s initial defense of Ms. Rice against Messrs. McCain and Graham was Sorkinesque, according to the fawning NBC news team of Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell.  Both excitingly compared it to Michael Douglas’ closing speech in The American President, serving as Mr. Obama’s noble protection of his ambassador in distress.  But they forgot about the turning point of the film, when future Sorkin President Martin Sheen indignantly criticized his timid leader, “You fight the fights you can win?  You fight the fights that need fighting!” 

In today’s America, appointing the second African-American woman as Secretary of State qualifies as a fight worth fighting, especially for the progressive party whose power in government was just renewed in a national election.  That is of course unless they couldn’t win without paying a significant political price. 

For President Obama, reliving the September 11 attacks in Benghazi at a Senate confirmation hearing would be too high a price to pay, even if there were no serious revelations produced.  His retreat in this particular fight, juxtaposed with his aggressiveness to fill other posts, may be the most damning indication as to how much actually went wrong that day in Libya- and how little he wants the American people to comprehend that fact.

– John P. Burns

“I know no danger so dreadful and so probable as that of internal conflicts. And I know no remedy so likely to prevent it as the strengthening of the band which connects us.”- Thomas Jefferson, Representative from Virginia to Congress under the Articles of Confederation

If November 7th was a tough morning for conservatives and Republicans, January 2nd was downright cruel. Not only had the coldness of winter set in as a quick and sobering follow up to the close of the Christmas Season, but we awoke yet again to a victorious President Obama – a man one step closer to his ultimate goal of transforming the United States.

The end of the fiscal cliff’s drama only redeeming factor will be the public’s much due reprieve from the media chorus’ seemingly never-ending coverage. That ending, though, reaps new beginnings for the President, his congressional rivals, and the American people.

President Obama scored his first big post-election victory with Congress’ agreement to end the Bush Tax cuts for those families making over $450,000.00 ($400K for single filers). His much repeated campaign promise to raise taxes on the “millionaires and billionaires” who earn four hundred thousand dollars a year was finally fulfilled. Now we will see how Mr. Obama’s central plan for Americans going forward affects the economy.
But there is more.

The President has begun the second leg of his progressive agenda with the implementation of these tax hikes. He now hopes to extend that agenda’s reach. In his weekly address, the President stated he intends to urge Congress to close tax loopholes for wealthy filers and corporations as well- enacting Mr. Romney’s campaign plan to close tax loopholes in order to raise revenue, but in conjunction with higher tax rates.

In a departure from his formerly exhaustive pleas for a “balanced” approach to reduce the deficit through tax increases and spending restraint, the President and his party are now eager to tip the scales toward more taxes. This approach in the face of our yearly deficits and overall debt will prove woefully ineffective, save for the damage it can inflict on American families.

The Tax Payers Relief Act of 2012 was the highest tax rate increase on Americans in two decades. Seeking out new revenue would effectively raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans even further, from the new rate of 39.6% to somewhere around 41% or higher according to the Wall Street Journal- not including state and local taxes. What we are now seeing is the return of the far left agenda of high tax rates on the wealthy that were the status quo in the pre-Reagan era. And we can all remember the booming American economy of the 1970s.

And so we are at an impasse. The cliff circus divided the Republican Party- as always between moderates and conservatives- which was partially President Obama’s intention from the start. It was an uphill battle for Speaker Boehner after the election, facing a defiant President who had no intention of negotiating with such broad tax increases looming. It was an accurate calculation on the part of Mr. Obama, as the cliff deal came down to a decision between a tax increases on all filers or just the wealthiest Americans. Which way do you think public opinion would lean? The fact that the failure to renew the payroll tax holiday in the deal actually raised taxes on over 70% of Americans is mere noise in our current political culture. And whether or not the Republicans should have made the deal is a waste of time- the problem now is what can they do going forward to stop what seems to be a re-invigorated and determined President Barack Obama.

As I see it, the Republicans have three options in the coming debt ceiling drama:

1. The Repeat Scenario: Much like the “fiscal cliff” deal, the Republicans fracture even further over the debt ceiling increase moving toward the March deadline. Moderate Republicans ultimately side with Democrats and the President, handing the federal government a new lease on borrowing with no exchange in spending cuts for the future. This again will prevent substantive progress in relieving the nation of its burdensome debt, as well as increase the public’s disillusionment with the entire Washington establishment.

2. The Doomsday Scenario: Republicans band together and demand future cuts and restraint on spending in exchange for the debt ceiling hike. President Obama refuses to cave based on his and the national media’s intent to place all public blame on the Republican Party, and the government shuts down. A week of protest and phony press conferences ensue, featuring a condescending President Obama who blames the shut down on the ideologically uncompromising Republicans. These supposed ideologues then give into the hike without an exchange for cuts. Such a fiasco would render the party useless in congress as well as leave them to be demonized by the American public. The 2014 midterms are a slaughter, granting the President and his party full control of the executive and legislative branch.

3. The Best-case Scenario: I phrase this timidly as the current state of the Republican Party and its bargaining position is still a bad one. Undercut in the “fiscal cliff” deal by minority leader Senator McConnell, Vice-President Biden and the Senate Democrats, Speaker Boehner had no real chance at amending the bill, nor was there a reasonable scenario that would allow him to scrap the bill for a more “balanced approach” before January 1st.

But there is a silver lining. The debt ceiling deal can bring new hope to a party that has just been shellacked if it chooses to grab the bull by the horns. President Obama has vowed he would not cut a deal with congressional Republicans to increase the debt ceiling in exchange for a legislative structure to enact spending cuts. Let’s call his bluff. Take the case to the American people in full force before he does. Discuss the need for spending cuts in our bloated Federal budget. Discuss how there were no such cuts in the Tax Payer Relief Act. Discuss how this last-minute legislation has left our nation worse off in the new year; burdened by higher taxes with no reference point for spending cut progress going forward. Americans love a fair fight, so where is the Republican’s piece of the legislative pie? The President and his party finally got their vaunted tax increases. Now it’s the Republican’s turn: we need spending cuts. President Obama and Democrats went cliff diving without a scratch; don’t let them break the debt ceiling without hitting their heads.

Realistically, you can’t have scenario number 3 without risking scenario number 2. But these are serious times. Gumption and verve are needed to attain the level of success necessary to put our country on a better economic path. Republicans didn’t show much backbone in the 2012 election, nor did they band together in unity in the most recent negotiating debacle. They should surprise the President, and the people, by displaying both in the debt ceiling debate. Doing so will re-unite them and strengthen the one institution (the House) remaining that can halt the President’s dominant and ambitious progressive agenda. If they fail to do so, then the President’s second four years will feel much longer than his first.

– John P. Burns

I’ve missed this space, and am happy to be back. Even two months later, I’m still stuck on the election. Everyone gets their chance at a sour grapes election post mortem: I’m smart enough to see what the loser did wrong, but not smart enough to realize it when it would have mattered. I present to you my grapes…

While killing time between meals on Christmas, I flipped through a new book found under the tree that morning aptly named The Presidents Club. The book, by Michal Duffy and Nancy Gibbs, is an examination of the relationship between modern presidents and their living predecessors. The first chapter introduces the reader to the establishment of the club: the partnership formed between President Harry Truman and former President Herbert Hoover.

I was surprised by their initial description of President Hoover as an accomplished, once beloved public figure and President, in place of the traditional narrative of the man who presided over the infancy of the Great Depression. The authors quickly juxtapose this depiction with that of Mr. Hoover being demonized by Franklin Roosevelt and the citizenry, as if he was the sole cause of American strife in that era of hardship. Hoover became Roosevelt and the Democratic Party’s whipping boy for close to two decades. As economics or common sense would dictate, to place the blame at Hoover’s feet is simplistic at best and duplicitous at worst.

There were certainly steps taken by Mr. Hoover which did worsen the situation, but the same could be said for FDR, who won re-election during the Depression twice. It did not help matters for President Hoover that Republicans obliged the new President and his party banishing Hoover from the public view. His own party refused to defend his record in hopes the public would forget he ever existed, leaving Republicans with a clean slate in subsequent elections. They ignored the former president as much as the Democrats celebrated his supposed failures.

This stuck out to me while reading as I played over in my head the 2012 Election. First kudos go to President Obama and his campaign team. They had a strategy from which they did not waiver, suppressing general voter turnout while generating massive support amongst their base through technological and statistical advantages that the Romney team can only dream about.

But one simple tactic may have done the most damage of all. From the day he stepped into office in 2009, President Obama’s campaign for re-election began. For four long years the ills of all Americans were blamed on the “policies of the past” and the “previous administration” by Mr. Obama. Conservative pundits repeatedly criticized the President for this recurrence as a lack of leadership- passing the buck on a man who was no longer in office. Yet on Election Day, although some polled voters blamed the President for the stagnant economy (which ranked at those voters’ highest concern), the majority blamed a man named George W. Bush.

While conservatives saw this blame game as a weakness in Mr. Obama, none of us were smart enough to realize the damage he was inflicting on the party years before Mr. Romney was even the republican presidential frontrunner. The biggest failure of Republicans in this election was their inability to make an argument in favor of President Bush’s record (or more likely a conscious choice to avoid such an argument) .

Though President Obama constantly referenced Mr. Bush’s 2003 “tax cuts for the rich”, he failed to mention that President Bush cut taxes for all Americans- which President Obama has now agreed to permanently extend for 98% of those Americans. During President Bush’s eight years in office, where taxes were as low as they had been in decades, unemployment averaged 5.3% in the United States.

In the 2005-2007 fiscal years following his broad 2003 tax cut, the annual deficit decreased each year, creating even more revenue for the federal government. This progress was then stymied by the 2008 financial collapse, since which the federal government has run a deficit over a trillion dollars each of the last five years- one for President Bush, four for President Obama. President Bush’s deficit in 2007 was a $167 billion.

In a rare public moment since his leaving office, President Bush speaks on Republican’s approach to immigration reform shortly after the 2012 election.(Dallas Morning News)

Certainly these facts do not portend economic success under a Romney administration that lowered taxes, nor do they absolve President Bush of his own fiscal mismanagement as President (while lowering taxes helped the economy, he failed to control spending which ballooned the deficit in his first term). But the argument was there to be made that the similarities between Mr. Romney’s plan and President Bush’s were not problems for the Republican candidate, as President Bush’s policies were not proven failures, especially in the context of the financial collapse.

Yes, President Bush contributed to the housing collapse by signing The American Dream Down Payment Act in 2003 to ease housing loan standards. But President Bill Clinton exacerbated the problem as well in the Community Re-Investment Act a decade before. Recalcitrant democrats stalled on reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which was promulgated by President Bush. Big banks bet big on the Housing market and ultimately lost. Main Street received loans they could not afford. Wall Street sold packaged securities around these faulty loans for a profit.

And on it goes. The magnitude and complexity of the 2008 financial crisis cannot be blamed on one man. But somehow the perception created by Mr. Obama is that the problems that still linger since that crisis are the fault of Mr. Bush, and the majority of the American people ate it up.

In our own fear of referencing the “bad ol days” of President Bush, much like Republicans did with Hoover in the 1930s, we never really attempted to defend the distortions of his record made by the president. Lower taxes advocated by Mr. Romney would not bring us “back to the policies that got us here in the first place”, as they were not actually the policies that caused the collapse. But no one seemed to take the time make that distinction- whether it was Mr. Romney, the hundreds of Republicans trotted out on the campaign trail, or the advertisements costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

The lack of conviction in defending our former President and party standard bearer is a sobering thought in the context of 2012. In an election that was constantly referenced by politicians and pundits as one of the most important in our collective lives, Republicans approached this momentous debate timidly, ultimately scared of their shadow – a shadow that stood in the form of a two term Texas governor and two term United States President. Mr. Obama had no reservations about distorting the Bush record and connecting it to Mr. Romney’s plans to fit his campaign narrative for the American people. Why couldn’t Mr. Romney be forward with the public and address the American people as adults, highlighting the fact the very policies he intended to enact that were similar to that of President Bush- essentially lower taxes- actually worked for Americans for the better part of the President Bush’s two terms in office.

The Romney campaign bet the farm that the economic problems of the United States would be the most important factor in the election. They were. They bet the farm President Obama would shoulder the blame for those problems. He didn’t. Perhaps it’s time for Republicans to let President Bush out of the dog house, and in turn we may actually get our own house in order.

– John P. Burns