Month: May 2015

Detroit’s Bankruptcy: What Small Government and Anti-Middle Class Policy Wrought (July 24, 2013)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

Detroit-Michigan

The title of this post does not mean to suggest that the blame for Detroit’s spectacular, sustained collapse rests of the shoulders of one particular entity or interest group. From local government cronyism to the decline of America’s auto industry, to good old fashioned denial, there is plenty of blame to go around. Be that as it may, a number of commentators have rightly suggested that one of the causes of The Motor City’s fiscal crisis, the progressive shrinking of the tax base, is an ingrained part of the modern Republican party platform. Given that fact and the stark reversal in Detroit’s once glorious fortunes, there is plenty of reason to wonder if we can expect continued urban implosion if, heaven forbid, the GOP has their say.

On last Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press, NBC News’ Political Director Chuck Todd made the following observation: “If I told you that a city on the border of America’s largest trading partner couldn’t figure out how to diversify its economy, you have to sit there and say that it’s not just poor city governance. Poor business leadership, poor governance on a– it is sort of remarkable that Detroit, where it’s located, has ended up in the position.”

Yes indeed, once upon a time Detroit had everything going for it, and given its geographic desirability – in the heart of the nation’s breadbasket, bordering Canada – it is not unreasonable to concur that the city may one day regain some of its former prominence. However that possibility comes packaged with the biggest of “ifs.” If the aggressive small government ideology of the Republican party and its accompanying privatization obsession, coupled with heartless scorn for the working classes continues to metastasize, we can safely assume that the largest bankruptcy filing in history from a U.S. city will not be the last.

MSNBC host and professor Melissa Harris-Perry offered the following last Friday: “this lack of tax base is also exactly the kind of thing that many Republicans would impose on us, even when our cities have sufficient populations, even when our communities have sufficient populations. This is what it looks like when government is small enough to drown in your bathtub, and it is not a pretty picture.”

Harris-Perry’s network colleague, Ed Schultz was even more biting on his regular Sunday morning telecast last week, alleging that Michigan’s Republican Governor, Rick Snyder, is only too happy to be presented with the opportunity of “swindling public workers out of their hard-earned pensions,” treating Detroit’s hardworking, retired public servants “like they are just numbers on a balance sheet.”

But these are just liberal pundits generating ratings, right? There’s no real evidence of high profile GOPsters rooting for the Motor City’s demise!

Um….

In November 2008, an Op-Ed piece was written for the New York Times by failed Republican Presidential candidate, and former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney. The title? Let Detroit Go Bankrupt. And what rationale did this hater of the 47 percent provide for his argument that the city of Motown should be allowed to head into default, a full five years ahead of schedule? He blamed all troubles on union labor of course: “You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th.”

While Romney was speaking of the proposed automaker bailouts at the time (which he predicted, incorrectly, would lead to the “virtually guaranteed demise” of the industry), the present union pile-on, a justification for gutting the future security of hardworking Americans, has been leveraged all across the Midwest. Consider the proud union-busting tactics of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, or Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s decimation of teacher organizations in the name of “fiscal prudence.”

How long will the American public, and the increasingly corporatized media apparatus, continue to let Republicans get away with the type of cynical policy making, disguised as responsible leadership, that is literally destroying middle class solvency, speeding the foundering of the very ground upon which we stand?

Why U.S. Non-Interventionism in Middle East is Sound Policy (For Now) (July 15, 2013)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

middle-east

In recent weeks, I’ve come across a number of high profile articles mulling over President Obama’s Switzerland-esque approach to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, as well as the wait-and-see stance adopted in relation to continued unrest in Egypt. A number of commentators, including Aaron David Miller ofNewsday, believe that direct American intervention in Syria is inevitable. Likewise, writers such as Taimur Khan of The Nationalproffers US keen to keep Egypt aid flowing as the driving force behind the administration’s reluctance to choose sides in the recent military-enforced ouster of President Mohammed Morsi.

There are no doubt sundry and diverse motives for taking a sideline approach to the series of implosions occurring in the larger Middle East. Doubtless some of these are cynically diplomatic or financial in nature. But from the perspective of an ordinary citizen, as much as it pains me to witness the bloodshed and terror experienced by people advocating for freedom and opportunity, values held in esteem by all varieties of free nations, I applaud the extreme caution exercised by President Obama and his team. For it wasn’t so many years ago that we collectively witnessed the pitfalls of presumptive intervention in the affairs of other nations (see: the George W. Bush administration), and we continue to suffer the ill financial and public relations effects of those decisions.

In the case of Syria, Miller points out, “Obama has avoided intervention not because he’s insensitive, incompetent, or even uninterested. He has done so because his options aren’t just bad, they’re terrible.” Although there can be no doubt that the unfolding situation in that country is a moral and humanitarian debacle, it cannot be taken as a given that the U.S. possesses the means and authority to set things right. Certainly not after the bungling swagger that was the American regime change offensive in Iraq, or the continued, resolution-less quagmire that Afghanistan has become. While Al Qaeda has suffered, the Taliban one could certainly argue, remains as tenacious as ever.

Miller continues, “The American experience in Afghanistan and Iraq looms large over the Syrian conflict. The parallel that’s worth paying attention to isn’t boots on the ground – it’s the question of connecting means to ends. In the Syrian case, the central question is: How does militarizing the American role – through providing arms to the rebels, creating a no-fly zone, or even launching military strikes – pave the way for a successful outcome?” And what, it must be asked, would be the collateral damage to our nation’s reputation in the Muslim world, a profile that President Obama has only just begun to repair after eight years of Bush II imperialism?

In Egypt, the situation is somewhat different, although the current American approach is the same. The Obama administration did in fact join protesting Egyptians in calling for the 2011 removal of President Hosni Mubarak, then supported the democratically elected regime of Muslim Brotherhood-backed Morsi. Yet scarcely a year later, Morsi is out amidst worsening social and economic conditions for Egyptian citizens. No less an authority than former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John R. Bolton, told Newsmax: “We made a big mistake — I said it at the time — in forcing Mubarak out. He’s no Jeffersonian Democrat, but he was an ally of the United States and he supported the Camp David accord with Israel.”

No one can accuse President Obama of failing to learn from the recent past. In light of the quick and profound collapse of Morsi, America would do well to allow the Egyptians to decide the next steps for themselves, providing advice and assistance as requested.

Certain war hawks and plenty of other well-meaning folks who simply wish for a speedy end to international suffering would do well to remember that this is not World War II. We are not superheroes with unlimited human and financial capital and it is, in addition, the height of arrogance to assume that the Middle East requires saving when so many, many problems require our collective attention at home. Look to the Iraq and Afghanistan examples. By pushing for premature intervention in what may hopefully become nascent democracies, the most positive outcome could only be, at best, an expensive win-lose.

McCain’s Attempt to Undermine Afghan Pullout Strategy Blows Up in His Face Spectacularly (July 9, 2013)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

john mccain

Last week, in one of the more ill advised trips in recent diplomatic memory. Republican Senators John McCain (Arizona), longtime buddy Lindsay Graham (South Carolina), John Cornyn (Texas) and Jeff Sessions (Alabama) made an Independence Day-themed journey to Afghanistan. Though the group’s stated intent was benign enough – a morale-lifting Fourth of July celebration with American troops stationed in the country – many of us on the left had to wonder what other motivations the old war hawks might have for this surprise visit.

I actually have a longtime, highly vigilant friend of mine to thank for asking all the right questions about the precursive journey that led to Monday’s rather stunning headline on the front page of the New York Times: U.S. Considers Faster Pullout in Afghanistan. To quote my pal directly regarding the Gang of Four’s sojourn to the Greater Middle East: “I am not the only one who sees this going really wrong, correct?”

Indeed not.  While a variety of news outlets have reported on McCain’s leadership of a re-enlistment ceremony for several soldiers in Kabul, the true purpose of the trip has been obediently downplayed by corporate media. Prior to engagement with the troops, the insubordinate Gang of Four met with Afghan President, and American frenemy Hamid Karzai.

Without the benefits of a wire tap or printed transcripts, suspicious parties such as myself cannot do more than guess at the meat of this exchange, but what we can say for certain is that just days after the meeting, President Obama is suddenly re-evaluating the withdrawal of American forces on a more extreme timetable. Times reporters Mark Mazzeti and Matthew Rosenberg speculate that pursuant to a tense June 27 teleconference between Karzai and Obama, and after the visit from McCain, Graham, et al. “the idea of a complete military exit similar to the American military pullout from Iraq has gone from being considered the worst-case scenario — and a useful negotiating tool with Mr. Karzai — to an alternative under serious consideration in Washington and Kabul.”

The two reporters go on to observe, “The Obama administration’s internal deliberations about the future of the Afghan war were described by officials in Washington and Kabul who hold a range of views on how quickly the United States should leave Afghanistan and how many troops it should leave behind.” And if we take a look behind this tidy sentence, we may have an answer to what the gray-haired Gang of Four discussed with erstwhile American ally, Karzai.

Consider the following headline from the Los Angeles Times, shortly after the lawmakers’ arrival: Republican senators criticize Afghan pullout plan. The article quotes McCain as characterizing the President’s official troop reduction blueprint as an “unnecessary risk…that can undermine the whole effort and sacrifices that have been made ever since this important surge.”

Senator McCain, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but that is a far cry from the rather treasonous act of venturing to Afghanistan to try to pit that nation’s leader against the POTUS to turn events your way. Again, I have no direct proof that this is what occurred, but how many possible explanations exist for this rapid evolution of strategy?

As my wizened friend offered: “[These four senators] tend to be very much for us continuing in everlasting wars, especially McCain and Graham, and they ran over there less than a week ago NOT as [representatives] for the State Department. It is highly unlikely this is a coincidence, and that they somehow made Karzai think he could manipulate this situation to [continue] being supported and funded indefinitely.

It would be a brilliant little turn of events if the result of their manipulation turned out to be early and complete withdrawal, not an indefinite dragging out. You’d think this same group would have learned from their little Pyrrhic victory in the Susan Rice debacle (that ended with Rice getting a more powerful position and, Markey in that Senate seat) that they aren’t good strategists at predicting how to effectively manipulate this President.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

GOP Already Grasping at 2016 Straws with References to Hillary Clinton’s Age (July 2, 2013)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

hillary-bored

Latter-day Republican Party patron saint Ronald Reagan was 69 years old when he was elected President in 1980, and 73 when he successfully sought a second term in 1984. President George H. W. Bush was 68 when trounced at the polls by young, upstart William J. Clinton in 1992.

Former Kansas Senator and Majority Leader Bob Dole had logged 73 years on the planet by the 1996 Presidential campaign, which saw him fail to unseat an incumbent Clinton. Today, at nearly 90 years of age, Dole remains a relevant voice of reason, challenging his party mates to reengage common sense reality. In May of this year, Dole famously told Fox News that the the GOP should be “closed for repairs” while it assembles a party platform standing for more than fractious negativity.

In 2008, Arizona Senator and Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, then 72 years of age, was rumored to have considered a unique offer to the American public. For the price of one victorious election, the elder statesman pondered resolving concerns about his age with a commitment to just one term in the Oval Office.

As the right continues to awkwardly flounder in its attempts to connect with mainstream voters, Americans are being treated to the latest in a seemingly endless string of political ironies. The party of old white men, keenly anticipating another electoral drubbing in 2016, have resorted to attacking presumed Democratic front runner Hillary Rodham Clinton on the basis of her maturity.

In a recent New York Times article entitled, Republicans Paint Clinton as Old News for 2016 Presidential Election, writer Jonathan Martin observed, “At a conservative conference earlier in the year, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, ridiculed the 2016 Democratic field as ‘a rerun of The Golden Girls,’ referring to Mrs. Clinton and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is 70.” It is worth noting that the hapless Senate Minority Leader is himself 71 years of age.

To quote protagonist Meredith Grey of the long-running ABC drama Grey’s Anatomy: seriously? Is this the best that the GOP can do before Hillary officially tosses her hat in the proverbial ring?

Matt K. Lewis of The Week wrote a companion piece to the Times article, aptly titled Why Republicans should shut up about Hillary Clinton’s age. Among a number of cogent perceptions, Lewis declares, “The cult of youth, of course, is silly. Age can bring wisdom, and youth often equals ignorance.” Let’s zero in on the last part of the second sentence. I will take the poise, experience and cool intellect of a seasoned Clinton over the ignorant hubris of a Paul Ryan, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio anyday.

Ryan’s ongoing quest to win the serious policy wonk award has been undone repeatedly by his blanket disregard for anyone but millionaires – not to mention those 2012 campaign workout photos (egads). Rand Paul’s approach to female reproductive rights reads like this: “I think there should be some self-examination from the administration on the idea that you favor a woman’s right to an abortion, but you don’t favor a woman or a man’s right to choose what kind of light bulb, what kind of dishwasher, what kind of washing machine.” And Marco Rubio has plenty to sort out before he could ever be considered a palatable candidate, such as how the grandson of an undocumented Cuban immigrant can align himself with today’s Republican Party in the first place.

According to polls conducted in early June, Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating with American voters stands at 58 percent. This is down from a December 2012 high of 70 percent, before the GOP enjoyed their weak Benghazi scandal feast. But with Clinton currently out of political office, and the famously short term imprint of the national news cycle, experts expect those numbers to climb back steadily.

If I were a Republican strategist, I’d be worried too. A field of anemic males versus one-half of one of the most formidable couples in political history is a daunting prospect. But instead of resorting to disingenuous, hypocritical, agist barbs, why don’t you boys go out and find yourselves a platform? Expecting to gain traction with “Hillary is old! Na na na boo boo!” fully explains your present state of voter alienation.

Paul Krugman Rightfully Calls The Fed Out for Bowing to Political Pressure (June 24, 2013)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

krugman-cbs

New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman published an early week column entitled, “Et Tu, Bernanke?” The Latin allusion references the literary accusation of traitorousness, uttered by fallen Roman dictator Julius Caesar to his friend and fellow statesman Marcus Brutus at the moment of his assassination. A piece of dialogue from the pen of legendary dramatist William Shakespeare, the quote lives on because of its pain and simplicity. There are few wounds that rival the discovery of betrayal from people and institutions that we have taken for granted as acting in our best interests.

Krugman, a longtime opponent of the failed austerity plans implemented across Europe and the United States, has been a powerful, if lonely voice speaking against fiscal pain that only increases the torment of those who most need a lifeline. As Krugman has written many times in a variety of ways, the Great Recession, in large degree, is not the result of profligate financial behavior from ordinary citizens. It is instead a unique challenge presented by the runaway malfeasance of “too big to fail” banks, mortgage brokers and lenders and a host of other big businesses that have bounced back in while those they fleeced bore a double penalty: the taxpayer burden of resuscitating these institutions even as jobs, homes and retirement accounts went the way of the Edsel.

Krugman makes clear that these setbacks at the individual household level are still a long way from resolved. In fact, “The first thing you need to understand is how far we remain from full employment four years after the official end of the 2007-9 recession. It’s true that measured unemployment is down — but that mainly reflects a decline in the number of people actively seeking jobs, rather than an increase in job availability.” Simply put, almost five full years after the late-2008 market crash that sent the U.S. economy into a tailspin, many former members of the vibrant middle and working classes that made this country the envy of the world, have thrown in the towel.

The average American’s stoic ability to endure great suffering without the benefit of lobbyist dollars and infrastructure is not a reason to letup on policy making that could and should restore middle class dignity and security. Unfortunately, the very same folks who are all for corporate welfare stand firmly against “freedom killing” efforts to relieve the common man’s burden. Any talk of a jobs bill, an extension of unemployment benefits or Medicaid coverage is greeted with right wing howls against the “nanny state,” the threat of longterm deficits, etc.

But as Krugman points out, the Federal Reserve, should be immune to the disingenuous pressure of this chatter. A supposedly independent body with a three-prong mission (maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates), the Fed suddenly seems as willing as the bulk of the GOP to abandon the first charge of its raison d’etre. And the columnist further suggests that the Fed never went far enough to aid the unemployed American in the first place: “You can argue — and I would — that the Fed’s activism, while welcome, isn’t enough, and that it should be doing even more. But at least it didn’t lose sight of what’s really important. Until now.”

Krugman is referring to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s highly anticipated speech late last week in which, disappointingly, the leader indicated an imminent reduction in “stimulus” measures in favor of a return to normal monetary policy. The problem with this plan, as I have already highlighted, is that the nation remains dreadfully far away from that vaunted “maximum employment” goal. And the suggested reason for the Fed’s exhausted disinterest is more than slightly troubling.

“In any case, my guess is that what’s really happening is a bit different: Fed officials are, consciously or not, responding to political pressure. After all, ever since the Fed began its policy of aggressive monetary stimulus, it has faced angry accusations from the right that it is ‘debasing’ the dollar and setting the stage for high inflation — accusations that haven’t been retracted even though the dollar has remained strong and inflation has remained low. It’s hard to avoid the suspicion that Fed officials, worn down by the constant attacks, have been looking for a reason to slacken their efforts, and have seized on slightly better economic news as an excuse.”

We all know from experience that the squeakiest wheel tends to get the grease but that trope implies that the wheels all need attention in the first place. Why would a group that has been proven so wrong for so long – the conservative economists and think tanks – continue to have such an influence on supposedly nonpartisan policy making? It is more than frustrating and disheartening. It’s dangerous. It’s disloyal, even.