Obama Rattles Republicans by Slyly Tying the Housing Recovery to Immigration Reform (August 7, 2013)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

obama-gun-event

President Obama has adopted a sly but compelling approach in trying to shake the anti-everything Republican Congressional caucus during its August vacation. It’s no secret that the POTUS considers the inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform to be the biggest failure of his first term. In remarks made during a Univision Spanish language forum in September of 2012, the President was not remiss in sharing blame with the unprecedentedly derelict legislative arm of government which has done its best to oppose the administration’s agenda at every turn. He told Univision, “What I confess I did not expect, and so I’m happy to take responsibility for being naive here, is that Republicans who had previously supported comprehensive immigration reform, my opponent in 2008 who had been a champion of it and who attended these meetings, suddenly would walk away…That’s what I did not anticipate.”

In another era, calling out glaring hypocrisy on the part of one of the nation’s two dominant political parties might have been enough to generate a pivot. However a combination of preoccupied voters still concerned with Great Recession survival, lazy, partisan media outlets and the emboldened cynicism of the GOP have conspired to allow Republican leadership to brand their xenophobia as responsible civic stewardship. “We can’t reward those who break the rules!” they shout. “We must protect American jobs!” These types of justifications are uttered without a hint of irony as the GOP continues to wage war on the middle class on behalf of corporate interests – an arena where rule enforcement and the interests of the American worker suddenly lose their luster.

A signature feature of the President’s second term has been renewed focus and advocacy on the issue of large scale immigration reform. Recognizing that the ideals of the American Dream are imperiled by a system so imbalanced, so painful and punitive as to appear designed for lawbreaking and misery, Obama has returned to a first term issue with gusto. And for a time this past spring, the drive to sign changes into law appeared to have serious momentum. Then, predictably, the Republicans fell into fractious disarray, with Tea Party zealots like Senator Rand Paul and his ilk standing firm against common sense, even as old guard voices like former Vice President Dan Quayle and Karl Rove declared reform “a moral obligation.” This can’t be said enough. When Karl Rove becomes a voice of moderation and reason, your team has clearly gone off the rails.

There are days when I marvel at the President’s ability to get up, get dressed and head to the Oval Office, knowing full well that he’ll be confronting disingenuous, destructive, exhaustive bull crap every waking minute. The man is nothing if not tenacious. He’s also quite dexterous. I must commend him for a subtle new tactic of tying positive bits of economic news to the critical importance of immigration reform. Not only does this provide ample opportunity to keep the issue in the headlines given the recent, if tempered, spate of positive numbers, but it has the added benefit of framing the legislation accurately. Because the continuation of regressive, socioethnically biased policy with regard to our borders has been disowned by the business community and those concerned with justice, alike. How often does that happen?

USA Today published a story this week that ostensibly detailed the President’s plan to roll back Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s share of the mortgage market. However toward the end of the piece, the reporter writes “[Obama] noted a recent study by the pro-immigration group Americas Society/Council of the Americas that shows immigrants have added $ 3.7 trillion in housing wealth. ‘It’s pretty simple: When more people buy homes, and play by the rules, home values go up for everybody,’ Obama said.”

We know how much the climate change denying faction of the GOP, which tends to represent the same crazies that oppose immigration reform, revile facts. But an embrace of reality and practical good sense have served to be the POTUS’ most effective weapons in garnering the support of the American people, and occasionally, shaming Republicans into doing the right thing. Keep it up Mr. President.

Too Big to Wail: Shameless AIG Sues Government Over Bailout (July 30, 2013)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

aig-sign

I keep telling myself that there’s nothing left that Wall Street can do to surprise me. I know there are good guys inside the system (full disclosure: I am a Marketing Manager by day at one of the largest insurance brokerages in the world), and so my contempt is for the financial groupthink that drove the nation’s economy into a ditch in recent years, the disengaged fiscal roulette in which these corporations engaged, as if there were no real lives, homes and jobs at stake. Then of course, it continues to grate that when the misbehavior of some of our largest financial institutions brought their solvency to the brink, help in the form of taxpayer bailouts was the ready solution. While we collectively and resignedly understood that to do otherwise would mean a decisive and profound trickle down that would bring citizens and residents to the fetal position (when we were already on our knees), that really didn’t make the necessity feel any better.

In the years that followed the late 2008 housing bubble burst and stock market crash, the situation has only marginally improved for American families. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics would have us believe that the unemployment rate stands at just below eight percent, a figure lower than the summer following Republican patron saint Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, anecdotal evidence all around us disproves the numbers. Don Diamond, a contributor at Forbes, puts the real unemployed/underemployed figure at 14.3 percent. He writes, “But the ‘official’ unemployment rate doesn’t count men and women like G. — discouraged workers who have settled for part-time jobs or have given up looking altogether. Tracking those individuals, under what’s called the ‘U-6′ rate, gives a very different measure of the nation’s unemployment rate.”

Jobs have disappeared, millions of homes have been lost while those who managed to stay in them saw equity drop or abscond altogether, once-healthy 401ks bled money and newly minted college graduates discovered no place for them outside their parents’ spare bedrooms. While many of us on the left and in the center wonder why the Federal government failed to prioritize a bailout for the American people, we have soldiered on with far less complaining than we might have.

This resilience of the spirit is appallingly lacking in some of the corporate entities that, once broken, are now doing fine, thank you very much – courtesy of taxpayer generosity. I thought I’d mistakenly stumbled across The Onion’s website by accident this week when I encountered the following headline: Judge OK’s questioning Bernanke in suit over AIG bailout. From the Boston Globe, via the Associated Press, the first question this story brought to mind was: “Why on Earth would AIG be suing the government? We saved their asses!”

But it appears the company does in fact have the unmitigated gall to whine about the very loose strings that came attached to the money. Marcy Gordon reports, “Hank Greenberg, the former AIG chief executive, has sued the government over the $182 billion bailout, which AIG has since repaid. Greenberg claims the terms of the bailout were too onerous and is seeking at least $25 billion… [the suit] accuses the government of taking valuable assets from AIG’s shareholders without their consent or fair compensation, in exchange for the government’s 80 percent stake in the company. The government’s actions violated parts of the Fifth Amendment, the lawsuit contends.”

Yeah. Really. As if to belabor the irony, Gordon characterizes the government’s response as follows: “the allegations are groundless. AIG’s only alternative to not receiving federal aid was bankruptcy, which would have left shareholders with worthless stock, the New York Fed has said.”

It must be mentioned that this meritless lawsuit will waste the valuable time of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who will be deposed in service of this sideshow. Also, if I stop and think about the additional wasted resources attached to this complaint – court costs, legal fees, intern salaries, etc. – I succumb to unqualified rage.

Where do these people get off? The modern GOP loves to talk about the 47 percent and it’s fondness for the “nanny state,” the food stamps, Medicaid and other social safety mechanisms that barely keep families afloat as they try to struggle back to personal solvency. But what is this brazen biting of the hand from AIG if not the entitled display of the unforgivably coddled? The logic, like that of a spoiled trust fund baby goes like this: I was profligate and you saved me. Thanks but, I didn’t ask you to and even though I gratefully accepted the help, I think I should get a rebate on the toxic assets you took and converted into viable capital. So would you be a dove?

I am not a corporate attorney or financial expert, but I can’t fathom how this suit was even granted a judge’s hearing, let alone allowed to disrupt the day to day business of the Fed Chair who – apparently it must be said – is still looking for monetary solutions that will get the American people back to work.

Newsflash for AIG: when you loan money, you pay it back with interest. I am surprised I have to say this to an organization that you know, specializes in money management and insurance. You signed on the dotted line five years ago to save your shareholders the shame and expense of bankruptcy. It worked out well for them and you. How dare you ask for anything more?

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.