Thanks to Arthur Clarke for clarifying the difference between Democrats and Republicans (“President Obama is indeed far left,” Opinion Mar. 15). His interpretation of facts puts into stark terms the Republican vision, which leads down a very different path than where Democrats are going.
The Republican vision favors those who have succeeded over those who have not, sides with private enterprise at the expense of the individual, imposes a narrow faction’s religious beliefs on others, and pursues profit without regard to consequences. Listening to their current narrative, it is clear that Republicans have a visceral hatred of government, believing that anything it does is devised to take what’s mine, or keep me from doing what I should be allowed.
By contrast, Democrats subscribe to a vision that sees a positive role for government—to provide incentives for socially useful activity (education, safety, national infrastructure), sensible regulation to protect us from the harm of unchecked private enterprise (BP oil spill, subprime lending), safety net programs to help those who are less advantaged (social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance).
Democrats also believe that government should actively step in and help Americans when the market fails, such as the Obama administration did to save the U.S. economy from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Beyond the difference in Democratic and Republican values, Mr. Clarke brings to light three observations, which should lead voters to take stock of their choices this November. First, the inconsistency of what Republicans say versus what they do. Second, their use of facts to mislead and divert attention from real issues. And third, their dishonesty.
Let’s start with the third, because it is the most serious charge. Mr. Clarke states that President Obama “gave $2 billion to Brazil to drill off their shores.” The U.S. did not give Brazil $2 billion. The U.S. Export-Import Bank, whose charter is to assist in the financing of U.S. exports, made a commitment in 2009 to help finance Petrobras because that would lead to the purchase of U.S. goods and services, creating jobs in the U.S. The Ex-Im Bank does not use taxpayer money. According to its chairman, Fred Hochberg, the Ex-Im Bank has returned nearly $5 billion to American taxpayers from fees it has collected. I’m not sure if Mr. Clarke considers Mr. Hochberg to be one of the “43 czars all with radical left-wing ideologies” (he was appointed by President Obama). But Forbes Magazine described Hochberg as “one of the great success stories of American entrepreneurship.”
Using facts to distort and mislead? Twice Mr. Clarke states that gas prices have doubled since Mr. Obama took office. The price of gas is set by worldwide market conditions and geo-political factors, not the U.S. President. But for what it’s worth, the price of gas more than doubled from the time President Bush took office to its peak in the summer of 2008. It was so low when Obama took office because the global economy was in shambles and demand low. It is higher now because some economies, including ours, are recovering. Also because of Obama-led sanctions on Iran to pressure it to abandon their pursuit of nuclear weapons, a goal that Republicans support.
Here’s another inconvenient fact for Republicans who say that Obama is destroying domestic oil production: it dropped every year during Bush’s administration, down 15% from 2001 to 2008. Under Obama, it is up 11%.
The Republican storyline is particularly distorted with regard to the economic crisis inherited by Obama from his Republican predecessor. First, it was a crisis: the contraction of the U.S. economy during 2008 was the worst in half a century. More than 5 million jobs had been lost. But, in the words of John Boehner, Obama’s policies “have made our economic woes worse.” The overwhelming majority of experts disagree. The Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago (hardly a leftist institution) recently polled economists from across the political spectrum and found widespread agreement that Obama’s stimulus package is working. Eight out of 10 said it has lowered unemployment. Four times as many agreed as disagreed that stimulus program produced net benefits. While there is much work to be done, freely admitted by President Obama, the economy has recovered to its peak size in 2007.
More distortion aimed at obfuscation? Mr. Clarke reports, accurately, that nearly half of tax filers don’t owe federal income tax (he didn’t say that 80% of them do pay federal taxes). He apparently believes that the wealthy are suffering at the expense of the middle class: “tax cuts for the rich are political hyperbole.” In doing so, he demonstrates Republican’s utter disregard for the less advantaged. Who are all those people not paying federal income tax? In 2009 four out of five of them had adjusted gross income of less than $30,000. It seems Mr. Clarke believes they are less deserving of tax breaks than the top 1% whose income, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, has increased more than ten times faster than the bottom 20% over the past three decades. If you want to continue the trend where the rich get richer at the expense of everybody else, vote Republican.
Finally, on to the topic of healthcare, where Republicans’ true colors really shine. Plain and simple, they are hypocrites. Romney and Gingrich are vociferous in their opposition to Obama’s healthcare reforms, especially the individual mandate that requires everybody to carry insurance to avoid the economic costs of free-loading.
But in 2009 Romney wrote in USA Today that he was “proud to be the first governor to insure all his state’s citizens.” How did he do it? He established an individual mandate by using government “tax penalties” levied against those who didn’t carry insurance which got “free-riders” to take responsibility. Gingrich, in a 2009 conference call to healthcare executives, said “We believe there should be must-carry; that is, everybody should have health insurance…”
Mr. Clarke is right to assert that we must bring down the costs of Medicare. But he scoffs at the fact that Medicare is more efficient in delivering care than private insurance. As reported by Paul Krugman, a Nobel laureate, it’s an inconvenient truth for Republicans that while Medicare spending per beneficiary has increased more than 400% over the past forty years, private health insurance premiums have increased more than 700%. Or that private insurance via Medicare Advantage costs taxpayers more than traditional Medicare. Or that the US has the most privatized system in the world, and the most expensive, but doesn’t deliver better health outcomes than the “socialist” alternatives.
Assign whatever label you want, but I believe Democrats have a better vision and track record for national prosperity than do Republicans, not to mention more integrity.
