Obama not a "radical socialist"

At the risk of making some of President Obama's decisions look unwise, I think it is critically important to show that he is not the radical that the Republican nominees say he is. Thus my latest "letter to the editor."

I’m not a Republican, yet I found much to agree with in “lifelong Republican” Carla Wallach’s opinion piece, Calling all moderate Republicans: Where are you? (Greenwich Time, February 23, 2012). Agreed with her, that is, until the end where she equated Republicans’ shift to the extreme right with President Obama’s shift “far to the left.”

No analysis of Obama’s presidency would put him anywhere other than as a moderate Democrat. He extended Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, a key contributor to current fiscal problems. He was willing to cut trillions from federal safety net programs, only to be rebuffed by the Republican leadership who want to preserve tax breaks for the wealthiest. He presented a plan to fully fund the extension of the payroll tax cut, a much more fiscally conservative approach than Republicans’ budget-busting unfunded tax cuts.

On health care reform, Obama never even considered a single payer model, and compromised with Republicans by taking the public option off the table, despite ample evidence that the government run, single payer program—Medicare—operates far more efficiently than privately run programs. He made a grand bargain with the insurance industry to pass health care reform, to the dismay of many Democrats.

Obama has expanded offshore drilling (with improved oversight), and in his State of the Union address, pledged support for shale gas drilling, anathema to environmentalists. Cap and trade, which he supports, is a market-based solution to pollution control that avoids government regulation. Twenty years ago it was sponsored by President Bush and voted for by Mitch McConnell and Newt Gringrich.

On matters of military policy, Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan and substantially increase drone strikes in Pakistan. He reneged on his pledge to shut Guantanamo Bay and resumed military trials, despite the infractions of constitutional protections brought to light during the Bush administration.

Empirical analysis reinforces the moderate policies of President Obama. Political scientist Keith Poole uses presidential policy positions to document that Obama is the most moderate Democratic president since World War II. Far from the “radical socialist” that GOP candidates accuse him of being.

Republican Storyline: Fact or Fiction?

I've been on the sidelines too long. We must elevate the national discourse. Here's my attempt, my latest letter to the editor.

Our country faces substantial challenges. While there will always be differences about the policies needed to surmount them, we can only achieve success through an honest debate based on accurate representation of facts. Sadly, truth is in short supply in the Republican Party.

Mitt Romney says that more jobs have been lost during President Obama’s tenure than any president since Hoover. Newt Gingrich accuses Obama of being the “food stamp president.” Both candidates ignore the fact that Obama inherited an economy in worse condition than any time since the Depression. It is dishonest to hold Obama accountable for the 3 million jobs lost during the first six months of his administration, the disastrous legacy of Bush’s fiscal mismanagement, while not recognizing the economic recovery for which his policies are responsible. Since June 2009, Obama has added 1.2 million jobs to the economy, more than half of what Bush added during his entire eight year tenure.

Romney recently claimed that “I’m not terribly worried about the very wealthiest in our society. They’re doing just fine.” So why does his proposed tax plan, as analyzed by the non-partisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, afford the wealthiest 1% tax breaks that are three times larger, in percentage terms, than the bottom 80%?

Republicans say that creating jobs is their top priority, but stood in the way of a payroll tax break for 160 million workers (that Moody’s Analytics estimated would add 750,000 jobs) because it was to be paid by a small tax increase for the wealthiest Americans. Their alternative was to lay off 10% of the federal workforce, which would only exacerbate the problem. And lest one assume that Republican administrations lead to smaller government, the facts prove otherwise. President Reagan increased nonmilitary payroll by nearly one-quarter million. George W. Bush increased it by 53,000. Under Obama, the federal workforce is smaller than it was when Reagan took office, in no small part due to the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton, which lowered the federal payroll by 380,000.

We need to evaluate the Republican storyline carefully; it’s apt to be more fiction than fact.

A local matter: High school auditorium project 'MISA'

Just like the Republicans in Washington, the local Republicans in my hometown of Greenwich, CT are doing what they can to defund spending on valuable public services, in this case education...

To the editor:

In a town that pays for human traffic lights on Greenwich Avenue, repeatedly plows roads that have already been cleared of snow, and resurfaces roads that are already in good condition, it’s disingenuous for the Republican members of the BET budget committee to claim that Greenwich doesn’t have the resources to afford the Greenwich High School Music Instruction Space and Auditorium project. While I enjoy the relatively low property tax rates in Greenwich, I would gladly pay more to fund worthwhile investments in the Greenwich Public School system.

MISA addresses a well-defined need, with long term benefits for our children and the community at large that have been thoroughly vetted in public forums. It has broad community support among those who care about the quality of public education in Greenwich The unfortunate message coming from Republican BET members is that public education is not a priority in Greenwich. It is time for First Selectman Peter Tesei to show leadership by actively lobbying for the project, and for voters in Greenwich who care about the quality of education to carefully consider who they elect to the BET next November.

Truth about Taxes

My last letter prior to the mid-term elections. Please don't forget to vote on November 2nd.

Jonathan

I don’t like taxes any more than the next person, but it’s important to make decisions about the upcoming election based on facts.

Republicans are in favor of extending Bush tax cuts to the richest 2% because they claim it will help the economy. But according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, extending high-income tax cuts is the worst policy option currently available for promoting jobs and economic growth.

Republicans want us to think that President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress have raised taxes. That’s not correct. The stimulus package resulted in tax cuts for 98% of working taxpayers in 2009; no one has had a federal tax increase in the past two years.

Republicans claim they want to help “Joe taxpayer” as much as they want to help the rich. It’s not true. They are against extending enhancements to the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit that help working families, but for extending tax cuts to the richest 2% of taxpayers. So, with Republicans in control, many Americans would actually pay higher taxes than under President Obama’s proposed tax relief.

Republicans want us to think that the Bush tax cuts were great for the economy. Facts show the opposite. In the six years following the Bush tax cuts, jobs grew by 4.8%. In contrast, following Clinton’s courageous move to raise taxes in order to restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget, jobs grew by 16.2%, more than three times better than Bush’s performance.

If you want to live in a fairyland of low taxes and no hard choices, vote Republican. If you want to help the vast majority of Americans who need help, and recognize that some sacrifice by the most fortunate of us is necessary to set our fiscal house in order, vote Democrat.

A good article from which some of my facts were confirmed:

Three Good Reasons to Let the High-End Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year, Center for American Progress, 7/29/10

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html

Eliminating the Income Tax Draws Opposition -- What Else do They Want?

Apparently there is some internet swirl around a bill introduced last
February by a PA democrat calling for a 1% tax on financial
transactions, along with abolition of the federal income tax.
Interesting that even a crackpot Democrat who wants to get rid of
income taxes can attract the ire of the opposition. But I felt the
misinformation should be called out.

To the Editor, Greenwich Time
October 19, 2010

John Corrado, in his letter, “Spending is the Problem” urges
opposition to a bill in the House, H.R. 4646, that proposes a 1% tax
on all financial transactions. Mr. Corrado goes on to blame the
Democrat who introduced the bill, Representative Chaka Fattah (D-PA),
of “looking for ways to introduce new taxes on the already heavily
taxed people.”

The problem with Mr. Corrado’s assessment is that it completely
misrepresents the facts. According to the Congressional Research
Service (part of the Library of Congress), the bill offers an
offsetting tax credit for couples earning up to $250,000. More
notably, the bill calls for phasing out the individual income tax, and
is aimed at eliminating the national debt within seven years. Whether
or not the bill has any merit, claiming that Fattah favors “tax and
spend” is ludicrous.

Implying that Fattah’s bill represents a real threat misleads
further. The Congressman has introduced similar legislation for the
past six years, which each time has died without a vote. While Mr.
Corrado reports that the bill is “in committee”, it has not attracted
any co-sponsors nor made any progress in the legislative process.

This is simply another in a sustained effort by those opposed to
Democrats to inject misinformation into the political process as a
primary strategy for advancing their agenda. Caveat emptor.

Here's the letter, published at Greenwich Time online on 10/18/10
(http://www.greenwichtime.com/default/article/Business-versus-
executive-experience-711951.php)

"Spending is the problem"

To the editor:

It seems the tax and spend folks in D.C. just don't get it. Americans,
by a large majority, are fed up with the out-of-touch elected elite
class that populates our government. These officials are still looking
for ways to introduce new taxes on the already heavily taxed people.

I urge everyone to check out H.R. 4646, a bill now in committee and
due out after the November elections, that would impose a new 1
percent tax on all monetary transactions.
Included are ATM transactions, deposits and withdrawals by any means,
and checks written, to name a few. The sponsor is a Democrat.

The country's government does not have a revenue problem. It has a
spending problem. Let's throw out the bums who would continue to bleed
us dry by means such as H.R. 4646. Write your representatives and vote
out the institutionally incompetent who won't listen to the people.

John Corrado
Norwalk

What Republicans Stand For

Plenty to write about these days...my next letter for local papers, with reference to Fairfield County, CT candidates for state and federal office:

It’s clear from their actions that Republicans have elevated
obstructionism over doing what’s right for the country. As the
midterm election nears, I ask Independents and others on the fence to
be sure they understand the motivations of candidates from the two
parties. I think you’ll find that Jim Himes, Dick Blumenthal and
Democratic candidates for state office have positive ideas for
rebuilding our economy and improving economic security. In contrast,
Republicans are motivated by obstruction and protecting the wealthy at
the expense of the middle class. Just listen to what they’re
saying.

John Boehner, Republican House minority leader, is so unconcerned with
the plight of ordinary Americans that he called financial reform
legislation “killing an ant with a nuclear weapon.” In Boehner’s
world, millions of lost jobs, and trillions in lost savings is
inconsequential. All but three House Republicans voted against
financial reform, decrying it as a threat to free markets. The same
free markets that needed Bush’s $700 billion taxpayer-financed
bailout.

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican from South Carolina, would rather lose
a senate seat than see a moderate elected who would cross party lines.
Congressional candidate Dan Debicella wants to repeal healthcare
reform, with no cogent plan on how to cover 50 million Americans who
lack health insurance. Representative Joe Barton, ranking Republican
on the House energy committee, was “ashamed” that the Obama
administration secured $20 billion from BP to cover the unprecedented
economic and environmental damage the company inflicted on the Gulf,
calling it a “shakedown.” This is the person who would take over
leadership on energy policy if Democrats lose control of the House.

Senate Republicans stood in the way of an additional $34 billion in
unemployment benefits, claiming the government can’t afford additional
deficit spending. The same Republicans who are willing to spend $700
billion to extend Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
Over in Alaska, Republicans are trying to “roll back the federal
government” while they take in federal stimulus money at nearly three
times the per capita rate as other states.

This is what Republicans are about. Hopefully it’s not what the
voters of Fairfield County want.

In Response to Greenwich's Former Mayor re "Liberal Politicians"

The former mayor of Greenwich, CT (where I live), wrote a letter to the editor in our local paper lambasting "liberal politicians" for everything they've done.

My response:

To the editor (Greenwich Post):

In his letter on September 9th, former Selectman Peter Crumbine assailed “liberal politicians” in Washington and Hartford for trillion-dollar deficits, sky-high unemployment and health care reform. The problem with Mr. Crumbine—and the Republican establishment—is that they love to play fast and loose with the facts.

They conveniently ignore that President Bush added nearly $5 trillion to the federal debt, reversing budget surpluses left to us by Clinton economic policies. The unemployment rate started its steady march upward well before President Obama took office. While it has continued to climb, the trend in job losses reversed itself after the Obama stimulus package was passed, supporting the perspective that the stimulus is achieving its goal of restoring the economy to health. If Republicans are so masterful at managing the economy, how is it that under Clinton, four times as many jobs were created as during the following Bush years?

Republicans appear to be pleased with the current state of health care, since they did everything in their power to block any attempt at reform. Apparently 45 million non-elderly uninsured (four out of five of whom are in working households), a steady decline in employer-based coverage and premiums growing four times faster over the past decade than wage increases are facts that don’t matter.

Mr. Crumbine encourages us to send “free market business executives with proven records of success” to Washington and Hartford. The same successful business executives, no doubt, that brought the global economy to its knees with their “fiscally conservative” risk taking and whose banks had to be bailed out by Bush with a $700 billion rescue package.

I suggest the next time a Republican asserts facts about how bad Democrats are for the economy, take the time to do some fact checking. You’ll be surprised at what you find.