Obama-Romney is the new Kennedy-Nixon

The American political headlights are fixed on the Presidential debates. October 3rd, 16th and 22nd mark the candidates’ final opportunities to influence the mercurial American electorate. Polls give neither candidate significant advantage. It makes sense to look to history as a barometer of the outcome. Only one election comes close to Obama-Romney in terms of precursors, divisions, and implications: 1960’s Kennedy-Nixon election.

Even with a 42-year time difference, the analogies between the elections are uncanny. Both come on the heels of economic downturns featuring long-fought wars as backdrops. The key similarity, though, is the clash of cultures that the candidates from both elections depict. Romney and Nixon are two older liberal-leaning Republicans with shakily wavering stances. Both considered awkward and disingenuous unless calculated, they draw support from a fervent, ideologically-rigid base. On the other hand, the younger Kennedy and Obama appeal to the progressive-minded and minorities, are gifted orators, air toward populism, and are the ‘rock stars’ of their respective campaigns.

Implication-wise, both elections are at historic social junctures in America. 1960 came at the precipice of counterculture becoming mainstream, while 2012 underscores a divisive tension between the rich and poor. 2012’s debates will undoubtedly be the fulcrum of the election. Americans will see Romney, like Nixon, in the wild, and Barack Obama, like Kennedy, taking on a fierce ideological adversary. If history holds true, Obama’s calm, Kennedy-like demeanor should outshine Romney’s shifty, deliberate Nixon-esque approach. Though the times, they continue a’changin’, 2012’s significance emulates that of 1960 effortlessly.

Dear Congress (re: Debt Deal)

You didn't push the button... You made a deal to make a deal to push the button if you can't agree to push the button.

via The Huffington Post:

Congressional leaders and President Obama on Sunday night announced they've cut a deal to avert a historic U.S. default, saying they have assembled a framework that cuts some spending immediately and uses a "super Congress" to slash more in the future.

The deal calls for a first round of cuts that would total $917 billion over 10 years and allows the president to hike the debt cap -- now at $14.3 trillion -- by $900 billion, according to a presentation that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made to his members. Democrats reported those first cuts at a figure closer to $1 trillion. It was unclear Sunday night why those two estimates varied.

The federal government could begin to default on its obligations on Aug. 2 if the measure is not passed.

The next round of $1.5 trillion in cuts would be decided by a committee of 12 lawmakers evenly divided between the two parties and two chambers. This so-called super Congress would have to present its cuts by Thanksgiving, and the rest of Congress could not amend or filibuster the recommendations.

But if the super Congress somehow failed to enact savings, the measure requires automatic cuts worth at least $1.2 trillion. Those cuts would be split equally between military and domestic programs. Social Security, Medicaid and programs for the poor would be spared, but Medicare providers -- not beneficiaries -- would take a hit.

Compromise is a concept that everyone likes to espouse. It is so lauded and aggrandized in mainstream society, yet few people are truly willing to compromise. In this age of opinions, we like to say that everyone's opinion matters, yet when it comes time to move, most people are so stuck holding up their ideologies that they can't even begin to agree. Such is the case with you today, Congress.

Throughout the summer, and dating back to the 2010 midterm elections, the rising national debt has been a topic of hot debate. The hard (or imagined; no one really knows) date of August 2nd was engraved in our country's mind as the day when the United States would no longer have cash to sustain its spending. Congress, you were entrusted with finding a solution that would not only stop the bleeding from our credit cards, but also to bring in some additional cash so that maybe we wouldn't have to resort to rampant borrowing to make ends meet. I won't go into the specifics of whether I supported cuts or new revenues (you can look back at my other letters for that). The debt deal is already done, so having a written standoff about the ideological standpoints is futile. What I will take a stab at, though, is that the deal is little more that a deal to make another deal.

Congress, your job is simple: enact laws and legislation that reflect the views of the American people, and the realities of an eminent future. The months leading up until tomorrow have been a political three-ring circus, to say the least. Your simple duties have been absconded in a haze of filibusters, name-calling, misguided lone-rangering, misinformation and inactivity. From the Tea Party and GOP's unwavering insistence that everything with a pulse be cut, to Obama's 'holier-than-thou' approach, to the Dems disappearance, it seemed like no one on Capitol Hill really had the cojones to do what was right in the shadow of an impending financial collapse. Since none of the key players or sides in the debate were willing to concede, and our President forgot that he is the Executive of our fair country, we ended up with a deal that does nothing other than postpone our D-Day until Christmas. I can just feel the holiday cheer already.

Yes there are cuts, but they're mostly discretionary, and to things that already had one foot out of the door. Medicare and Medicaid, while pet programs of the Dems and sworn enemies of the GOP, are essentially going to be outmoded by Obamacare. Defense, with the Iraq and Afganistan wars simmering, was already a target. No new taxes or elimination of tax loopholes. No creative solutions to spur the economy. No infrastructure or educational plans to get the wheels rolling. Just... a deal to make a deal, and another 'bipartisan committee' to place the onus on balancing our books on. That's just not efficient, Congress. While I am liberal to the core, I understand what conservatives mean by there being too much 'government' when I think about a 'trigger' for more cuts or the new committee.

Congress, your task was to compromise so that we as a country don't have to think about defaulting on our national debts in another year's time. Instead, you effectively put off the hard decisions for no reason. We aren't any closer to a balanced budget than we were a year ago, because there is so much posturing, so many 'my way or the highway' leaders, and too many opinions (some corporate-funded, some just asylum-insane) for there to be any real consensus. If you think for a minute that this deal accomplished something more than attempting to placating the media and the few political extremist hell-bent on their own ideologies, you're dead wrong. This debt deal, and the negotiations that brought it along, proved that you are running about as efficient as a Ford Pinto with rear-end damage right about now, with no plans to put the fire out anytime soon.

You, Congress are in session for less than half of the year, usually taking summers off. That none of this became urgent until mid-July showed how truly disorganized you are. A compromise was your only task, and you couldn't even get a real one. Just a nice story for the papers, and another six months of uneasiness and anxiety for the American people to have to cope with. We elected you to make decisions for the country, not argue about who really cares about the country. Rather than be talking heads, why not be thinking ones? Thinking heads who look at the facts above all else and put strict party lines on the back burner to get the job done. Thinking heads who take the lessons of the past into consideration to make for a successful future. Thinking heads who have innovative plans while continuing to listen to the constituents that put them in office. Democrat or Republican, Independent, Moderate, Progressive or Tea Partier, liberal or conservative, you have to share the brunt of these decisions. Compromise doesn't mean anything if the status quo continues to be protected. Perhaps it's time you began compromising like there's more at stake than re-election...

Dear President Obama

Sometimes, you've got to walk away from the table to let them know you're serious.

via CNN:

A fourth straight day of talks intended to head off a possible government default ended on a tense note Wednesday, with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor saying President Barack Obama cut him off by saying "I'll see you tomorrow" before walking out.

The exchange concluded almost two hours of talks that failed to achieve a breakthrough. Another session -- the fifth in five days -- was set for Thursday, participants said...

Cantor, R-Virginia, told reporters after Wednesday's meeting that he proposed a short-term agreement to raise the federal debt ceiling, a position Obama has previously rejected.

"That's when he got very agitated and said I've sat here long enough -- that no other president -- Ronald Reagan -- would sit here like this -- and that he's reached the point that something's gotta give," Cantor said, adding that Obama called for Republicans to compromise on either their insistence that a debt-ceiling hike must be matched dollar-for-dollar by spending cuts or on their opposition to any kind of tax increase.

"And he said to me, 'Eric, don't call my bluff.' He said 'I'm going to the American people with this,' " Cantor quoted Obama as saying.

"I was somewhat taken aback," Cantor said. When he continued to press the issue, Cantor said, Obama "shoved back from the table, said 'I'll see you tomorrow' and walked out."

There comes a point when compromise is no longer an option; when putting your cards on the table in a motion of humility is best replaced by flipping the table over and throwing chairs... Well, perhaps that wouldn't work in the White House. But the furniture is all the same. President Obama, for the past two months, the country (or the more informed/interested parties of the country) and it's government have been embroiled in a vicious economic, philosophical and sociological debate about the deficit. I won't sit here and go through all of the ins and outs, because I'm sure you've had enough of it, and by your reaction yesterday it's obvious the debate has hit an impasse.

GOP Leaders like John Boehner, Rick Perry and Eric Cantor have stuck to their guns, claiming that raising taxes on the rich would hurt the 'job creators' and that cutting social programs and taxes are the quickest way to cut the deficit. Barack, I am proud to know that you finally called their bluff and walked out of the futile negotiations. I'm tired of Republicans protecting the corporate big wigs whose pockets they're holding. I'm tired of them wanting to cut social programs that most Americans rely on, all while refusing to cut military spending that has blown way out of proportion since the Iraq/Afganistan Wars started. I'm tired of a Congress so hell bent on not raising taxes on the rich that they would allow the country to go into a default in August. I'm tired of reading the news and seeing these same Republicans claiming that they will not budge when you're clearly trying to come to a centrist, middle-of-the-road compromise that encompasses some of their social cuts and the new tax revenues you're seeking.

You finally put your foot down and decided that sitting at a table with a bunch of GOP blowholes who keep spinning the same record about tax cuts and social program cuts was about as useful as a pee-flavored lollipop. You even brought up the GOP Messiah, Ronald Reagan, claiming that not even he would subserve to such draconian measures. It's been proven, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Reserve, numerous polls and independent researchers that cutting taxes (especially to the rich) will NOT FIX THE DEFICIT. And you know, just like I and most non-FOX News watching citizens, that those same tax cuts were the impetus for this Great Recession that's threatening to collapse our economy once again. The Republicans would rather drive us into the ground to protect an outmoded and unsustainable ideology, than come to a compromise that, quite frankly, employs a lot more of their ideas than yours.

Obama, you said that a change was necessary in 2008. For the past year, I've felt that you've kowtowed too much to the devices of the Party of No. Yesterday, I think that the Obama that I voted for was reincarnated with a vengeance, and I LOVE IT. By walking out of the negotiations yesterday, you proved that you're not going to give up the high ground. Yes, the GOP has a majority in the House. Yes, their personal media conglomerate FOX News, continues to purport lies and falsehoods to the same people that are being downtrodden by this recession. And yes, John Boehner and Eric Cantor are about as fiscally sound as Donald Trump in a store full of toupees. But you're the President. You're the person in command. You set the stage, and yesterday you took the stage right from under the those GOP blowholes by walking out. If this fire is an indicator of what's to come, then maybe I'm not as worried about what 2012 will bring (fiscally, that is) anymore. Walk hard, Barry. Walk hard...

Dear John Boehner

via The New York Times:

Speaker John A. Boehner said Monday that Republicans would insist on trillions of dollars in federal spending cuts in exchange for their support of an increase in the federal debt limit sought by the Obama administration to prevent a government default later this year. In his most specific statement to date on what Republicans will demand in the debt ceiling fight, Mr. Boehner told the Economic Club of New York that the level of spending reductions should exceed the amount of the increase in borrowing power.

“Without significant spending cuts and changes to the way we spend the American people’s money, there will be no debt limit increase,” Mr. Boehner told members of New York’s business and finance community. “And cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given.” Mr. Boehner said those cuts should be in the trillions of dollars, not billions. In the speech, delivered ahead of a second round of debt limit negotiations with the White House and Senate Democrats on Tuesday, Mr. Boehner did not provide a timeframe for when the spending reductions would have to be imposed.

His address came after a leading Senate Democrat, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, accused Mr. Boehner of “playing with fire” by holding the debt limit increase hostage to a push for spending cuts and budget restrictions.

“The idea of refusing to raise the debt ceiling should be taken off the table,” Mr. Schumer said in a conference call with reporters before the speech. Mr. Schumer also said he believed that the debt limit increase should be approved by mid-July to reassure nervous credit markets, though the administration has said it can push the deadline into early August.

In his remarks, the speaker expressed strong resistance to the effort by some Senate Democrats and President Obama for an alternative to enacting specific spending cuts as the price for increasing the debt limit: “triggers” that prompt automatic spending reductions and perhaps tax increases if Congress and the White House do not meet targets for lowering the deficit in coming years. That idea has emerged as providing the potential for compromise over the debt increase.

Mr. Boehner said the reductions should be “actual cuts and program reforms, not broad deficit or debt targets that punt the tough questions to the future. And with the exception of tax hikes — which will destroy jobs — everything is on the table.”

These days, government is less about truth, and more about who can spread the most believable lies. That goes for both parties. I try not to put too much faith in the political system at this point, unless I'm voting or seeing where the system is doing its job. That said, in the past year, the tax / spending / debt battle has been one of the most dishonest debates in American history, mostly due to your ignorant postulation, Mr. Boehner.

Leave alone the fact that you're one of those damn, dirty Republicans, whose sole purpose in life for the past 2 years has been to derail anything set forth by Congressional Democrats or President Obama. Forget the fact that your party came into this new century with a national surplus and a Republican president, only to leave with a $15 trillion (and counting) debt. Forget even the fact that your party continually espouses itself as a fighter for the middle class, when through your preferential treatment time and again shows your love for your rich corporate butt-buddies. Just consider this one, solitary truth about the United States budget: our taxes as a nation are at the lowest rate since the 1950s.

And you know it too, Boehner. That's why you continue to push spending cuts to programs that hold together our nation without any promise of compromise. That's why every time the Democrats do grow a pair and push their own spending cuts, you push back with even more grandiose ones. Boehner, for once, can we just look at the raw numbers (the ones your party contracted with outside think-tanks, mind you) and have the TRUTH? I'm tired of seeing mudslinging on both sides. It's not getting our country anywhere, and with every day that passes, the threat of a financial meltdown grows closer. The debt ceiling won't matter if, by the time we fix the ceiling, the cracks have already let a torrential downpour in.

Stop switching the subject to lowering oil prices when you and your party have been caught in bed handing out subsidies and tax breaks to big oil companies. Stop using thinly-veiled religious ideology as reasoning for cuts to Planned Parenthood when, we all know that program is little more than a blip on the national budget. Stop skirting around the issue of military spending, when it's clear that we dole out more for our armed forces than most countries have in the bank! Why are we even considering cuts and drops in education and infrastructure spending? Are you, for such a learned and accomplished public servant, that jaded into believing that trickle-down economics, and not investing in things that will spur innovation and JOBS, actually works? Reagan tried it, both Bush's tried it, and look what happened? DEBT.

John, it's not that I despise you... Well, you're making it hard not to. It's just that you continue to only see one side of the argument that clearly won't work. If we continue to cut things from our government, there will be nothing left to cut. And there certainly won't be much left to tax for anyway, considering our taxes are so low already. Holding the economy hostage like this is a sad reminder of you and your party's short-sighted policies. I shudder to think of where we will end up if you get your way: a desolate, top-heavy, disconnected, disenfranchised, internationally-hated nation with little to us than a name that once held weight. What good is 'balancing the budget' if no one but you, your party and those in your pockets can thrive? This is America, remember? And in America, I seem to remember that A) the truth should always prevail, and B) everyone should have a chance. Your party is ensuring neither is happening...

The Mailing List: 5 Reasons Why the US Might Be Screwed

Call me a pessimist. Call me an angry liberal. Call me unpatriotic. Call me any derogatory term for a person upset with the direction our country is going in, but you can never call me uninformed. Our fair country, the United States of America, is knee-deep in a metaphorical pile of excrement, body parts, oil and missiles, and lately I've felt less and less optimistic about our state.

 
Sidenote: If there are any Feds reading this, please don't take this as anything more than an opinion. I'm just a blogger, not a terrorist...

1. We are engaged in three wars.

Between Afghanistan, Iraq, and now our newfound military front in Libya, the United States is spreading itself thin in terms of our armed forces. After 10 years and over $1 trillion spent on military costs, the 'War on Terror' has yielded next to nothing in answers for the 9/11 attacks, much less broken up any part of the new 'axis of evil' George Dubya duped the world into believing in. Imagine that. We've been at war for over a decade now, and still have nothing to show for it but dead soldiers and civilians, a U.S. funded puppet state in Afghanistan that's rife with corruption, and a loss of faith from the world community. Now that we've engaged Libya, and still have no plans to get out of Afghanistan or Iraq, I can only imagine the carnage that can ensue. Not to mention, the U.S. is on a fast track to conflict with North Korea. If we think the Middle East has some WMD's, then I'd hate to see what Kim Jong-Il has up his sleeve. Simply put, we've focused too much on the military over the last decade, especially economically, bringing me to the next point:

2. Our domestic economic policies aren't helping.

If there is any person whose opinion on finance and the economy I'm going to trust, it's got to be Warren Buffet. The man simply knows money. And guess what? Warren Buffet says the recession isn't over, and won't be for some time considering the steps our government is taking. Take a look around. Unemployment is still rampant and job creation is stalling. The amount of Americans filing for bankruptcy is still rising. Our national debt is still rising, while our GDP is stagnant. And the worst part? Our government is enacting policies that will probably add to our deficit.

If it's not the richest Americans getting tax cuts widening the gap between the haves and have-nots and turning the U.S. into a nation of classes, then it's our egregious military spending putting us in the hole and bringing us closer to nuclear holocaust. If it's not CEO's bonuses jumping 30%, then it's state governments attempting to block unions while not cutting their own pay. If it's not a RoboCop statue being erected in the economic wasteland of Detroit, then it's the government dragging its feet in a budget-saving health care plan. Our government blasts the country's spending habits when it spends its money on ridiculous things that don't serve to improve our nation, and instead set us back.

3. Dependence on oil is still the precedent.

Energy is what runs everything. Repeat that. ENERGY RUNS EVERYTHING. It runs our transportation, every appliance and piece of technology we use, and every resource we need, needs artificial energy to work. That said, our dependence on oil is sickening. Of all Western nations, we use the most oil while producing the least. Additionally, the world's oil reserves are set to be running low in the next 30-40 years, with the world reaching it's peak oil production in the past few years. That means the world, and more importantly the U.S., is going to have to find a new method of energy production. Ironically, we continue peddling money into oil subsidies and oil companies, rather than invest in sustainable energy. At this rate, we'll be in the dark faster than you can flip a light switch.

4. Our education system and infrastructure are failing.

If you're reading this, I'm going to assume that you're reasonably educated and can formulate a complete thought on paper without awakening the spirit of Mr. Ed. However, for a lot of American youth, that's not the case. Since 2000, the United States has fallen behind most of the industrialized world in reading and math, two subjects that we excelled at starting in the 70s. Additionally, we're at our lowest rate of college matriculation and graduation in over 30 years (you could blame the recession). No, I'm not saying the U.S> has become a nation of idiots, but we're getting closer to that title by the day. With even the SAT beginning to show signs of lower scores, it's obvious that something isn't going right in our schools as of late, which should seriously affect the country's future, and inevitably our ability to understand what's even going on in our country...

5. Political engagement is down, while political ignorance is up.

According to Newsweek, Americans are becoming more and more politically ignorant, with more than 30% of Americans being unable to name our own Vice President, 44% unable to define the Bill of Rights, and 73% unable to identify why the Cold War was fought and 6% unable to circle our own Independence Day on a calendar. Excuse me? In this nation so hell-bent on patriotism and national pride, people have no earthly clue what's going on! No wonder they vote for legislation that hurts them financially, allow warmongering politicians to draw us into foreign conflict and listen to idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin spew misinformation. In the 60s, 70s and 80s our industrial might was enough to keep us afloat, because the rest of the world was simply playing catch-up. Now that the Internet has ushered in the information age, it's a necessity for the U.S. to know not only what's going on in our own country, but also the rest of the world... And we're failing terribly.

I won't sit here and say that I've lost all hope in our fair country. However, it's disconcerting to see so many ills in our country that are easily fixable with some smart leadership and engagement from our citizens. At the same time, with the way things are looking, a move to Canada might be just what the doctor ordered. They don't look like they're doing too badly. The U.N. seemed to think so, and I trust their judgment a lot more than the U.S.'s at this point...

Tax Breaks for the Rich vs. Budget Cuts for the Poor

More infographics. One more time, but really for your mind. If you haven't been paying attention for the past 6 months or so, the United States is at a crossroads of economic discourse. The haves and have-nots have always been disparate, but with the extension of George Bush's tax cuts, the distance between the two is set to grow exponentially. Conservatives, most notably the Tea Party, have put forth rhetoric saying that tax cuts for the rich will boost the economy by encouraging trickle-down economies. Basically, they're implying that by supplying the rich with more disposable and untaxable income, the rich will re-invest that money back into businesses and it will ultimately trickle down to the poor.

Yet as we've seen over the past decade, whether it's the financial collapse of 2008, the increasing tension between labor unions and owners, or our country's still-laconic economy, the rich have no intention of putting money back into the economy. They're content to put their money away in interest-bearing accounts and offshore entities to keep it 'safe'. What conservative political pundits fail to mention, though, is the crippling effect it has on the rest of us, further shrinking the middle class and widening the gap between the rich and poor. And all of this is lieu of the now GOP-led Congress threatening to cut numerous programs that would help the 'lower' class of the country. The infographic above compares the two: the tax cuts for the rich, and the cuts to programs such as early childhood education, teacher training and after-school programs, and job training for the unemployed. The good people over at the Center for American Progress put it together in the hopes that it would enlighten those blinded by conservative bullshit rhetoric. See what all the hub-ub is about above, and remember to VOTE so we don't have a government hell-bent on propping up the same elite class that propagated our financial collapse...

Dear GOP

via The New York Times:

The Obama administration said Monday that it would ask the lame-duck Congress next month to approve a $50 billion down payment on his long-range initiative to improve the nation’s roads, railways and air systems and to find savings to offset that cost, suggesting a new urgency to create jobs after last week’s disappointing unemployment report.

President Obama met at the White House with mayors, governors and current and former transportation secretaries of both parties to promote the infrastructure initiative, which he first proposed in September. Afterward, Ray LaHood, his transportation secretary and a former Republican congressman, told reporters that the lame-duck session would present an “upfront opportunity” to pass the $50 billion measure. Before then, however, the midterm elections on Nov. 2 are all but certain to expand the size of Mr. Obama’s Republican opposition for the new Congress that convenes in January. So Republicans returning later in November for unfinished business are likely to be in no mood to compromise with the White House when they will have the strength of greater numbers in the new year.

Approving $50 billion more for construction projects would be difficult enough, given that many Democrats have shied away from supporting more economic stimulus spending and that Republicans have convinced many voters that Mr. Obama’s initial two-year stimulus program, which included roughly $40 billion for transportation projects, failed to create jobs. But trying to agree on offsetting savings also would be contentious.

It's been said in numerous political arenas that the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Some take this to mean that the government should provide aspects of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness such as health care, education and protecting citizens. At the same time, oters feel that this tenet shouldn't include much at all. GOP, you're really taking this 'we hate big government' thing a little too far. President Obama introduced a $50 million bill that would jump-start initiatives to rebuild America's infrastructure, including its roads, railways and air systems. And you guys are doing what you've been doing for the past two years under Obama: say 'no'.

GOP, in what universe is improving a nation's infrastructure considered frivolous spending or too much interference from the government? I thought the government was supposed to regulate things of that nature and improve those systems when they begin to deteriorate. In terms of roads and railways, we're slowly falling behind other countries. In Japan and Europe, high-speed rails have all but replaced the Amtrak-style trains that have not only become ridiculously expensive, but also lag behind buses in efficiency. In terms of roads, every US city has thousands of miles upon miles of roads that are dilapidated and in desperate need of repair. Airline travel has become an inefficient luxury because of lack of regulation and airlines constantly folding. And you'd rather be a roadblock (no pun intended) to improving those systems for some vain reason, than just work to do... something with your power? Come on, son...

The thing is, these initiatives proposed by the Obama administration would cost us virtually nothing compared to the dearth of wealth we've just tossed away trying to 'rebuild' Afghanistan and Iraq. The transportation initiative is even going to create jobs, something that your policies have yet to do. Yet and still, you guys continue to say 'no'. Why? What is the point of saying 'no' for the sake of saying 'no'? Something as rudimentary as infrastructure-building shouldn't be a political divider, no matter how much contention or animosity there is between the parties. President Obama is trying to do an Eisenhower-esque overhaul of our outdated infrastructure. Are you really going to stand in the way of that, cutting corners for the sake of an outmoded platform? Midterms are probably going to shift the tides of Congress back your way. You've already fudged up the health care and stimulus bills. Don't stymie the arteries of our nation...