The K.F. Stone Weekly

You Schmooze, You Lose

Audio Link to You Schmooze You Lose

Dear President Obama:

   As I write this, you are no doubt putting some last-minute, finishing touches on your second inaugural address. I for one cannot wait to hear it, and hope that it will be both inspiring and transcendent. Even your most demonic detractors have to admit that you are endowed with a felicity of expression, the likes of which few presidents have

Michel de Montaigne

ever possessed.  For your millions upon millions of supporters, this ability to inspire and uplift is, without question, a lustrous gift.  Of course, there are additional millions who denigrate your eloquence; who find in your phrases traces of treachery and elitism.  Don't take it too personally Mr. President; as the great French essayist and skeptic Michel de Montaigne noted long ago, Peu d’hommes ont esté admirés par leurs domestiques, namely, "No man is a hero to his valet."

   Yes indeed, Mr. President, I am  looking forward to your inaugural address, and know you won't let us down.  At the same time, there are a few things I hope not to hear you say.  Chief among these are the expressions "Reaching across the aisle," "In the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship," and anything including the words "The higher angels of our being."  For you see, Mr. President, it is my deep and sincere hope that you learned a lesson during your first term; that no amount of wining, dining, schmoozing or boozing will ever get the opposition to support -- even via compromise -- any program or proposal you put on the table.     

   During your first term, you spent a lot of time seeking out Republicans you thought might be reasonable.  And then, you made compromises in the hopes that mollified, these "reasonable" folks would then go back and convince other members of their caucus to join you in doing that which was right for America.  But time and again, the only message they brought back from their caucus was "No bipartisanship, no compromise, no nothing . . . it's our way or the highway."  How many times can you hear "Do what we want or we'll shut down the government, blow up the economy, and dump tons and tons of coal into middle-class stockings" before it begins to sink in that these guys aren't ever going to become political partners?

   Inviting Speaker Boehner to play another round of golf with you just isn't going to cut it.  I'm not sure he would even accept an invitation; in the eyes of those on his right flank. hitting the green with you would be an act of duplicity . . . consorting with the enemy. Heck, to the best of my knowledge, not a single new GOP member of Congress accepted your invitation to come on over to the White House for punch and cookies.  And that's a tradition as old as Adams and Jefferson.  And recently, when you held a private screening of Lincoln -- attended by Steven Spielberg, and stars Daniel-Day Lewis, Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones -- Boehner, Minor Leader McConnell and Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) turned down invitations.  Hells bells: if you can't get them to come out for Spielberg and free popcorn, what chance is there of reaching a consensus on Global Warming, Immigration Reform or the next Secretary of Defense?

   The only thing that motivates Republicans these days is fear; fear that if they don't toe the most conservative line imaginable, they will be challenged in the next primary by someone who is even further to the right.  This excruciatingly obtuse situation should, Mr. President, give you the beginnings of a strategy for your second term.  If handled properly, you can hasten the complete and  utter marginalization of the GOP.  How?  By increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition -- shaky though it may be -- defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers, supporters of "self-deportation" and the pure no-tax wing.

  Little by little, you are beginning to see the strategy at work.  Already, members of the GOP including Governors Chris Christie (NJ) and Bobby Jindal (LA) are upbraiding fellow Republicans for putting hard-core deficit reduction ahead of heartfelt disaster relief, and Senators Rubio (FL) and Cruz (TX) ridiculing the "self-deportation" wing of their party.  Its a start, Mr. President; one that you should just stand back and enjoy.  You don't have to lift a finger; the GOP is imploding of its own accord. Just proceed with a second-term agenda which includes addressing global warming and immigration, sensible gun control and the retrofitting of the nation's infrastructure, education and the cleaning up the nation's economic woes.

   I like your official second-term photo; it displays a bit of attitude I believe was missing in your first term.  For here,  you are smiling, but with your arms crossed.  Could it be symbolic of the way the next four years are going to be? That you mean business? That you're going to be a more resolute, more forceful Barack Obama?  I for one certainly hope so.  Please Mr. President, don't waste any of the next four years trying to schmooze the opposition.  You schmooze, you lose.  Time and again the GOP ("Guns Over People" as one pundit has taken to calling them) have shown themselves to care more about reelection than repairing that which ails us.  There is no need for you to divide them so that they may be conquered; they have, after all,  divided themselves.  As the greatest of your predecessors once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."  

   Best wishes for a successful second term.  We're in your corner, just as you, are in ours.

   Be good to yourself,  

   Kurt F. Stone  

  ©2013 Kurt F. Stone

For R R & TRP, September is the Cruellist Month

  

Audio Link to For R R and TRP September is the Cruellest Month

  I don't know if Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan or the folks that run the Republican Party ever studied or read The Wasteland -- T.S. Eliot's monumentally disjointed modernist poem.  If they did then perhaps they remember the haunting words with which it opens:

April is the cruelest month, breeding

Lilacs out of the dead land . . .

   Then too, perhaps they also remember the promise one of the poem's many voices (or speakers) makes in line 30: 

I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

   It seems to me that for Romney, Ryan and The Republican Party -- the "R R & TRP" of this week's title -- it is September, not April, which will likely turn out to be their "cruellest month."  And for them, it will have nothing to do with lilacs, dead land or

T.S. Eliot

"fear in a handful of dust."  Rather, what will make September so incredibly cruel  for them is a witch's brew of bad press, lackluster campaigning, pallid poll numbers, and impolitic misstatements made by a standard-bearer who perhaps, when all is said and done, doesn't really want to be president all that much.  

Yes indeed, September has been rather cruel to R R &TRP.  It began with a slightly amateurish national convention in Tampa at which disdain for President Obama was far louder and more palpable than passion for Governor Romney; a convention whose rhetorical high point was Clint Eastwood speaking to an empty chair. For all their efforts, the Republican ticket received virtually none of the political "bounce" which national conventions traditionally proffer. And, to make matters a bit worse, Tampa was immediately followed by the Democrats' National Convention in Charleston, which by comparison, was a tour-de-force -- sort of like Casablanca versus Any Which Way But Loose. 

 Then, the Romney camp inexplicably decided to turn their response to attacks on American diplomatic installations in Cairo and Benghazi -- which took the life of 4 Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens -- into a partisan political attack on President Obama.  In a late-night communiqué issued even before the full extent of attacks were known, Romney said:

I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

   When asked to comment on this impolitic comment, the president merely said "Governor Romney shoots first, aims later . . ."

Of course, the likely coup de grâce was provided by that brief YouTube video in which Romney, speaking off-the-cuff before a gathering of his fellow gazillionaires characterized nearly half the American public as lazy, good-for-nothing, tax-avoiding entitlement junkies.  Speaking before his fellow Masters of the Universe at a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser in Boca Raton, Florida, Romney declared that in essence these "moochers" -- who comprise 47% of the American public -- should be written off, because there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that they will ever vote for him. 

   This is not fear in a handful of dust, as Eliot's narrator would have it; this is utter elitist disdain in a scattering of syllables. It shows in stark relief that Romney and his fellow plutocrats -- none of whom challenged his comments -- have neither regard nor understanding for the lives, challenges, aspirations or difficulties of the mass of humanity.  Ironically, in their haughty "to-the-manner-born" demeanor, they remind one of the idle Edwardian rich of whom the aristocratic Eliot -- a man born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri -- was so terribly enamored. 

   By now, just about everyone has either seen the video or heard the audio capture, and knows that Romney also claimed that had his late father George been a Mexican (as opposed to merely having been born in Mexico) he would be having a much easier time of things in this presidential election.  And so, having stubbed a toe in the dust of economy and ethnicity, Romney proceeded on to foreign policy where, not surprisingly, he fell flat on his face.  Speaking about the ongoing struggle for  achieving peace in the Middle East, Romney said:

I look at ... these thorny issues, and I say, 'There's just no way.' And so what you do is you say, 'You move things along the best way you can.' You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it."

  And this is the man who claims he will be far better for Israel than Barack Obama.

  The mind reels.

  Predictably, as R R & TRP's "cruellest month" turns the corner and heads for October, the news is not good . . . especially on the polling front:

• According to the latest Gallup Poll, President Obama is way ahead with Latinos, the nation's fastest-growing voting bloc. Gallup has Obama leading Romney by 66% to 26% among registered Latinos, who could be the voters who make the difference in November in four of the eight must-win battleground states: Colorado, Nevada, Florida and Virginia. 
  
• According to the latest Pew Research Center Poll, nationally, President Obama has a 19-point lead among women registered voters.
• A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that zero percent of African-Americans support Mitt Romney.
• According to a new American Jewish Committee survey, more than two-thirds -- 69 percent -- of Jewish voters in Florida say they will choose President Obama over Governor Romney, who will win 25 percent of the state's Jewish vote. (Obama won 76 percent of the Florida Jewish vote in 2008.)

   Personally, I have been interviewed on this last issue several times over the past couple of weeks.  I get calls from journalists asking "How do you respond to all those who say the Jewish vote is going to go to Romney?"  In the main, I tell them that although the crystal ball I gaze into is no better, no clearer than anyone else's, my gut instinct -- plus a lot of experience -- tells me that Obama and the Democrats aren't going to suffer any game-changing drop-off; that somewhere between 70% and 75% of the Jewish vote will continue voting "D." 

   The further we get into R R and TRP's "cruellest month," the more convinced I am that this is so.  For in addition to Romney's "shoot first aim second" approach to foreign policy, he has failed to delineate where his policy would be all that different from President Obama when it comes to Israel -- except to claim that he would "Do precisely the opposite" -- Whatever in the world that means. And despite all his bluster and posturing regarding the president's policy towards Iran, Romney recently admitted to ABC's George Stephanopolus that he "shares the same red line" on Iran as President Obama.

   In speaking with various journalists, I remind them that although Israel is certainly of great importance to Jewish voters when we go to the polls, it is by no means the only issue; of vital concern as well are issues ranging from women's rights and education to healthcare, and the future of Social Security and the Supreme Court.  We tend to have long memories for those who trample on the rights of the poor and downtrodden and are generally suspicious of those who pander to the forces of intolerance in order to gain a vote.  We won't soon forget that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan both addressed the 2012 "Values Voters Summit." The "summit's" organizers, which include Jerry Boykin, Executive V.P. of the Family Research Council and the American Family Association's Brian Fisher, have long and well-documented histories of gay bashing, anti-Muslim and intolerant statements, which include the disgusting linking of homosexuality to the Holocaust.   And this is where Romney's running mate and the House Majority Leader choose to speak . . .

  What a September.  For R R & TRP, it has definitely been crueler than Eliot's April.  In rereading The Wasteland, I came across a section that could easily have been written for R R & TRP . . . something they might do well to keep in mind if October and November aren't to be equally cruel:

My nerves are bad to-night.  Yes, bad.  Stay with me.

Speak to me.  Why do you never speak?  Speak.

What are you thinking of?  What thinking? What?

I never know what you are thinking.  Think.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

 

Buying into BS

      A couple of days ago, one of my university students sent me a powerful email entitled "So Now You Get Mad???"  It began with the capitalized, bolded words SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!! and then continued:

      Now, since Obama's Presidency, all of a sudden, folks have gotten mad, and want to take America Back...BACK TO ……… 

 WHAT/WHERE is my question?   

  

    At this point, the email listed more than a dozen issues from the Bush/Cheney years for which, at least in retrospect, the American public  ". . . didn't get mad."

   

   A brief sampling: 

• You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
• You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate Energy policy and push us to invade Iraq. 
• You didn't get mad when Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined.
• You didn't get mad when Bush embraced trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country.
• You didn't get mad when they didn't catch Bin Laden.  
• You didn't get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused U.S. citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement and home values.

  The email concludes with:

   

      "You finally got mad when a black man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.  Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, job losses by the millions, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, and the worst economic disaster since 1929 are all okay with you, but helping fellow Americans who are sick . . . Oh, Hell No!"

  

   I read, reread, digested, and pondered the email while partaking in a pot of McNab's Earl Grey.  I have continued thinking about the piece for a couple of days, and have reached a couple of conclusions.    

 

  First and foremost: although the basis for much of the hostility, vituperation and outright lies directed at Barack Obama ("He is not an American." "He hates America." "He wants to turn America into a Socialist nation" "He hates Israel and is always apologizing for America.") may well be tinged, if not undergirded with racism, it is next to impossible to prove . . . so why engage in the conversation? No one but the most committed bigot would ever admit that the basis for despising President Obama -- to an extent all but unknown in American history -- is the color of his skin.  And yet, when one remembers that the attacks and prevarications began even before Obama took the oath of office, one is forced to ask "What makes this president so different from all the others?"

• Is it that he is far more liberal than the rest? Decidedly not.
•  Is it that he is demonstrably less patriotic than his predecessors? Hardly.
• Is it that he alone lacks the faith of our Founding Fathers?  Give me a break.   
• Is it that he is our only "foreign-born" president?  Ask Donald Trump.
• Is it that he is far more pro-tax, pro-spending and anti-gun than the rest?  No.
  

  The fact of the matter is, the two things which make President Barack Obama sui generis are his name and his ethnicity. However, as suggested above, asserting that racism -- whether overt or subliminal -- is a key component in the fuel that fans the flames of "anti-Obamaism" is an exercise in utter futility. . . even if it be true.  Again, as noted above, none but the most toxic of bigots would ever publicly admit to hating President Obama because of his race.  

  

    At this point, two comments come to mind.  The first is an old rabbinic statement: ha-mayvin yahvin -- "The enlightened one understands."  The second, from the late British writer Douglas Adams: "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have to at least consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands." 

  

   The second conclusion which I drew after pondering the email is that mass hindsight generally involves a high degree of mass myopia.  Retrospectively, it does not seem that the missteps and failures of the Bush/Cheney years elicited nearly as much acrimony, recrimination or personal vilification -- not to mention reportage -- as the perceived sins of the Obama/Biden years.   Then too, looking backward, one does not recall the personal attacks against George W. Bush being nearly as vile or as visceral as those against his successor.  This is in no way meant to imply that W and his administration received a pass, for they certainly did not.  W. certainly was pilloried by many for such things as getting us into Iraq without budgeting for its cost; for spending money like a drunken sailor; for turning the Clinton surplus into a vast deficit.  Then too, his "Texas Good Ole Boy" persona and verbal gaffes provided plenty of fodder for pundits and late-night talk show hosts.  One tends to forget these things, because mass hindsight does involve a high degree of mass myopia.

  

   One huge difference between then and now is the increasingly noisy and hyper-partisan role played by our hydra-headed media.   During the Bush years, those media-types holding the president's feet to the fire were in a minority. Canards, distortions and outright lies about W and his administration were simply not broadcast hour after hour, day after day. Today, during the Obama years, MSNBC, Media Matters for America,  The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast are simply no match for Fox, Accuracy in Media, Breitbart and Red State, the latter of which are the source of much of what passes for "facts."  So much of what the American people "know" about President Obama -- his past, as well as his agenda, intentions and future goals -- are now gleaned from highly biased sources who peddle BS with all the skill -- and lack of conscience -- of medicine-show snake oil salesmen.  As a result, it is increasingly the case that the definition of a "fact" is BS told with great  frequency and volubility. 

   Case in point: federal spending during the Obama years.

  

   A recent Wall Street Journal "Market Watch" column noted that government spending is rising at its slowest pace since the 1950s.  In his May 22 column, the WSJ's Columnist Rex Nutting wrote:  "Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. . . . Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.  Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has."  

  

   Nutting then provided the following facts, according to official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal      spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

   Despite these figures -- and the fact that the last huge surge in federal spending took place in fiscal 2009, before Barack Obama took office -- hardly a minute goes by without Mitt Romney, the entertainers at Fox or the conservative blogosphere making comments like "The debt has gone up dramatically under Barack Obama"; "Obama and the Democrats spend money like a drunken sailor;" and "Obama has run up more debt in 3 years than George W. Bush did in 8." 

   Don't buy this; it is BS. 

   A couple of facts:

• When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it's about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama's opponents: $4.7 trillion.
• But ask yourself: Which of Obama's policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.
• According to the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), "Virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years will be due to Bush policies and the economic downturn." 
  

   Working off of Congress Budget Office estimates, CBPP economists came up with the following chart:

  

   Will the welter of facts and statistics ever be able to withstand the prevarication, scare tactics and utter BS of those who truly hate this president, his administration and everyone with a "D" after their name?

  

   One can only hope . . .

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

    

"The Journey, Not the Arrival Matters"

   I wish I had a dollar for every Tom, Dick and Mary who told me -- with utter certainty -- that "President Obama is no friend of Israel," or that "Obama has thrown Israel under the bus."  If I did have that dollar-per-head, I would have easily more than enough gelt to purchase a couple of hundred trees through the Jewish National Fund.  For indeed, there are easily that many people who have bought into the canard that not only is Barack Obama bad for the State of Israel, he's "obviously and transparently on the side of the Palestinians."  

   In the immortal words of Mr. Pitt: "Stuff and nonsense!"

  Whenever I challenge a person, asking "what is the basis for your belief that President Obama is anti-Israel?" about the only tangible response I get is "Well, he has yet to visit Israel."  Frequently, this comment will be coupled with statements like: "Mitt Romney said that as president, his first trip abroad would be to Israel," or "When he was a candidate, Rick Perry said that one of his first trips would be to Israel."

   After hearing this "If Obama truly cared about Israel he would get his fanny there ASAP," dig more times than I care to count, I decided to do some heavy duty research on presidential travel over the past half century.  From John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama, America has had ten presidents.  Of these, five -- Kennedy, Johnson, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama -- traveled first to Canada; three -- Ford, Reagan and George W. Bush -- made their first presidential trips Mexico.

   On June 16, 1974, Richard Nixon became the first president to visit Israel. This particular foreign trip, which had begun a week earlier, included prior stops in Austria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, and concluded with one-day visits to Jordan and Portugal.  During his 24-hours in Jerusalem, Nixon met with then-President Ephraim Katzir and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.  (During his 6+ years in the White House, Nixon took 11 trips abroad; his visit to Israel came during his 9th trip.)

   Presidents Ford, Reagan and George H.W. Bush never visited Israel. President Carter made two trips to Israel, in December 1977 and March 1979.  To date, Bill Clinton has the all-time record for visits by an American president; during his eight years in the White House, he went no less than four times.  During his eight years in the White House, Clinton made 53 separate trips abroad, during which time he made 133 different stops. His initial journey to Israel -- October 27-28, 1994 -- came during his sixth trip abroad, slightly less than 22 months after having taken the oath of office.

   By comparison, President George W. Bush, who was inaugurated in January 2001, did not make his first visit to the Jewish State for more than seven years -- not until January 9, 2008. During his eight years in the White House, W took forty-six trips abroad, encompassing 140 stops.  This initial journey to Israel came on the 109th stop of his 39th foreign trip.  In doing my research, I did not find a single instance of anyone questioning George W. Bush's Israeli bona fides because he had yet to go to Jerusalem. 

   And yet, there are all those who see President Obama's not having visited Israel -- and he's only been in office for 38 months -- as somehow being proof that he is against the Jewish State.  Up until today -- when the president is in Korea for the "Nuclear Security Summit," President Obama has made 21 trips abroad, incorporating 44 separate stops.  And while he has been repeatedly pilloried for "all his visits to Arab countries," it is fascinating to note that during his first 38 months in office, he has spent precisely one day in Egypt and one day in Saudi Arabia.  But to listen to his detractors, one might conclude that he has spent so much time kowtowing to King Abdullah and the House of Saud that he has his own personal suite of rooms at the Tuwayq Palace in Riyadh.

  So far as the "If elected, my first foreign trip will be to Israel" crowd goes, they are engaging in nothing more than campaign rhetoric meant to shore up as many Jewish votes as possible.  As rhetoric, the promise is understandable; as policy, it is neither intelligent nor wise.  

   Why?

   An analogy might help: imagine that it's the night before the Superbowl, and you are your team's star quarterback.  You go out to dinner and low and behold, who do you see but your opposite number and several members of his team -- dining with the fellow who's going to be refereeing tomorrow's game!  Naturally, you wonder about how in the world that ref can be impartial or neutral; he's so chummy with the other team.  To announce up front that one's first presidential visit will be to Jerusalem is tantamount to having drinks and dinner with one team the night before the big game.  Any overture emanating from that administration; any call for talks between Israelis and Palestinians would likely fail before they even commenced; the latter would see the deck being stacked against them -- or to continue in terms of our analogy, to suspect that the coin toss is going to be rigged in favor of the opposition.

   Any foreign policy team that would advise a candidate to announce that if elected, his first foreign trip will be to Israel -- rather than Canada, Mexico, England or Belgium as the last 10 presidents have done -- is not worthy of their paychecks. They have staked their candidate to a promise he'd be smart not to keep -- if he's truly concerned about seeking a two-state solution.

   The fact that President Obama has yet to touch down at Ben Gurion Airport will continue to provide all the "proof" many need to back up their belief that he is not a friend to Israel.  Countering this falsity is not easy, for many Americans have suspected Barack Obama of anti-American, anti-Democratic, anti-Israel tendencies from the day he first won the Democratic nomination -- without a scintilla of substantiation.  George W. Bush did not arrive in Jerusalem until he had nearly completed two terms, and yet -- as noted above -- nobody raised a peep, no one thought to inquire if he -- who entertained Saudi princes at his ranch and was photographed kissing them -- was a friend or foe of the Jewish State. 

   Yes, yes, I know, politics is not fair.  And to further prove it, one of these days, Barack Obama will arrive at Ben Gurion.  And at that time, the same people who are damning him for not having been there before, will accuse him of pandering to the American Jewish community -- even if he is not running for reelection.

    Although Barack Obama has yet to arrive in Jerusalem his journey in getting there is both sound and sincere. 

   And, as the late, great British political theorist/author/civil servant Leonard Woolf (Virginia's husband) once noted, "The journey, not the arrival matters . . ."     

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

A Canvas of Words -- A Portrait of Actions

   Without question the 2012 presidential election will be a referendum on the progress and efficacy of President Obama’s policies, versus his challenger’s promises and rhetoric. As well it should be.  The election will, to a great extent, turn on how voters answer several critical questions, chief among them being:

• Which candidate – and party – seems to have the best handle on how to create jobs in the short-run while retooling the American economy for the future?
• Which candidate -- and party – appears to best understand and relate to the needs and aspirations of America’s vast middle class?
• Which candidate – and party – will be best able to keep America safe from external threats, support our allies and keep our enemies in check?

   The questions are posed in a conditional sense, for one simply never knows which campaign promises will become policy. In the world of bare-knuckled political partisanship, there are far too many variables at play; translating rhetoric into reality is a Herculean task.  For the challenger in a presidential race, there is a canvas of words; for the incumbent, there is a portrait of action. While campaigning is, generally speaking, akin to playing a game of "Texas Hold-Um," governing is far more intricate -- like a game of chess. As the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once sagely noted, “We campaign in poetry but govern in prose.”  Or to put it a bit more prosaically, “actions speak louder than words.” 

   President Obama’s well-received speech before the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference a week ago Sunday was a unique convergence of poetry and prose – of words describing actions.  In his soaring 33-minute address, he noted that “. . . over the next several days, you will hear many fine words from elected officials describing their commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship. But,” he continued, “As you examine my commitment, you don’t just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds.”

    Indeed, actions do speak louder than words.  The close relationship between the Obama Administration and Israel is far more than a canvas of words; it is a portrait of action.  Since entering office in January 2009, President Obama has increased security funding for Israel three times; it is now at its highest level in history.  He has provided critical funds for the “Iron Dome” missile defense system which, he told Policy Conference attendees, “has intercepted rockets that might have hit homes and hospitals and schools . . .” The president further detailed how “When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them. When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to save them.”

  The president reminded the gathering how in September 2011, he “. . . stood before the United Nations General Assembly and reaffirmed that any lasting peace must acknowledge the fundamental legitimacy of Israel and its security concerns.  No American President,” he noted “has made such a clear statement about our support for Israel at the United Nations at such a difficult time. People usually give those speeches before audiences like this one -- not before the General Assembly.” The president drew laughter when he noted, “And I must say, there was not a lot of applause.”

   And yet, despite a welter of actions that mark this president and his administration as  true and unhesitating friends of Israel – of “having Israel’s back” -- there are many who continue accusing him of having “Thrown Israel under the bus,” and wondering aloud “If he’s such a great friend of Israel, why hasn’t he been there yet?” (It should be noted that President George W. Bush, did not make his first visit to Israel until January 9. 2008 – near the end of his second term, and the 39th of his 46 presidential trips abroad.  Presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush never visited the Jewish State.  President Bill Clinton, who visited Israel on four separate occasions, paid his first official visit on October 26, 1994, 21 months after taking office.) 

   There are so many statements and claims made by the president’s opponents which fly in the face of reality. And while it may be true that “all’s fair in love and war,” America’s relationship with Israel, the president noted in his AIPAC address, “is simply too important to be distorted by partisan politics.”

   The one area where President Obama and his surrogates may well be faulted is in not detailing both clearly and precisely just how many positive actions they have undertaken on behalf of our friend and ally.  “If you want to know where my heart lies,” the president told AIPAC, “look no further than what I have done – to stand up for Israel.” 

The president’s opponents may have claim to a canvas of words, but he has a portrait – a portrait of tangible deeds.

 

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Forty-Five Pictures Might Be Worth Ten Million Votes

 Something quite a bit different this week .  . .

 With so much time, attention and ink being devoted to the retrograde lunacy and schoolyard caterwauling that is the Republican field, I thought it would be appropriate to devote a column -- in a few words and forty-five pictures -- to a class act: President Barack Obama.  It comes as no surprise that in the midst of debates and screaming headlines concerning such contrived "dog whistle" issues as contraception, transvaginal ultrasounds and personhood, we wonder "are there any adults left in the room?"  Actually there are.  And one of them is President Obama.  There is such a vast chasm in this country between those who can't find a single positive thing to say about our president and those who find him to be the embodiment of the American  Dream.  I must admit to being in the latter camp.

   And so, without further ado, a "Thank You" to the man and the family who reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

   (Deep thanks to my friend and student Al Blake for bringing the following to my attention . . . )

 

Thanks Mr. President

For

. . . the "room lightening" smile:

 

 

 

 

For

The mind that always thinks:

 

 

For preventing a second Great Depression:

For the humor:

 

 

 

 

For bringing the number of women on the Supreme Court to 3:

 

For making the White House the "People's" house:

 

For 1.1 million jobs created in 2010 alone, more than the entire 8 years of George W. Bush:

 

For the love of people:

 

 

 

For the love of family:

 

 

 

 

For the First Lady:

 

 

 

For Health Care Reform:

 

 

For leaving the past behind:

 

 

For the world having respect for America again:

 

 

 

 

 

For quietly and calmly dealing with crisis after crisis, after crisis, after crisis, even if not being responsible for any of them:

 

For being so "cool":

For being fierce - when need be:

 

 

 

 

For having the intellect to be curious:

 

 

For the capacity to know that you are, as we are, imperfect:

 

For having the sense to not let it destroy you:

 

For the capacity to be compassionate:

 

 

For being an inspiration to so many:

 

 

For saving the auto industry and at least 1.4 million jobs:

For loving our troops:

 

 

For undertanding the horrible price of war:

 

For bringing 100,000 men and women back from Iraq:

 

For facing the most difficult and loneliest job in the world with grace, dignity, honesty and guts in spite of so many "Haters":

For being, in spite of all the hate, pettiness, racism, corruption and immaturity around, the most progressive and 'for the people' president in decades:
 
And simply for this:

 

For Being....................

"MR. PRESIDENT"!

 

 

When Good News is No News

  On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the economy added 243,000 jobs in January, which dropped the unemployment rate to 8.3% -- the lowest jobless rate since January 2009, the month Barak Obama took the oath of office.  Although certainly slower and weaker than the president and millions of un- and underemployed Americans would wish, there is no question but that the American economy is improving.  Indeed, over the past year, the economy has added nearly 2 million non-government  jobs; over the past 23 months that figure is 3.7 million. jobs

This represents the best 12 months in at least 5 years.  Buoyed by the good news, the Dow rose by slightly more than 200 points, ending the week at 12,862.23 -- a 77.4% rise since Barack Obama took the oath of office slightly more than 3 years ago.

 

  According to a broad array of data, the economy has been gaining strength for almost six months, offering some reason for hope that the effects of the deep financial crisis are finally starting to fade. Still, the economy will need several more years of strong job growth to return to anything resembling full health. And although many forecasters are growing more hopeful about this year, several factors — including Europe’s financial troubles and the turmoil in Iran — could change the situation quickly.  As such, in speaking about the economy this past Friday, the president essentially laid out the theme that will be at the center of his re-election campaign, reminding voters how bad an economy he inherited and hailing recent progress while being careful to add that there is still a long way to go. "The economy is growing stronger; the recovery is speeding up," the president said.  But he then quickly conceded: "These numbers will go up and down in the coming months."  

   In other words, despite the much-needed good news, the president neither crowed nor took a rhetorical victory lap.  He knows that while the path we're on is a good and solid one, it nonetheless contains many ruts, jags and potholes. Sounds pretty realistic to me; hopeful and cautiously optimistic.  There is much to be both proud and hopeful about:

• After more than a decade of job losses, American manufacturing has been creating jobs since December 2009.
• The American auto industry is back. GM is again No. 1 in the world; auto manufacturers are expected to add more than 100,000 new jobs in the next 2 years.
• American oil production is at its highest level in more than 8 years.
  

   To listen to the none-too-loyal opposition, none of the above is true; things are getting worse. For them, there is no good news. Or, to put it another way, "good news is no news." Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the House Republican Conference, like many of his colleagues, essentially ignored the positive economic news. “Today is an indication of another failure of this president’s policies — 36 months in a row of 8 percent-plus unemployment,” he said. Speaker John Boehner said, "The American people are still asking,  'Where are the jobs?'"

According to Romney, Gingrich, Paul and Santorum, President Obama and his administration, far from leading the economy down the road to recovery, are lost at sea clinging to a deflated life raft.  According to them, the newest Labor Department figures are meaningless at best, suspect at worst. (Limbaugh and Hannaty both argued "The jobs report is corrupt."  Hannaty said the report ". . . has phony numbers all around it.")  Such a position places President Obama's potential challengers -- especially Gov. Romney -- in the position of ignoring statistical evidence and sounding the tocsin of angry, conspiratorial negativity . . . never a great strategy in a presidential campaign.  It also leaves voters wondering whether these guys are actually pulling for the economy to remain in the tank -- at least until they can take over.  If so, this is, to my way of thinking, ideological treason.

  Speaking at a campaign stop in Sparks, Nevada just a few hours before that state's caucus gatherings, Romney said, “This recovery has been slower than it should have been. People have been suffering for longer than they should have had to suffer. Will it get better? I think it’ll get better,” he added. “But this president has not helped the process. He’s hurt it.”  And despite making these comments in Nevada -- the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation (slightly above 13%), Romney's only "cure for what ails us" is -- like virtually every other Republican in America -- lower taxes and less regulation.  From day one, Romney has been proclaiming that as a businessman -- one who has "an intimate knowledge of the private sector" -- he "knows what it takes" to get America out of its economic doldrums.

  There is ample evidence that having "an intimate knowledge of the private sector" is no guarantee of succeeding in government. Take the last American president to come from the ranks of business: Hoover Hoover.  Need one say more?  Or Florida's current Governor, Rick Scott. Despite having experienced enough success in the private sector to pay for a campaign out of his own pocket, he has been an utter disaster as governor; running a for-profit business is one heck of a lot different than running a state.  Even Scott's fellow Republicans are turning against him.  (It should be noted that despite spending $73 million of his own money, Scott only managed to defeat Democrat Alex Sink by a razor-thin margin of 48.87%-47.72%).  One can also site the failed governorships of Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and John Corzine (D-NJ), two highly successful, fabulously wealthy men, which were more notable for their failures than successes.  The short and sweet of it is that running a business and running a government are two very different enterprises.  

  It is in no way surprising that Mitt Romney, a man who made an unfathomable fortune in the private sector, should ask us to place our faith in the free market.  After all, from his perspective -- and that of most of his Republican colleagues -- this is whence all economic health and success emanates.  Their argument has long been that by lowering taxes for the wealthy, by cutting -- if not eliminating -- the tax on capital gains, it will permit business owners to expand their enterprises, thus increasing employment and thus strengthening the economy.  Over the past generation, this argument has gone by the name "supply-side" economics.  There is, I am sorry to say, no historic evidence for its ever having succeeded.  In order for "supply-side" to work, there must be a "demand-side" -- consumers -- who have the cash to buy what the wealthy are supplying.   

  One need not agree with "the free market is the salvation of us all" philosophy to understand how it could be quite appealing to many -- especially those who have been taught that "government is the problem, not the solution."  What is terribly difficult to comprehend however, is how people can take good news and spin it into being no news at all.

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

 

A Keystone Comedy

This past week President Obama and the State Department rejected a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. What a perversely ironic name: "Keystone." For me, a child of Hollywood, that name conjures up images of anarchic Kops who jump up and down, run to and fro, and throw pies with gay abandon; all perfectly predictable, all in the service of that low-brow class of comedy known as "slapstick." If the issues involved in the current Keystone -- the pipeline -- weren't so deadly serious -- energy, ecology and employment -- it too could qualify as slapstick: anarchic, predictable and low-brow.

Except this Keystone isn't a silent flick; it's got a sound-track and special effects and everything.

And it's more of a tragicomedy . . .

For anyone who's been paying close attention to this ongoing tragicomedy, the State Department's rejection should come as no surprise; it is all part of an election-year scenario composed by the Republicans Caucus. From the moment late last month when Boehner & Company attached a provision to the payroll tax extension bill requiring the president to decide on the pipeline permit within 60 days, their intention was as obvious as the plotline of a Keystone Comedy: to hit Barack Obama and the Democrats with an election year pie in the face. Even before Republicans attached the provision, the White House had stated that it would need a minimum of another year in order to evaluate the various potential impacts of the pipelines. (For those not yet aware of what "fracking" -- hydraulic fracturing -- is, check out an article from The Guardian.) What has not been generally reported is that Nebraska and North Dakota -- two states that would be along the proposed pipeline route -- expressed severe reservations about the impact it might have on farmlands and aquifer. As a result, TransCanada -- the firm set to build the pipeline -- went back to the drawing board in order to create a new route. Both the president and the State Department have made it clear that they are willing to revisit this issue in the future, once TransCanada maps out a new route proposal. But to listen to the opposition, the denial is both eternal and unalterable.

Guess again.

From day one, most Republicans -- and a number of Democrats -- proclaimed that approving the Keystone XL was absolutely essential; both for the jobs it would create, and for the energy independence it would guarantee. With the Obama Administration's denial, Republicans can now breathlessly accuse the president of being callously unconcerned about either. "He is," more than one Fox commentator has complained, "anti-oil and anti-Capitalism."

How predictable.

Anti-oil? Anti-Capitalist? Really? In his statement on the decision, the president said his administration is looking at another proposed pipeline in the Midwest. Just last month, his administration made available 21 million acres - an area about the size of South Carolina - of offshore drilling sites in the Gulf of Mexico -- not precisely the action of a man or an administration that is "anti-oil." The lease auction attracted more than $337 million in high bids from oil companies.

Moreover, when the State Department issued its original negative report on the proposed Keystone-XL, it was marred by enough controvery and scandal to warrant an investigation by Foggy Bottom's inspector general.( Yes, that's right; the administration was investigating itself!) Last year, a Freedom of Information Act request by environmental groups revealed that a former Hillary Clinton campaign aide was working as a lobbyist for TransCanada, and that Cardno Entrix, a massive contracting firm and TransCanada client, was hired to prepare much of the original environmental assessment.

And the Teeheezels of the right still would have us believe that the administration is anti-oil!

What a predictable script.

In the run-up to Obama's permit denial, the entertainers at Fox, emoting from scripts written by TransCanada, claimed that the proposed $7 billion, 1,700-mile pipeline would create 12-15,000 jobs. Now that it has been put on hold, that number has magically grown to anywhere between 20,000 and 50,000 construction and manufacturing jobs as well as more than 120,000 indirect jobs. So far as I can tell, this is the only jobs program the Republicans have put forth since taking over Congress -- except for cutting taxes and regulations.

Want to talk about jobs?

A recent 40-page study published by the Cornell Global Labor Institute entitled Pipe Dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL concludes that the job estimates put forward by TransCanada are "unsubstantiated." The folks at Cornell GLI found that "50% or more of the steel pipe, the main material input used for Keystone XL, will be manufactured outside the U.S." Another study concluded that at best, Keystone would create between 2,500 and 6,000 temporary construction positions. It follows that if the number of direct jobs -- and their economic impact -- are far less than TransCanada has claimed, that the number of indirect positions will also be far less.

Another line in the script goes, "The oil carried by the Keystone XL will go a long way towards weaning America off of foreign oil -- something the president obviously could care less about!" Here again, there's a bit of a problem with reality . . . and reportage. It turns out that the United States, for the first time in 62 years, is a net exporter of petroleum products. According to data released in late November of 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration -- and reported by that notorious Socialist rag The Wall Street Journal -- "The U.S. exported 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first nine months of 2011, while it imported 689.4 million barrels." As recently as 2005, we imported nearly 900 million more barrels of petroleum than we exported. The last time we were a net exporter of oil, gas cost 26 cents a gallon, the price of a first-class stamp was 3 cents, and a typical house cost $13,500.

This bit of good news has gone largely unreported. The question is why. I suspect it is because the lion's share of oil that would flow through the Keystone XL would be exported overseas . . . which does a lot for corporate profits but precious little for energy independence.

It has been loudly suggested that President Obama canceled the Keystone XL pipeline as "an election-year gesture of good will to his most ardent supporters on the Left." While it is true that environmentally-conscious Americans are gleeful that at least for now the pipeline and the dangers of fracking have been put on the shelf, not all of the president's "most ardent supporters" are happy. For in putting the Keystone XL on hold, President Obama has earned a ton of enmity from organized labor -- a key group he will need if he is to be reelected. Labor believes that the president's action is short-sighted; that it kills unionized jobs. I don't think anyone's crystal ball is powerful enough to see whether or not jobs produced by the pipeline project would be unionized.

One thing I do know that in denying TransCanada their permit, President Obama has done precisely what the Republicans set him up to do; he has faithfully acted out the script they wrote for him. The president and his advisers are wise enough to know that in denying the Keystone permit, he was setting himself up to have a political pie thrown his way.

The question now is, how good are his reflexes . . . ?

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

   Without question, for most American voters, the 2012 presidential election will hinge on the central, interlocking issues of jobs and the economy.  Among the questions voters will asking are:

• Which candidate -- and which party --  comes across as being best tuned in to the plight of the more than 14 million unemployed Americans?
• Which candidate -- and which party -- appears to have the best/better handle on how to create jobs in the short-run while retooling the American economy for the future?
• Which candidate -- and which party -- seems to have a greater allegiance to the American Middle Class than to the country's elite?
• Which candidate -- and which party -- expresses the greater amount of seriousness and the lesser amount of mere finger-wagging?

   The fact that all four of these questions are expressed conditionally is purely purposive; one simply never knows for certain which campaign promises stand a chance of becoming reality.  As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan sagely noted, "We campaign in poetry but govern in prose . . ."

   For other, so-called "values voters," the 2012 election will hinge more specifically on moral issues such as abortion, gay marriage, evolution-vs.-creationism, and the role of religion in public life.  Even at this early juncture, it is clear that most Republican candidates are both proud and comfortable being identified as members of "the party of God."  What this means to imply about the Democrats by comparison, I will leave to the individual imagination . . .  

   For many American Jewish voters, the central issue is, quite understandably, Israel -- specifically, which candidate -- and which party -- is and will be that tiny nation-state's more steadfast friend and defender. 

   Almost from his first appearance on the national political stage back in 2004, Barack Obama has been accused of being anything but a "friend of Israel."  He has been accused in many quarters of favoring Palestinians over Israelis and kowtowing to his "Muslim brothers," while being severely scored for visiting many Muslim capitals without having set foot in Jerusalem.  And, according to Israel's legion of Christian Evangelical allies, if left to his "own devices," Barack Obama will be the death of the Jewish State.  One hears these contentions from the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannaty, and Pastor John Hagee, the Founder and National Chair of "Christians United For Israel." (It should be noted that Hagee, who believes with every fibre of his being that supporting Israel -- "The Holy Land" -- is part and parcel of God's agenda leading to the Apocalypse, also believes that Hitler was a "Half-Breed Jew," that Nazi persecution was a "divine plan" to lead Jews to form the modern state of Israel, and historically, the Jews have brought persecution upon themselves by being disobedient to God.  "Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of antisemitism (sic) that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come . . . it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people.") 

   Contemplating all the above, I am reminded of a universal truth most of us learned as wee sprat: "Actions speak louder than words."

   In the case of President Obama and Israel, yes, I would feel quite a bit better if he had flown Air Force One to Israel, taken a picture praying at the Western Wall, visited Yad va-Shem and eaten shawarma in Rechavia or St. Peter's Fish in Akko.  However, for whatever reason, as president, he has yet to go.  All he has to do is say the word and I will be delighted to pick up the tab for his flight and take him on a tour of my old haunts in and around the Hebrew University.

   Despite his not having yet visited Israel during his presidency, the fact remains that Barack Obama is, despite what the naysayers loudly proclaim, a steadfast friend and defender of the Jewish State. 

   Has he agreed with every one of her actions since taking office?  No. 

   Has he had occasion to disagree with Prime Minister Netanyahu?  Absolutely.

   Has he worked behind the scenes to assist the Jewish State?  Yes.

   Actions speak louder than words.

   Need proof?

   Just the other day, protesters attacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo, knocking down a 12-foot concrete wall that had been built several days earlier to protect the embassy, which is near the top floor of a 21-story residential building in the upscale Dokki area.  As a result of the peril, Israel was forced to airlift the ambassador and nearly all the diplomatic staff.  Describing the step-by-step evacuation to the Israeli people once the ambassador and his staff were safely home, Prime Minister Netanyahu had special words of thanks for President Obama, Defense Secretary Panetta and Dennis Ross, the president's Middle East advisor on the National Security Council:

   I would like to express my gratitude to the President of the United States, Barack Obama.  I asked for his help.  This was a decisive and fateful moment.  He said, 'I will do everything I can.'  and so he did. He used every considerable means and influence of the United States to help us.  We owe him a special measure of gratitude.  This attests to the strong alliance between Israel and the United States.  This alliance between Israel and the United States is especially important in these times of political storms and upheavals in the Middle East."

   Actions speak louder than words.

• Almost immediately upon taking the oath of office in January 2009, the Obama Administration restored Israel's diminished Qualitative Military Edge (QME); on July 28, 2011, Defense Secretary Panetta and Secretary of State Clinton announced that the administration was prepared to further expand Israel's QME.
• President Obama led the funding effort for the Iron Dome missile defense system.  Iron Dome, which is capable of defending against both long- and short-range missiles and rockets, has already paid dividends.  P.M. Netanyahu has repeatedly expressed public thanks to the president for the role he played in funding this critical defense system.
• The president has consistently and vocally opposed the Palestinians' plans to unilaterally declare a state through the United Nations: "No vote at the UN will ever create an independent Palestinian state, and the United States will stand up against efforts to single out Israel at the UN or in any international forum.  Israel's legitimacy  is not a matter for debate . . ." (May 22, 2011)
• Alan Solow, former Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations President flatly stated, "President Obama has worked hard to mobilize support for Israel, has led the movement to impose strong international sanctions against Iran and has continuously supported, in word and deed, Israel's rights as a Jewish state.  There have been no policies actually implemented by the Administration, as opposed to those which have been rumored, that have been anything other than supportive of Israel." (July 22, 2011)    
  

     Despite this welter of demonstrable fact, there will still be those who firmly believe that President Barack Obama is the worst thing that ever happened to Israel.  For those who will persist in this belief, I heartily recommend that they stop listening to the words Rush, Glenn, Sean, Newt and Eric, and begin paying attention to the actions of President Obama.  

     You can challenge him on the economy.

     You can question whether he is as theocratic as Perry, Bachmann or the rest of the GOP's amen corner.

      Just don't question whether he's a friend or foe when it comes to Israel.

      The record is clear.

      Actions speak louder than words.

  ©2011 Kurt F. Stone

The Speech President Obama OUGHT TO Deliver This Week

   Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress and my fellow Americans:

   I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you, the American people and your elected representatives.  I come before you this evening, to speak plain words that tell  some pretty harsh truths; to, in a sense, take each and every one of us --  myself included -- out to the political woodshed for what might be called "corrective action."  I also mean to set forth a number of eminently doable proposals which deal directly with our great nation's number one challenge: creating jobs.

For far too long, the nation's unemployment rate has been right around 9%.  When I took the oath of office on January 20, 2009, the rate stood at 7.7%, which was a 14-year high.  That more than two-and-one-half years later the rate is even higher -- meaning that even more people are without jobs -- is a failure for which every one of us in this room here tonight must share the blame.  Every one of us  -- whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, Keynesian or Supply-Sider -- have failed in our primary economic mission; to put  more than 14 million unemployed Americans back to work and thus back on the road to economic recovery.

   Let us be honest: for the past few years America has been at an historic economic crossroads.  We no longer have an economy in which a single worker, working  but a single job can hope to earn enough to buy a home, raise a family and send children to college.  That used to be the goal -- if not the reality -- of the great American middle class.  The vast majority of all jobs that involve repitition -- i.e. factory line jobs -- have been exported, and likely never to return to our shores. Most of us are all too painfully aware of how much times have changed; those who are fortunate enough to be employed, do as best they can from paycheck-to-paycheck, use plastic to make up the difference, save next to nothing, and worry lest their job or jobs are about to be sent overseas.  And, at the same time, our roads, bridges and schools are grossly substandard, our children's classrooms are overcrowded, and we are privatizing everything from prisons to public health facilities.

    Without question, we have been presented with a challenge of historic proportion; to come together as one and repair a fractured economy, or to retreat to our various corners and hide behind the hedges of political rhetoric.

   For far too many of us in this historic chamber, the pointing  of fingers and scoring of political points has been a greater priority than job creation and the righting of our economic ship of state.  For far too many of us, we stare into the looming maw of economic doldrums and neither see the challenge nor hear the call.  Instead, for far too many of us -- Republican and Democrat, progressive and conservative, independent, Libertarian and Tea Partier -- we have chosen to hold America's destiny hostage to our political desire rather than to attack and affect a cure over that which is dragging us down as a nation.  America -- indeed, the entire world -- looks at the three-ring circus our political process has become and wonders "Whatever became of the United States of America, that light unto the nations?"

    Is it any wonder that we in this magificent chamber are held in such low esteem? Our Congress is divided into so many factions; we have Democrats who want a return to the days of FDR; Plutocrats who want to drag us back to the Gilded Age, and Theocrats who would appear to favor a return to the days of the Salem witch trials.  Instead of creating jobs -- which was the focus of our most recent election -- we have concentrated on anything but the creation of jobs.  Many of our newest Congressional colleagues highlighted their love of the Constitution in their campaigns -- as if their opponents did not.   It seems strange that for a group that evinces so much reverence for the Constitution, you spend so much time denigrating the very federal government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that document.   

    We have recently come through a bruising battle which pitted the national debt against the debt ceiling -- a false dichotomy if ever there was one.  Yes, it is absolutely true that America is reeling under a staggering debt.  And yes, it is absolutely true that getting a handle on it is going to only come about through a combination of judicious spending cuts, enhanced revenues -- more taxes -- and an across-the-board program of shared national sacrifice.  And yet, because so many of you  on the Republican side of the aisle have a Manichaean view of the universe -- seeing a black-and-white world in which there is nothing but absolute good and absolute evil -- compromise is a virtual no-no.  In the recent debt ceiling debate many of you were willing to shut down the government and deal world financial markets a fatal blow rather than submit to even a penny's-worth of increased revenue.  This is no way to create jobs; this is no way to repair a fractured economy.

   Shame on us all!

   And so, what is it that I propose we all do about creating jobs and beginning to repair the economy?  

   First and foremost, I urge Congress to enact Representative Schakowsky's "Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act," a highly cost-effective plan to put over two million people to work over the next two years.  Rep. Schakowsky's plan calls for spending $100 billion to create

• 400,000 school construction and 250,000 maintenance jobs;
  
• 100,000 jobs for youths between the ages of 16 and 25 to staff a "Park Improvement Corps";
  
• 40,000 health care providers including physicians, nurses and physicians assistants to expand access in underserved rural and urban areas:
• 100,000 Child Care Corps jobs in early childhood and education through additional funding for Head Start.
• 750,000 Community Corps jobs which would provide needed work in our communities including housing rehab, weatherization, recycling and rural conservation.

   An alternative version of this proposal would have the federal government spend approximately $2.2 trillion over the next five years to upgrade our roads, highways, seaports, rail lines and bridges -- most of which have been ignored for more than a generation.  This alone could provide upwards of 2 million new jobs.

   Let's face it: with yields on 10-year treasury bonds at about 2%, borrowing costs are as low as they've ever been which makes this an opportune time to invest in the nation's infrastructure.  And for those who, predictably, are going to start moaning about "those tax-and-spend Democrats," and proclaiming that this is far too ambitious in a time of stark fiscal austerity, let me state a single economic fact: each dollar spent generates a minimum of $1.44 in economic output.  As a result, about half of the money we propose spending would come back to the government through increased tax revenue.

   I am neither as politically naive nor idealistic as to think that any proposal which involves increased spending -- or increased revenues -- is going to be met with open arms.  A majority of the members of the 112th Congress have proven themselves to be more concerned about placating their wealthy benefactors than in doing what is necessary to create as many jobs as quickly as possible. 

   Closing Planned Parenthood Centers does not create jobs. 

   Cutting funding for the Federal Aviation Administration does not create jobs.

   Closing national parks does not create jobs.

   Cutting spending alone does not create jobs.

   I would remind the American people that during the recent Debt Ceiling/Deficit debate, the White House offered up a $4 trillion deficit reduction package.  I would further  remind you that it was the Republicans, who have steadfastly beat the drum for reduced spending refused our offer because they could not abide as much as a one-tenth of one percent increase on tax rates for billionaires like the Walton family or the Koch brothers.  You may recall that in the end, Republicans finally settled on a deal that had far less deficit reduction -- and even less spending reduction -- than our offer.

   I ask this Congress and the voters who elect its members: what are we to do?  Are we going to continue expecting middle- and lower-income Americans to carry a disproportionate share of the economic burden?  Will we continue rewarding the hyper wealthy by extending their tax cuts while at the same time cutting back the social safety net which protects the most vulnerable?  Will we continue sitting idly by as our schools, highways and bridges crumble, our ability to train and educate the next generation of scientists and engineers wanes and more and more people lose jobs, homes and hope?

   The future is in the hands of the American public.  It is up to us to make demands, and ask questions of our elected representatives:

• Whose side are you on? The rich and powerful or the middle class?
• How can you justify a "No New Taxes Ever!!" position when smart economics demands a combination of spending cuts and additional revenue?
• Why do you persist in trying to cut Social Security and Medicare as if they are programs we really don't deserve?  The truth of the matter is that neither one is an "entitlement."  Rather, they are both "earned benefits" -- we all contribute to payroll taxes to fund them.
• Are you so very much against any and all tax increases -- especially in light of the fact that taxes are at an historic low -- that you would prefer seeing this country default on its financial obligations?  And lastly,
  
• What is the logic of holding office in a federal government you believe to be the cause -- and not even partly the solution -- to the nation's problems and challenges?
  

   These are the sorts of questions that all of us, as concerned citizens, must direct to our elected officials -- via phone, surface and email, and at town hall gatherings.  Make sure they know that unless and until they learn what it means to compromise -- to work together for the good of all and not just the good of their backers and benefactors -- that they will not, under any circumstances, be receiving your vote. 

   Period.

   The time for action is now -- not after the next election.  Our job as citizens is clear: to make sure our elected representatives do everything in their power to work together in order to put America back to work.

   I know we are up to the task, for this is the United States of America; a country filled  with people who have a long history of turning dreams into reality.

   Thank you. . . . And may God bless us even as we bless ourselves by once again making our dreams come true.

©2011 Kurt F. Stone