Thanks so much to investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill and columnist Glenn Greenwald. We are indebted to them for so much exposure. In a very short time frame we've learned of about several policies from Obama that clearly demonstrate his right wing extremism.
1-Scahill discovers Obama's secret prisons in Somalia.
If you want to be a real journalist you have to be unembedded. It's dangerous. But to be embedded is to see only what the government wants you to see, which is nothing. Scahill spend 9 days in Mogadishu in order to report on what is common knowledge in the region. The CIA operates a black site there, where individuals can be rendered and tortured. The CIA is responding with disinformation disseminated to mainstream lackey media outlets, as Glenn Greenwald documents. Read that, then check out Scahill's appearance on Scarbaraough. This secret prison is a violation of Obama's own executive orders. Where is Congress? Where is the left?
2-Obama blocks investigation into anthrax attack
Once again Glenn Greenwald explains how the most respected sources are highly dubious of the government's claims regarding the source of the anthrax attack that occurred prior to the invasion of Iraq that was so instrumental in leading us to war. The questions are so credible that the House has passed a measure related to security that includes a call for an independent investigation. Obama has threatened to veto this bill because of the request for that investigation.
3-Obama supports bill that raises taxes on the middle class and cuts them for the wealthy to resolve the debt ceiling limit.
As reported by Democracy Now, Obama is throwing his support behind a bill that will raise revenue by eliminating popular tax deductions, like deductions for home interest and employer provided health insurance. He'd also slash Social Security and Medicare benefits.
After Wisconsin I was leaning towards the belief that support for Obama still may make sense. Sure, he's terrible. But the Republicans are just as violent AND they want to destroy the poor and middle class. Chomsky makes this point sometimes. He says he thinks Nader was making a mistake encouraging people to vote for him instead of a Democrat. Sure, there's maybe only a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. But in a state as powerful as the US that can make a huge difference to suffering people.
That's fair. But there's a flip side. As Ralph Nader pointed out here (worth watching, Republican citizens can agree with a lot of this), if you have no breaking point, that is if you pledge to vote for the Democrat no matter what he does, then he will not be responsive to you. Obama's lack of response to the left is so extreme it's in fact hard for right wingers I know to swallow. And it's getting harder and harder to see even the dime's worth of difference. This guy is not only a right wing war monger. He's a right wing union busting welfare dismantling neoliberal. There's no way I can support this.
My brother Bill said something to me recently and I think he's right. I think we'd be better off if McCain had won. At least then there would be opposition to his violence and class warfare. As it stands Congressional Democrats don't even object to these clear violations of their supposed core principles.
14 comments:
I'm only going to comment on the economics part, since that is more my specialty.
You write, As reported by Democracy Now, Obama is throwing his support behind a bill that will raise revenue by eliminating popular tax deductions, like deductions for home interest and employer provided health insurance.
Do I need to go on a long rant about how this makes you and the left economic illiterates? ;_)
Seriously man - this is a bipartisan effort by economists on BOTH SIDES. Paul Krugman would support this. So would Milton Friedman. Very bipartisan policy. If this makes Obama right wing, dont blame him, blame economists - he is merely following the economic consensus here.
But this really does point to an issue I have been arguing with you: it's precisely the right-wing that is more aligned with the economics profession. The left is more of the populists.
Btw, do you agree or disagree with these policy proposals above???
One more point, you write: My brother Bill said something to me recently and I think he's right. I think we'd be better off if McCain had won. At least then there would be opposition to his violence and class warfare. As it stands Congressional Democrats don't even object to these clear violations of their supposed core principles.
Has your brother been reading my blog? This is exactly what I predicted when Obama got elected - see my third point here.
Jon -
On this
As reported by Democracy Now, Obama is throwing his support behind a bill that will raise revenue by eliminating popular tax deductions, like deductions for home interest and employer provided health insurance. He'd also slash Social Security and Medicare benefits.
I agree that tax deductions on home interest is popular but as I understand the benefits actually goes more to those in upper-middle class and above. For a typical "middle-class" person I don't think the benefit is a lot more than the standard deduction. In other words the more expensive one's house is and more importantly the more the larger the mortgage the greater the benefit.
So you are saying that Krugman would first support eliminating home mortgage interest before other alternatives, like letting the Bush tax cuts expire or raising the top marginal rate? Or raising the corporate rate?
This is not about whether broadly speaking eliminating certain deductions is wise in some ways. This is about what of our many alternatives to raising revenues should be implemented first. If everyone thinks this is the best alternative then you need to provide some evidence instead of talking about how I'm illiterate. I don't trust you to really know what the consensus of economists is. You have to back up your claims.
I don't get your point on your link. You said Obama's decisions would affect the Bush legacy. I'm talking about the fact that there is no opposition to war and secrecy since it is embraced by Obama and how if McCain had won their might be meaningful opposition and hence we would have less war and secrecy. I don't see you saying that, but then I'm just an illiterate lefty.
Paul, I saw after I posted this that this may only apply to mortgages in excess of $500K. So it is geared more towards the upper income groups. Also second mortgages. But I should have highlighted another point in the DN link. This includes a rate drop for the top marginal rate, from 35 to 29%.
HP -
But this really does point to an issue I have been arguing with you: it's precisely the right-wing that is more aligned with the economics profession. The left is more of the populists.
Even *if* Jon did not know this how that equates to the right wing being, generally, more aligned with the economics is a bit of a stretch. That could be so but certainly this does not show that.
I wonder how many Tea Partiers (as an example) would know about a general consensus in doing away with the mortgage deduction and/or why. I'd bet a lot do not. May be overstepping but I'd be surprised if it was not most that did not know.
Unless you are defining right wing as only those who are aligned with the economics profession. And dismiss those, rather large number, who self-identify as a right wing or conservative but are not of your preferred flavor (i.e. the Rush Limbaugh types).
The link says this
Going further, the plan calls for using those savings to, in fact, lower taxes for the wealthy, with the top individual and corporate tax rates dropping from 35 percent to 29 percent. At the White House, President Obama said the plan provides a basis for ongoing talks.
I am not on board w/ lowering the 35 percent bracket to 29 percent for the individual. At least not with some other conditions being true.
As far as corporate rates go - and I have not thought about this very much - I am open to taking it all the way to 0%. This would have to be offset either by an increase in the individual income tax rates, some other means, or a combination of things. It would have to be in loose terms revenue neutral. Any such change (imo, unlikely) would need to be crafted as to not allow say a sole proprietor with a loop-hole where the sole proprietor doesn't pay any tax. Their "corporate" income would essentially be an individual income and taxed at individual rates. May not be wording this properly but I think my point is clear enough.
Jon,
Here is my point: eliminating the home interest deduction and employer provided healthcare is a bipartisan effort - within economics. Even Robert Reich would support it.
Eliminating fully the Bush tax cuts and raising the top marginal tax rates is not a bipartisan effort. Now you can say doing the former is wrong - one is better than the other from your political ideological perspective - fine, but my point here is that from an economics profession perspective - Obama is on stronger footing by aligning himself on bipartisan tax issues, than partisan ones.
You can argue that I am wrong with my economic consensus claims - but assuming they are true, do you agree with my conclusions?
Oh and one more time: What is your take on the general desire to completely reduce home interest deduction and employer provided healthcare? Agree or disagree?
Paul,
You write, Even *if* Jon did not know this how that equates to the right wing being, generally, more aligned with the economics is a bit of a stretch. That could be so but certainly this does not show that.
Oh, I agree. This doesn't "definitively" prove my case - it's just another example pointing in that direction. Me and Jon went round and round on the broader point on my blog here and here.
This is how I addressed your Tea Party response above:
So let me rephrase the response: lets say that there were 1,000 liberals and 1,000 conservatives. I agree with you that say, the vast majority of them - say, 1,800 - conservative and liberal, would suffer from confirmation bias. My point here is that of those few that don’t, the majority tend to be conservatives.
Or to put it another way, take the issues which economists have a high degree of agreeing with each other. List those. Highlight in red those which conservatives will tend to disagree with. In blue those which liberals will tend to disagree with. My argument is that there will be alot more blue colors.
HP - on the following
It’s interesting because my experience is exactly the opposite: it’s the conservative economists and laymen that understand both sides, and it’s the liberals that usually don’t, especially the laymen
You really think that the "layman" conservative understands both sides? I am prepared to concede that lay-conservatives may be more inline with conventional economics but I am suspicious that they know the whys of their position. So my take is more like
lay-conservatives may have positions that are more aligned with economic consensus but don't know why.
lay-liberals may have positions that are outside of economic consensus but they do know why.
I'd be curious to your take - but in the grand scheme of things it is an irrelevant footnote. No?
Paul,
You write, lay-conservatives may have positions that are more aligned with economic consensus but don't know why.lay-liberals may have positions that are outside of economic consensus but they do know why.
I can agree with this. I am certainly not attributing any sort of higher intelligence to conservatives vis-a-vis liberals. It's probably mostly more to do with preconceived notions as well.
Take environmental science, as my favorite counter example. In this case, the preconceived notions are reversed - without looking at the science itself, conservatives are going to tend to be against it, liberals for it. And so, this is exactly what you see. Where the same observation applies in reverse: lay-liberals may have positions that are more aligned with environmental science consensus but don't know why. lay-conservatives may have positions that are outside of environmental science consensus but they do know why.
Each ideology has its blind spots, to be sure. My only point here is that when it comes to economics, its the liberals. But of course conservatives have their blind spots as well.
What does it all mean? Nothing really. I just like to make people admit it. :-)
HP - feel free to disregard the last message. I don't think it is important to belabor it.
HP - I had written my comment about disregarding the the comment prior to that one before I could see your response. Due to delays in approving comments.
Appreciate your response though.
Jon -
On the following
My brother Bill said something to me recently and I think he's right. I think we'd be better off if McCain had won. At least then there would be opposition to his violence and class warfare. As it stands Congressional Democrats don't even object to these clear violations of their supposed core principles.
Would you have preferred that McCain have nominated the replacements for Supreme Court justices?
What do you think of the citizen's united ruling?
I guess Sotamayor was on the right side of that ruling and presumably a McCain appointee would have been with the majority. There's your dimes worth of difference I guess. Still, the costs of undying support are you get real right wing extremism from Obama. At what point do you say forget it. You don't get my vote if you don't move leftwards some amount.
Post a Comment