Welcome! This is an educational forum for a discussion of the values and solutions that have made (and will keep) America a great nation. Your feedback is welcome in the comments section below each post. Thomas Jefferson wrote that a society can never be both "ignorant and free." Join us in the choice to not be ignorant. In the end, this spirit will keep us all free...
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
The Amateur Becomes the Ace: President Obama Begins a Second Term and Sets the Stage for 2014
The inaugural swearing-in will take place on January 21, but Obama's second term effectively began the morning after election night 2012. In the following days and weeks, he came out swinging, took the measure of his Congressional opponents, and correctly calculated they lacked the will to put up another fight over the nation's staggering fiscal problems. New Year's night, they gave him the bulk of his demands: a huge tax increase for those making over $200,000 a year without even a meager commitment to cut government spending. The bluff was Obama's and it went uncalled. He has therefore surpassed the status of "amateur" Ed Klein and others dubbed him in his first term and has emerged the "ace" in my reckoning, as he cleared the first battle of the new term.
Yet, the president's well-played victory in the second battle of the fiscal cliff may prove his administration's high water mark. There is simply no place for him to go now. His "the rich don't pay their fair share" rhetoric has accomplished a cherished goal, perhaps one in which he wasn't sure he could reach. As a result of the deal worked out with House Speaker Boehner, 172 Congressional Democrats, and 85 Congressional Republicans, the Bush tax cuts for individuals earning less than $400,000 per year and couples earning less than $450,000 will continue. For those making more, tax rates will go up from 35% to 39.6%. In addition, a new 3.8% tax on investment income for everyone earning above $200,000 is part of the plan.
All these concessions and the House bill does not even address spending. Indeed, the plan grows government spending with an extension of unemployment insurance and new credits for child care, tuition, and research and development. With a 16.4 trillion-dollar national debt hanging on our shoulders we find our nation lurching closer to the real fiscal cliff Tuesday's plan kicked down the road. China does not even lend us money anymore. When will they call in the bill?
President Obama will not have long to celebrate his big win. The automatic spending cuts that would have gone into effect Wednesday (had no agreement been reached by New Year's) have been postponed another two months. What card will the president play when he and Congress argue over that battle in February? He has already played his ace (class warfare). The next battle will be all about spending; he can go no further on tax hikes.
Meanwhile, the president's list of discontents swells and will continue to. Taxes are set to rise even for those of us qualifying for the Bush tax cut extension. A new Social Security payroll tax will shrink our paychecks. Worse, the Federal Reserve has already announced it will keep short term interest rates low until 2015 because it foresees high unemployment for the next few years. With higher taxes and new health care costs growing for those with money to invest in job creation, how could the forecast be otherwise?
Perhaps the most ominous consequence of Tuesday's House bill the administration will face is the reality that nothing remains of John Boehner's credibility with the Republican party and every voter for whom fiscal responsibility is a major goal. Tea Party Patriots may damn Tuesday's betrayal a Republican cave, but I hope they do not. 151 House Republicans voted no on the deal. The final vote makes this look more like a Democrat House bill with enough Republican yeas (85), and Speaker Boehner's blessing, to have it pass.
Speaker Boehner has already heard grumblings that he step down. He will likely face growing pressure to do so. If the House selects a less compromising conservative to replace Boehner, President Obama's second term agenda will be in jeopardy. This is not to mention the concerns of the twenty restive Democrats in the U.S. Senate who will be up for re-election in 2014. Some of them (Al Franken of Minnesota, for one) have petitioned the administration to allow their state to qualify for an Obamacare exemption, despite having voted for the reform in 2010. Could the Obama legacy already be unraveling as the Ace takes another victory lap?
Patriot Thought
Visitor Comments
I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.
DonaldJuly 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]
Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America.
AnonymousDecember 28, 2012 12:13 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]
I do believe in evil but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...
Living the JourneyDecember 31, 2012 7:16 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]
How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".
AnonymousDecember 31, 2012 7:36 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]
I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.
Jason AldousDecember 31, 2012 10:56 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]
Dear Living the Journey, We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.
Dear Anonymous, I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.
Let's see, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the wording implies that the populace must be armed when called up for militia service, it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states that bearing arms is a "right" and "not to be infringed" it is an open and shut case for anyone taking an objective reading of it. "Rights" are entitlements. Privileges can be taken away, but not rights. It matters not if this right was given with militia service in mind. Good work, Mr. Emma.
On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain
In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public. The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government.
FDR campainged on keeping the US out of the war but when he wanted to get into the war he needed an excuse. He may very well have been tempted to withhold information from his top commanders at Pearl Harbor. They certainly suspected he did.
GeoDecember 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM[writing in response to Saturday, December 1, 2012, Voting In A Bad Economy, Recession Myths: De-Constructing Historical Falsification]
Can't argue with your observations, Jason, but even with the limited space no mention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in any discussion of Hoover/Great Depression/FDR is to ignore an elephant in the room.
One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.
I read something about the possibility of Obama going for a third term. Is that bogus? Or is there a real possibility?
ReplyDeleteBoehner did not step down and in fact was re-elected. So . . . is this a reflection of a different Republican party? I've also seen some news about that (i.e. New Jersey's Governor Christie). What's your take?