By Patrick J. Buchanan
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” sayeth Rahm.
Opportunistic and cynical, yes. But also savvy political counsel that transformational presidents have always followed.
FDR exploited the Depression to launch his New Deal, bring an end to a Republican hegemony of seven decades and make Democrats the majority party, until Richard Nixon picked the lock.
While the debate is endless over whether the New Deal ended the Depression or caused it to endure until World War II spending pulled us out of the ditch, few deny that FDR left a monumental legacy.
We see it in the great dams of the West and TVA in the South, in the REA that first brought electricity to America’s farms, in deposit insurance, unemployment benefits and Social Security.
Lyndon Johnson seized on the trauma of JFK’s assassination and racial incidents such as Selma Bridge to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Ronald Reagan seized on the humiliation of the Iranian hostage crisis, Moscow’s invasion of Afghanistan and the worst recession since the 1930s to rebuild the military, create a 600-ship Navy, push the Soviet Empire out of Central America and Afghanistan, and cut taxes from 70 percent to 28 percent, creating 20 million jobs in a seven-year boom that inspired the awe, envy and emulation of much of the world.
Not for nothing are the ’80s remembered as the Reagan Decade.
Obama himself has spoken of FDR and Reagan as the kind of “transformational” presidents he wishes to become.
Which brings us to that “stimulus package,” the price of which is $819 billion and rising, 6 percent of gross domestic product, piled on a deficit already projected at $1.2 trillion. As it was being whistled through the House, not one Republican voted aye. A dozen Democrats could not stomach it, either.
Does President Obama really want this Nancy Pelosi New Deal to be his legacy? Because that is exactly what he is inviting. And before he uses force majeure to ram this bill through the Senate, he ought to consider what the honest objections are.
When Sen. John Kyl, at a White House meeting with Obama, said that giving income tax rebates to millions of folks who pay no income taxes seems to be simply welfare, Obama tersely replied, “I won.”
Indisputably. But does it make sense to include in a plan to prepare America for the 21st century borrowing billions from Beijing to mail out in $500 checks to folks who don’t pay income taxes, so they can run down to Wal-Mart and buy more goods made in China?
The New York Times reports Monday in a front-page story about California, “A State With a Wish List,” “More than two-thirds of the states are facing budget shortfalls this year and next … and could use the money to help balance budgets, blunt potential cuts in education and shrink Medicaid obligations.”
Sure, they could. But is this remaking America? Or is it bailing out the same state and local politicians Barack himself castigated in his inaugural as those responsible for “our collective failure to make hard choices”?
Why would Barack wager his presidency on a gamble that, by handing over hundreds of billions in borrowed federal money, to spare governors and mayors the consequences of their own profligacy, he can remake the America economy and ignite a real recovery?
What are the fundamental objections to the Obama-Pelosi plan?
It is three parts social spending to one part stimulus. It takes too long to work. It represents a permanent not temporary expansion of government.
It is too much LBJ, who bet the ranch on spending and failed, and not enough JFK, who bet on tax reductions that succeeded.
Even Bill Clinton would not have ceded so much to the tax-and-spend wing of his party, which he relied on for votes, not advice.
Has Obama no more imaginative ideas for government’s role in reshaping the economy for the 21st century than this? Was it all talk all along, to prepare the way for a return to the days of spend and spend?
Sad, because this is likely to be Obama’s last shot at getting this economy on its feet and running by 2010. For Americans are not as patient as they were in the 1930s, when FDR could try one idea, then another, then another for five years, and continue to roll up massive electoral victories.
If Obama gets this one wrong, and all this pork and welfare fail to generate real growth, his party could face a wipeout in 2010, and his opportunity could be lost forever. Does he really want to bet the farm on the nag Nancy Pelosi just trotted out of the House?
Related posts:
- Crisis of the Government PartyBy Patrick J. Buchanan President Obama is in a dilemma from which there appears to...
- Obama’s Choice: FDR or ReaganBy Patrick J. Buchanan Barack Obama, it is said, will inherit the worst times since...
- Pitchfork TimeBy Patrick J. Buchanan In his campaign and inaugural address, Barack Obama cast himself as...
- Obama’s First 100 DaysBy Patrick J. Buchanan Undeniably, a powerful tide is running for the Democratic Party, with...
- Socialist RepublicBy Patrick J. Buchanan Barack Obama and George W. Bush seem to have come away...
- Obama’s Problems — and OursBy Patrick J. Buchanan We inherited the worst situation since the Great Depression. That is...
- Fatal Flaw of Democraciesby Patrick J. Buchanan “We just can’t afford it!” Not long ago, every America child...
Loading ...
CARTER VS. O’NEIL = OBAMA VS. PELOSI
I have said it before and I will say it again, there are stunning similarities developing between Obama and Jimmy Carter. When Carter came to Washington it was post Watergate and he said he was going to “bring fundemental change to Washington.” Well, after Carter arrived he ran smack into the power of Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neil. It is the job of the Speaker to secure all those pork barrel projects for members of their party due to the fact they are up for re-election every 2 years. Hamilton Jordan was going to be Carter’s hatchet man and get the administrations programs passed. Well…my how history repeats itself. Today we hear that Nancy Pelosi and the Obama administration are at odds over federal spending. Obama’s hatchet man, Rahim Emmanuel has been leaking his displeasure with Pelosi to the media. Also, Carter was unpopular for his pardon of draft dodgers who fled to Canada during the Vietnam War. Obama has just set free the terrorist that attacked the USS Cole. Democrat New Deal? Shades of FDR? No, no, no,…shades of one and done Carter. Keep up the good work Obama and I’ll be smiling in 4 years when the map on TV behind the news anchor is all red. Perhaps out of Obama we will get another Reagan?
Bluedog65 said “Obama has just set free the terrorist that attacked the USS Cole.” That is a God***n lie, and it demonstrates why Republicans can never be trusted with power again. Republicans are the 21st Century version of the Soviet Communist Party, with their lying propaganda, one man rule, authoritarianism, militarism, and crony capitalism. The charges against the detainee who is alleged to have attacked the U.S.S. Cole have been temporarily withdrawn while it is determined if he should be tried in Federal Court or by Court Martial, or under the Military Commissions, which were set up by the Bush Junta with the rules necessary for show trials. The rules are virtually no different than what would be used on the other end of the Cuban Island. As a former self-identified Conservative, anti-communist, I refuse to adopt a communist outlook and appreciation for a police state just because the party that used to represent itself as anti-communist, adopts communist militarism. I can assure everybody reading this that al Nashiri is sitting, as I type this, in the same camp at GTMO that he has been ib for years. He has not been set free anymore than he was free before charges were filed against him last summer. But the Big Lie such as this is why the Rpublican Party, and its Godheads such as Bush and Cheney, is now held in the same regard by the American people as the Soviet Communist Party and Leonid Breszhnev were held in by the Russian people.
Oh boy…here we go again. I’ve destroyed 3 liberal pin-head extremist on this site already…so I guess number 4 gets me closer to my ace wings.
A.) Learn your political spectrum. The GOP conservatives are to the RIGHT and the Democrats and the communist are to the LEFT. Had you accused Bush of being a fascist…I would have bought it as being a pitch close to the strike zone. But to compare Republicans to communist shows your complete ignorance of socio-economics, and hence is a “wild pitch.”
B.) By halting the process against this terrorist and withdrawing the charges, in legal terms, sets him free. Now, if we decide to send him to Denmark, what will justice be like there? You can kill someone in Daneland and get 90 days.
C.) O.K., three strikes and your out…heres the change-up, I used to vote Democrat to save our jobs from going overseas. The BIG LIE is that Democrats care about working class people and are pro-union more than just taking Lane Kirkland out to dinner and getting peoples union dues. Clinton pushed NAFTA and was a traitor SOB. Finally, the fact that you compare me to a “Bush Godhead” is bizarre. I have never voted for GW Bush. I wrote in Tom Harkin in 2000, and John Breaux in 2004.
Noting the influence of the Trotskyites within the Republican party, i.e., the neocons, and taking note of the cronyist corruption typical of Communists in power (there’s a reason for the seamless evolution of Soviet party functionaties into the Oligarchs), and the similarity of the Republican M.O. to the that typical of
Communists, I stand by my statement that the 21st Century Republican party, with its advocacy of Unitary Executive theory; in layman’s terms, “one man rule, as neocon Harvey Mansfield approvingly calls it.
If Bluedog is correct that: “By halting the process against this terrorist and withdrawing the charges, in legal terms, sets him free,” then George Bush allowed al Nashiri to roam free for years (while in a cell in GTMO), because even though he has been in captivity for years, charges were only brought against him last summer. Furthermore, I think most people realize that the concept of the political spectrum explaining political alignments accurately is a fiction. Life is more complex than that. I do agree that one can also compare Republicans to Fascists (but that is so left-wing that one loses credibility). I prefer the equally accurate comparison to Communists because it shows the Republican hypocrisy. Of course, that’s not flattering to either group, in spite of its accuracy, and one would expct both to complain of the comparison.
Capital markets are unstable. In the past there was no way to make them stable. But today we have computer power that can be used to make them stable. By using the greater computer power of today we can have a much higher turn over of capital in the capital market. This higher turnover will make the market harder to game or control and the market will no longer have the unstable run ups or declines. Who can change or control the market when say 20% of the capital is trading each day. So now that we have the compute power to provide for all these transactions that will smooth out the market how do we force people to turn over at a rate of 20% a day? Easy, put a cap gains tax of 0% (zero) on all gains of 7 days or less and put a cap gains tax of 90% of all gains of more than 7 days. The likes of Yahoo, Micosoft and/or Sun Micro Systems will give us the systems that will provide automated software agents to support turning over one’s investments every 7 days (based on the specs you give the agent). A system like this will make the financial markets work as smoothly as the local fruit market.
Edmond…The Republican Party believes in a strong executive because from 1932-1994, almost without exception, Congress was controlled by Democrats and their Federalist grounded policy. The GOP still draws from the Anti-Federalist states-rights drinking well, but understands that you must have the executive in order to do so. The South is the new bastion of the GOP just as it was the the “solid south” for the Democrats. You must be an exchange student if you do not understand this basic fact of US Politics.
Do The math:–FIRST BAIL OUT: $700,000,000,000.00 plus SECOND BAIL OUT: $789,500,000,000.00 equals: $1,489,500,000,000.00 divided by the current estimated population of the United States: 300,000,000 people will break down to $4,965.00 for every man, woman and child in the United States. If you consider that one third of the population are minors, this would leave approximately 200,000,000 adult people, and this would break down to $7447.50 per adult person in the United States. Now, if you consider another one third of the population as being retired or unable to work, this would equal another 100,000,000. leaving only 100,000,000 people actually working in the United States. If you take the sum of the Bailouts which is $1,489,500,000,000.00 and devide this amount by 100,000,000 working people, this will equal: $14,895.00 per working person in the United States. This is how much these Bailouts will cost the Taxpayers. Hold on to your wallets tight, the Democrats are here!
Kindest personal regards,
Mike Vannozzi