Font Size A A A Print Email Share

Blog

Barack Obama: How Good A President?

One of the common talking points on the right is that Barack Obama is the "worst President in history."  (This talking point is rather ironic in light of the fact that many of the people saying it voted for George W. Bush two times.)  Just who are the worst Presidents in American history?  What made them so bad?  How does President Obama's record compare to their records?

Franklin Pierce is widely considered to be one of the worst Presidents because he signed into law the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.  This law was highly controversial because it blew up the hard fought Missouri Compromise of 1820 which had barred the introduction of slavery into the territories.  Because the Kansas-Nebraska Act made it possible for the southerners to take their slaves into the territories it significantly inflamed an already simmering controversy over slavery.

Pierce's successor - James Buchanan - is also considered to be one of our country's poorest Presidents.  Buchanan further inflamed sectional tensions by maneuvering  behind the scenes to help create a pro-southern majority in the infamous Dredd Scott case and by relentlessly pandering to the interests of the southern slave holders over the "Bleeding Kansas" debacle.  The 15th President sided with a pro-slavery government in Topeka which had clearly stolen the election in which it was "elected."  Once the southern states began to leave the union, Buchanan took the position that he lacked the power to stop them and stood idly by while his pro-Confederate War Secretary allowed the Confederates to loot federal military arsenals to arm themselves.  

Historians also widely regard Herbert Hoover as one of our worst Presidents.  Hoover stood by during the Great Depression and did nothing to aide the unemployed and to shore up the banking system.  Instead, Hoover pursued an austerity policy of tax increases and budget cuts to balance the federal budget.  Hoover's refusal to intervene to mitigate the worst effects of the Depression was based entirely upon his laissez-faire ideology.  He believed it was the responsibility of the private sector and charity - not the federal government - to assist those who were unemployed and suffering. 

The U.S. suffered it's most serious economic crisis since the Hoover Administration during the Presidency of George W. Bush.  That's one of the reasons why a consensus is emerging that Bush was one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history.  Bush inherited a projected 10 year surplus of $5.5 trillion from President Clinton and turned it into a record annual deficit of $1.4 trillion by the time he left office.  Moreover, Bush mismanaged two wars and presided over an economic and stock market crash during his last year in office.  The economy was in a state of free fall by the time he left the White House.

A significant portion of President Obama's tenure has been consumed with cleaning up the mess he inherited from Bush.  Fortunately, the country is now much better off than it was 6.5 years ago thanks to President Obama's leadership.  

The economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month in December 2008 and it has since been creating over 200,000 jobs per month over the last 1.5 years.  In May alone, the economy created 280,000 jobs.  This is the best job growth the U.S has experienced since President Clinton's second term.   Obama has created more jobs in his first six and a half years in office than were created by the last two Republican Presidents combined.

George W. Bush also bequeathed to President Obama a health care system in shambles.  During his two terms in office, Bush stood idly by and allowed 8 million Americans to lose their health insurance policies.  Since the implementation of the ACA in late 2013, 17 million formerly uninsured Americans have gained health insurance coverage.  In addition, medical inflation is seeing it's slowest rate of growth since the 1960s.

We've also seen a similar dramatic turn around on the fiscal front.  Obama inherited from his predecessor an annual deficit of $1.4 trillion which was 9.8% of GDP.  By 2014, the deficit had been reduced by nearly 2/3 to $484 billion or 2.8% of GDP.  It is the fastest deficit reduction in U.S. history since the late 1940s.

President Obama's record on spending and taxes stacks up well when compared to his recent predecessors.  In Obama's  7th year in office, federal taxes as a share of GDP equal 17.7%  and are lower than year seven for  Reagan (17.9%), Clinton (19.2%), and Bush43 (17.9%). Obama is projected to spend 20.9% of GDP in 2015 - less than Reagan's 21% in his 7th year.  

The bottom line here is that President Obama has an impressive list of domestic accomplishments and has built a successful Presidency.  Any allegation that he is the "worst President in history" coming from the right is nonsensical - at best.  If a Republican President had compiled this list of accomplishments, the usual suspects on the Right would want to name everything after him and put his face on Mount Rushmore.

It is important that we Democrats message President Obama's impressive record.  As Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman said: "Progressives are much too willing to cede history to the other side. Legends about the past matter. Really bad economics flourishes in part because Republicans constantly extol the Reagan record, while Democrats rarely mention how shabby that record was compared with the growth in jobs and incomes under Clinton. The combination of lies, incompetence, and corruption that made the Iraq venture the moral and policy disaster it was should not be allowed to slip into the mists.'..There’s a reason conservatives constantly publish books and articles glorifying Harding and Coolidge while sliming FDR; there’s a reason they’re still running against Jimmy Carter; and there’s a reason they’re doing their best to rehabilitate W. And progressives need to fight back."

If we are to win the 2016 elections, we Democrats need to run on our accomplishments -  as well as talk about our vision for the future.  If we don't mention our achievements, voters will believe that our elected officials haven't accomplished anything and will consider voting for the Republicans.   We can't count on the media to point out our accomplishments.  We have to do it ourselves. 

The stakes in next year's elections are very high.  We can either continue to make progress in moving our country forward or we can go back to the policies that wrecked the economy in 2008.  Are we going to hand over our country once again to the people and policies that crashed our economy before and or are we going to build on the policies that have improved our country?  That is the choice next year.   Now let's get to work!

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

Unicameral 2015 - Our Ideas And Values Won

The conventional wisdom in January was that - due to Ricketts' election and GOP gains in the unicameral - right wing Republicans were going to dominate the 2015 legislative session and do to Nebraska what they did to Kansas.  However, in that very same month, a well placed source at the Capitol told me that some of the Republicans elected in 2014 were more moderate than expected and we might be in for a pleasant surprise in the Unicameral.

As it turned out, my source was correct and the 2015 legislative session proved to be one of the more remarkable and historic legislative sessions in recent years.  Time and again, measures advanced by the conservative wing of the GOP wing were rejected by a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans.  Partisan legislation aimed at further cementing the GOP advantage in Nebraska - like the electoral vote and the voter I.D. bills - were rejected early in the session.  Moreover, Governor Ricketts' signature property tax cut measure didn't even advance out of the Revenue Committee.

What made this session especially remarkable was that Progressive changes were enacted into law over the objections of the legislative chamber's most conservative members and the vetoes of Governor Ricketts.  It was the triumph of moderate, bi-partisan ideas over rigid ideology.

The first setback for Ricketts and the radical right was the override of the Governor's veto of a gas tax increase that would annually fund $75 million worth of infrastructure repairs and maintenance.  This is  pro-business and pro-agriculture legislation because small business owners and farmers need good roads.  That's why several senators from small towns and rural areas rejected the no new taxes orthodoxy of billionaire front groups like Americans For Prosperity.

Perhaps the most visible victory for the coalition of Democrats and enlightened Republicans was the repeal of the death penalty which was enacted over Ricketts' veto after the Governor put on a full court press to maintain the current law.  Nebraska became the first conservative or red state in over 40 years to repeal it's death penalty.  It is clearly an historic accomplishment.  

The death penalty repeal is a victory for fiscal conservatism.  Nebraska taxpayers squander millions of dollars on fruitless litigation every year aimed at the execution of the prisoners on death row.  This litigation is wasteful and futile because the State hasn't executed anybody since 1997 and it is doubtful anybody else would ever be executed again if the law is restored.

The session ended with the override of Ricketts' veto of legislation that would  authorize drivers licenses for the "Dreamers" – young people brought to this country illegally when they were children.  The Governor vetoed this legislation even though it was supported by the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce, the Omaha Chamber of Commerce and the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce.  

One can explain Ricketts' setbacks in the legislature by his unbending adherence to the orthodoxy of the Tea Party. A highly placed and reliable Republican insider once told me that Ricketts is no moderate and is a "true believer"conservative   As Dave Domina aptly said:  "Nebraska's new Governor marginalized himself with extreme positions this week. Governing requires consensus forming, not stubbornness."

Ricketts' surprising losses can also be chalked up to just inexperience and simple incompetence.  Ricketts and his team have no prior governmental experience.  Running a government is entirely different than running a business - it is a different breed of cat altogether. 

The new Governor's struggles didn't go unnoticed among members of his own party.  The right wing Leavenworth Street blog took several potshots at Ricketts' ineptitude and inexperience.  Moreover, the GOP friendly Omaha World Herald reported that: "Several Republicans who have been around the State Capitol for years privately described it as an “embarrassing” start for the governor."

The results from the 2015 session of the Nebraska legislature clearly reflect Democratic values.  However, as I've said before, no victory over the radical right is ever final in nature.  These people are relentless and never give up.

Already, Ricketts and his band of supporters in the legislature are talking about financing a campaign to put the restoration of the death penalty on the ballot for a vote in 2016.  Moreover, sources have been telling me for months that Ricketts plans to invest heavily in the 2016 legislative races in the hopes of creating a Tea Party legislature that would finance tax cuts for the wealthy by cutting education and assistance for the most vulnerable in our state.  

My message to you my Democratic friends is to enjoy these victories while you can but be prepared to get back to work no later than the fall to elect more Democrats to the Unicameral in 2016.   If we are to avoid the fiscal train wreck that occurred in Kansas, we will all need to work hard for our slate of legislative candidates.   The future of our great state depends upon us.

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

Who Lost Iraq?

In recent days, Ramadi has fallen to ISIS even though the so-called "elite" Iraqi army units defending this city greatly outnumbered the attacking forces.  Needless to say, the GOP went into it's tired "full outrage" mode and blamed the recent setbacks and the rise of ISIS on President Obama.  The message from the GOP appears to be that the U.S. should have maintained U.S. ground troops in Iraq on an indefinite basis and should even send American ground troops back to that faction ridden country.

What the GOP doesn't tell anybody is that U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq at the end of 2011 due to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that then President Bush signed in the closing days of his Administration.  This 2008 SOFA required all U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq by the end of 2011.  

Republicans continue to argue that somehow President Obama could've convinced the Iraqis to re-negotiate the Bush SOFA to allow the continued presence of a so-called residual force of 10,000 U.S. troops.  Once again, the GOP is not telling us the entire truth.  The Iraqis would've allowed U.S. troops to stay in Iraq only if we had allowed them to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Iraqi courts.   Can you imagine the outrage from the Right if a U.S. soldier was hauled into an Iraqi court?

Even to this day, the Iraqis don't want to see the return of U.S. troops.  Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi recently said that: " (F)oreign troops are out of the question....Not only is it not necessary," he said, "We don't want them. We won't allow them. Full stop."

The Republicans are engaged in a furious blame game over Iraq because they don't want the American people to remember how the Iraq war got started and the gross mismanagement of that conflict by then President Bush and a GOP controlled Congress.  The reality is that the Iraq war was one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history that according to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz will ultimately cost the U.S. taxpayers $3 trillion.

As we all know, the Bush Administration's case for war was based upon Saddam Hussein's alleged fearsome arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.  The GOP would like you to believe that we got into that war due to some kind of honest intelligence mistake or mix up.  However, the reality is very different.  A bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation in 2008 found that: "The (Bush) Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was  unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent." 

The Iraq war cheerleaders also doesn't want anybody to recollect the Bush Administration's lack of a realistic plan to stabilize Iraq after the over throw of the Hussein regime and it's overall inept management of that conflict.   Despite credible warnings that Iraq would be difficult to govern, the Bush Administration invaded Iraq with an insufficient force and was taken by surprise by the insurgency.

The tragic history of that conflict has taught us that the very idea of invading Iraq was  terribly misguided because it risked creating all kinds of unintended consequences.  As Daniel Larison of the American Conservative said: " More than decade of conflict in Iraq has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, injured countless more, displaced millions, driven millions more into exile, and has brought about the complete ruination of an entire country. The war empowered sectarians and jihadists, and exposed the country’s religious minorities to an unending nightmare of persecution. Only a fanatic could look at the devastation wrought by the Iraq war and its aftermath and conclude that the world is better place because of it."

What we need to do as Democrats going forward is not to let the voters buy into the GOP revisionist history of the Iraq war.  The propaganda and talking points of the modern conservative movement depends heavily upon people having poor memories of past events.  As Democrats, we need to constantly refresh those memories and constantly remind the voters that the GOP national security legacy is disastrous.  A failure to do so could result in the Republicans returning to power in 2016 and a repeat of the disastrous Iraq war.  We can't afford to allow that to happen. 

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

Is Jeff Fortenberry A FIscal Conservative?

On May 12, an Amtrak train crashed in Philadelphia killing eight people and injuring over 200.  After this tragic accident, a furious blame game broke out in Washington with the Republicans denying responsibility even though they had voted to cut funding for Amtrak for many years before the crash.  Instead, the Republicans chose to blame the train's engineer since the train was traveling more than 100 mph around a curve that was supposed to be taken at only 50 mph.

As it turned out, this tragic crash could have been prevented if the Republicans in the Congress had invested in positive train control technology which is designed to automatically slow or stop a train to prevent the kind of accident that occurred in Philadelphia.   Robert Sumwalt, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, stated that positive train control was:  "not installed for this area where the accident occurred, where the derailment occurred. Based on what we know right now, we feel that had such a system been installed in this section of track, this accident would not have occurred.”

The Republicans compounded their penny wise, pound foolish approach the day after the accident when the GOP controlled House Appropriations Committee voted to cut Amtrak funding and other infrastructure investments over the objections of the Democrats on the committee.  As a matter of fact, these same Republicans even rejected an amendment to invest in expanded use of positive train control.

One of the Republicans in the majority on the House Appropriations committee who voted down these vital investments in our railroads was Representative Jeff Fortenberry.  The Nebraska CD1 Congressman justified his vote on so-called fiscal responsibility concerns.  Mr. Fortenberry told the Omaha World Herald that: "“There’s a balance between trying to get the fiscal house in order — reduce debt and eliminate deficits — with delivering smart, effective government. And that makes for hard decisions. Let’s just be honest about it.”

What Fortenberry didn't tell the World Herald or the voters is that he has no qualms about the debt and deficits when he is voting for tax cuts for special interests and the wealthiest Americans.   So far this year, Fortenberry has voted to add over $500 billion to the deficit in voting for measures that would benefit big corporations, special interests and the super wealthy.

Earlier this year, the Lincoln Congressman voted to repeal the estate tax.  This tax cut would only benefit the top .02% of income earners and would add $269 billion to the deficit.  In a recent World Herald article, the Republicans couldn't find one farmer who had to sell even a portion of his farm to pay the estate tax.  The Farm Bureau has also admitted that no farms have ever been sold to pay the estate tax.

The estate tax cut repeal which largely benefits wealthy heirs like Paris Hilton isn't the only deficit financed tax cut that Mr. Fortenberry supported in 2015.  In February, Fortenberry voted for a series of so-called "tax extenders" which will increase the deficit by $300 billion over the next ten years.  These cuts will benefit large corporations and other special interests.  Despite his so-called concern about the deficit, Fortenberry and his party bosses passed no spending or revenue offsets.

Congressman Fortenberry likes to tell us that he supposedly cares a lot about the deficit. However, his votes this year for tax cuts for the wealthy and the special interests indicates  those cares aren’t real.  Mr Fortenberry - like many Republicans - is a faux deficit hawk.

Fortenberry's lack of concern about spending and the deficit is shared by many other Republicans in Washington.  Every GOP President beginning with Nixon has left behind to his successor a larger deficit than the one he inherited. Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt and George W. Bush doubled it.   Eisenhower was the last Republican President to balance the budget back in 1955.

As always, there are two Jeff Fortenberrys.  The Nebraska version presents himself as some kind of moderate who is in tune with the interests of his constituents.  The D.C. Fortenberry - the real Fortenberry - is an extremist who votes with his party bosses and the special interests who finance his campaigns.  Simply stated, Fortenberry isn't working for Nebraska - he is working for the the special interests and the most extreme members of his party.   The people of Nebraska CD1 deserve better than Mr. Fortenberry. 

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

If You Want to Live Like a Republican, Vote Democratic

Harry Truman said that: "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."  Why would Truman say such a thing? Does that hold true today? Those are good questions because the perceived conventional wisdom among many pundits in the mainstream media and the GOP is that Republicans are better for the overall economy than Democrats because they are allegedly more business friendly. However, as in many other instances, the conventional wisdom is wrong. The history of the American economy over the last 54 years demonstrates that the economy performs much better for all Americans when a Democrat occupies the White House.

A 2012 report from Bloomberg News Services shows that between the advent of the Kennedy Administration in January 1961 and April 2012, non-government payrolls in the U.S. increased by almost 42 million jobs under Democratic Presidents, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures. Bloomberg indicated that between January 1961 and April 2012, Democratic presidents accounted for an average of 150,000 additional private-sector jobs per month over that period, more than double the 71,000 average for Republicans. In other words, almost two-thirds of private-sector job growth in the past five decades occurred when we had Democratic Presidents.

What about the stock market? Has it performed better when we've had Republican Presidents since the Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street? The answer to that question is a flat no. Many people will probably be surprised to find out that stock investors do much better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it's not even close.

Another 2012 survey by Bloomberg News service indicates that between January 1961 and February 2012, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 by early 2012. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office. 

These positive economic trends that occur during Democratic Presidencies have continued since Bloomberg issued these reports in 2012.   In 2013, the economy created 183,000 jobs per month.  That job growth accelerated in 2014 when the economy created 224,000 jobs per month - which was the best year for jobs gain since 1999.  That robust jobs growth has continued into 2015.  Thus far, the economy has created 200,000 jobs per month this year.

The accelerating growth in jobs since 2012 has been paralleled by the rise in the Dow Jones.  On February 1, 2012, the Dow Jones closed at 12,716.  By May 8, 2015, the Dow Jones had grown to 18,191 - an increase of nearly 50%.

Another way to compare the economic records of the two parties is simply to look at the job creation records of the last four Presidents.  They are as follows: Barack Obama - 7,400,000; George W. Bush – 1,282,000; Bill Clinton – 22,647,000; and George H.W. Bush – 2,637,000.  In other words, you will need 4 Bushes to match the job creation record of President Obama and 10 Bushes to match Clinton. 

What this means is that all of the silly predictions by the Republicans of economic doom and gloom have been wildly off the mark.  Lest we forget, in 2010, John Boehner predicted that President Obama's policies would cause "Armageddon" and "ruin our country."  When he announced for the U.S. Senate in 2013, Ben Sasse prognosticated that the ACA would cause America to "cease to exist."  It is incredible that the press still takes the Republicans seriously on the economy.  

The Republicans have continued to complain about the economy and have disparaged the recovery that they predicted would never happen.  The latest from the GOP is their lament that President Obama's policies have allegedly increased inequality and only assisted the top 1%.  As Bert Harris - one of my loyal readers -  said: "My favorite is the right's new focus on income inequality. Cut taxes for the super rich, fight against unions and minimum wage increases, eliminate programs that help low and middle income families,and then lament the growing income inequality that results from these policies. It's like clear cutting the forest and then complaining about the lack of trees. No shame. "

The Republicans running for President are all promising to bring back the failed policies of the Bush Administration that produced the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover and crashed the economy in 2008.  Marco Rubio has proposed a huge tax cut that would largely eliminate taxes for the super wealthy and increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion.  Jeb Bush has said that he: "Never disagreed with his brother and he's not going to start now."  As Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker cut taxes for the wealthy and has left his state with a record $2 billion deficit.

The choice next year will be between the middle class economic strategy of the Democratic Presidents or the trickle down economics of the Republican Presidents. If you look at the evidence, the choice is clear. As Democrats, we need to tell the voters again and again about our economic successes and how they match up against the Republicans. Once we get that message out, I'm confident that we will win in 2016.

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

If You Want to Live Like a Republican, Vote Democratic

Harry Truman said that: "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."  Why would Truman say such a thing? Does that hold true today? Those are good questions because the perceived conventional wisdom among many pundits in the mainstream media and the GOP is that Republicans are better for the overall economy than Democrats because they are allegedly more business friendly. However, as in many other instances, the conventional wisdom is wrong. The history of the American economy over the last 54 years demonstrates that the economy performs much better for all Americans when a Democrat occupies the White House.

A 2012 report from Bloomberg News Services shows that between the advent of the Kennedy Administration in January 1961 and April 2012, non-government payrolls in the U.S. increased by almost 42 million jobs under Democratic Presidents, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures. Bloomberg indicated that between January 1961 and April 2012, Democratic presidents accounted for an average of 150,000 additional private-sector jobs per month over that period, more than double the 71,000 average for Republicans. In other words, almost two-thirds of private-sector job growth in the past five decades occurred when we had Democratic Presidents.

What about the stock market? Has it performed better when we've had Republican Presidents since the Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street? The answer to that question is a flat no. Many people will probably be surprised to find out that stock investors do much better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it's not even close.

Another 2012 survey by Bloomberg News service indicates that between January 1961 and February 2012, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 by early 2012. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office. 

These positive economic trends that occur during Democratic Presidencies have continued since Bloomberg issued these reports in 2012.   In 2013, the economy created 183,000 jobs per month.  That job growth accelerated in 2014 when the economy created 224,000 jobs per month - which was the best year for jobs gain since 1999.  That robust jobs growth has continued into 2015.  Thus far, the economy has created 200,000 jobs per month this year.

The accelerating growth in jobs since 2012 has been paralleled by the rise in the Dow Jones.  On February 1, 2012, the Dow Jones closed at 12,716.  By May 8, 2015, the Dow Jones had grown to 18,191 - an increase of nearly 50%.

Another way to compare the economic records of the two parties is simply to look at the job creation records of the last four Presidents.  They are as follows: Barack Obama - 7,400,000; George W. Bush – 1,282,000; Bill Clinton – 22,647,000; and George H.W. Bush – 2,637,000.  In other words, you will need 4 Bushes to match the job creation record of President Obama and 10 Bushes to match Clinton. 

What this means is that all of the silly predictions by the Republicans of economic doom and gloom have been wildly off the mark.  Lest we forget, in 2010, John Boehner predicted that President Obama's policies would cause "Armageddon" and "ruin our country."  When he announced for the U.S. Senate in 2013, Ben Sasse prognosticated that the ACA would cause America to "cease to exist."  It is incredible that the press still takes the Republicans seriously on the economy.  

The Republicans have continued to complain about the economy and have disparaged the recovery that they predicted would never happen.  The latest from the GOP is their lament that President Obama's policies have allegedly increased inequality and only assisted the top 1%.  As Bert Harris - one of my loyal readers -  said: "My favorite is the right's new focus on income inequality. Cut taxes for the super rich, fight against unions and minimum wage increases, eliminate programs that help low and middle income families,and then lament the growing income inequality that results from these policies. It's like clear cutting the forest and then complaining about the lack of trees. No shame. "

The Republicans running for President are all promising to bring back the failed policies of the Bush Administration that produced the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover and crashed the economy in 2008.  Marco Rubio has proposed a huge tax cut that would largely eliminate taxes for the super wealthy and increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion.  Jeb Bush has said that he: "Never disagreed with his brother and he's not going to start now."  As Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker cut taxes for the wealthy and has left his state with a record $2 billion deficit.

The choice next year will be between the middle class economic strategy of the Democratic Presidents or the trickle down economics of the Republican Presidents. If you look at the evidence, the choice is clear. As Democrats, we need to tell the voters again and again about our economic successes and how they match up against the Republicans. Once we get that message out, I'm confident that we will win in 2016.

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

Money and Politics

Mark Hanna was William McKinley's campaign manager in his two successful runs for the Presidency in 1896 and 1900.   It would be accurate to say that Hanna was the Karl Rove or the Jim Messina of that era.  Hanna said that:  "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can't remember the second."  Former California House Speaker Jesse Unruh - who ran unsuccessfully against Ronald Reagan for Governor in 1970 - said: "Money is the mother's milk of politics."   Studies indicate that the candidate with the most money wins 91% of the elections.  

The role of money in politics has only gotten more crucial since the Supreme Court's infamous 2010 decision in Citizens United which loosened many of the restrictions on the ability of the wealthy and the corporations to make political donations.  It is widely expected that the Roberts Court will soon throw out what few limitations currently exist on campaign contributions.

Unfortunately, the role of big money has had a major impact here in Nebraska in recent election cycles.  In 2014, Ben Sasse and Pete Ricketts greatly outspent Dave Domina and Chuck Hassebrook, respectively.  This funding edge gave these two severely conservative candidates the opportunity to falsely portray themselves as moderates to get elected.  

I have been asked several times how did the minimum wage petition pass by a 59% to 40% margin while two opponents of a minimum wage increase won by comfortable margins in the races for U.S. Senate and Governor.  The answer I gave is that Domina and Hassebrook simply lacked the financial resources to get the message out to Nebraska voters that they stood on the right side of the minimum wage issue.

In my own race for the U.S. House of Representatives against Jeff Fortenberry, I took on an incumbent who had $900,000.00 in campaign cash on hand.  I managed to raise and spend approximately $47,000.00 where the vast majority of the funds went to getting my message out.  (I had no paid staff. )  I'm convinced that if I had a more level playing field, I could've posed a much more formidable challenge to  Fortenberry once the voters found out that he voted to end Medicare as we know it and to shut down the government.  

Our outstanding Democratic ticket faced a similar funding gap in the recent elections in Lincoln.  Both Patte Newman and Meg Mikolajczyk lost excruciatingly close races for City Council in eminently winnable districts.  Perhaps the deciding factor in both of these races were that these excellent Democratic candidates were out spent by approximately a 4-1 ratio.  

Mayor Beutler was the best financed Democrat in the 2015 Lincoln elections and he managed to out spend challenger Andy Stebbing by a 2-1 margin   Due to that monetary advantage, Beutler was able to fend off relentless attacks from the Republicans and win an historic third term as mayor.

As Democrats, we're not only running against a well funded Republican candidate and machine, we're also running against Fox News and AM radio.  The Republicans get millions of dollars in free publicity every month thanks to the right wing media.  When I canvass for Democratic candidates, I frequently hear talking points from some of the voters  that are lifted directly from the right wing media. 

The answer to this problem is that we Democrats need to step up to the plate and contribute more money.  Increased donations will fund voter registration drives, get out the vote operations, mailers and other advertising.  Our lack of financial resources give us an all too small margin of error.  

My request to you my Democratic friends is that you contribute to the Nebraska Democratic Party, your local county party and strong candidates.  Good government isn't free.  It isn't cheap either.  This is a reality we just have to face.  We have no choice.

We have a very important election cycle coming up in 2016.  Pete Ricketts and his wealthy allies will be targeting several incumbent Democratic State Senators in an effort to shove the Unicameral to the right and enact the kind of radical agenda that ruined Kansas.  We can't let them get away with.  We must meet the challenge.  If not us, who?  If not now, when?  Our future depends upon it. 

As a postscript, I would like to thank each and every member of the Democratic ticket (and their families) for placing their names on the ballot this year.  I saw first hand how hard our candidates worked.   These are good people who were eminently well qualified for the offices they sought. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. 

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

Stop LB599 - We Need A Minimum Wage Increase Now More Than Ever

One of the most disturbing trends in our country over the last three decades has been the eroding economic standing of the middle class and the soaring income gains of the wealthiest Americans.   This trend has caused the biggest gap between the wealthy and everybody else since 1928.  The middle class's share of the national income has declined from 53% of the nation's income in 1968 to 46% in 2010.  

At the same time,  the minimum wage - adjusted for inflation - has been steadily shrinking. In 1968, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 per hour but adjusted for inflation would be $10.34 in today's dollars.  As we all know, the federal minimum wage is currently stuck at $7.25 per hour.

Due to this erosion in the value of the minimum wage, it is imperative that it be boosted.   It also needs to be increased to $10.10 per hour  because it would lift nearly 5 million people out of poverty and save taxpayers billions of dollars.  For example, a boost in the minimum wage would significantly reduce the amount of money we spend on the SNAP program.  If large corporations such as McDonald's and WalMart were required to pay higher wages,  taxpayers on the national level would save approximately $4.6 billion on an annual basis, or $46 billion over ten years, in SNAP expenses.  

Last year, Nebraska voters took action and voted by a 59% to 40% margin to increase the minimum wage to $8 per hour as of January 1, 2015 and to $9 per hour by January 1, 2016.  This victory for working families was the result of a true grass roots effort.  Volunteers literally went all over the state to gather the necessary signatures to put this measure on the ballot.  

The opponents of this successful ballot initiative predicted that increasing the minimum wage would cause an increase in unemployment.  As usual, the conservative doom and gloomers have been proven wrong.  The unemployment rate in Nebraska has steadily declined since the higher minimum wage took effect.  It was recently announced that the unemployment rate for March has declined all the way to  2.6 % - which is currently the lowest in the U.S.A. for the second month in a row and the lowest for the state since 1998.  

Despite the necessity for an increased minimum wage and the resounding success of this ballot initiative, the special interests haven't given up.  They have already commenced efforts to reverse the will of the voters expressed last year.  Senator Laura Ebke has introduced LB599 which would allow corporations to maintain the minimum wage at $8 per hour for student workers under age 19 when the Nebraska's minimum wage is increased to $9 an hour in 2016.

Unfortunately, LB599 received first round approval by a 32-11 margin.  In order to become law, this regressive legislation will need 33 votes because the Nebraska Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of the Unicameral to change any law passed by public vote.

Senator Jeremy Nordquist - who spearheaded last year's effort to increase the minimum wage - correctly pointed out that LB599 would "unwind the will of the voters" and was an "affront to democracy."  Nordquist also contended that that gutting the new minimum wage law would give corporations an incentive to discriminate against older workers and may even cause high school students to drop out because employers would be allowed to pay the reduced minimum wage to those attending school.

This is an atrocious piece of legislation because it treats the voters with contempt and cuts the pay of poor people and students.  The biggest problem with the economy is a lack of consumer spending power and demand.  This pernicious legislation only perpetuates this negative trend.  The Unicameral shouldn't be voting to cut people's pay and take money out of the economy.

LB599 will soon come up for another vote.  All we have to do is flip two Senators to kill this bill.  Well informed sources in the legislature have told me that the Senators only heard from the special interests before the first round vote.  It's now time for the Senators to hear from the people.  Please contact your State Senator as soon as possible and urge them to vote against LB599.  

We have all learned an important lesson here.  No victory over the radical right and the special interests is ever final in nature.  Even if we win a victory, the forces of reaction never give up and will do everything they can to reverse the will of the people.  We need to be every bit as relentless as they are.  We must never give up.  Now, please call your State Senator as soon as possible and tell them to stand up for working families by voting no on LB599. 

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

The U.S. Supreme Court Will Be On The Ballot in 2016

In recent blog posts, I've discussed the high stakes surrounding the 2016 Presidential election. As we know, the last time the GOP controlled the White House and the Congress, they cratered the economy and got the U.S. involved in two mismanaged and costly wars. If they win the 2016 elections, they will do it all over again since they have largely promised to bring back the disastrous policies that failed during the most recent Bush Administration.

Another factor that raises the stakes for the 2016 cycle is that the composition and future direction of the U.S. Supreme Court will be set by the next President. The current Roberts Court has proven to be a big disappointment as we've seen the five Republican appointees make significant changes to long existing precedents in important areas like voting rights and campaign finance. Well informed observers have contended that the Roberts court is the most conservative and pro-business Supreme Court in decades.

Just how did we get here in the first place? What Justices are most likely to retire? What would be the consequences of additional Republican appointees to the high court?

The genesis of the current conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court was the appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alito in 2005. Those appointments changed the balance of power on the Court and moved it much further to the right. The replacement of the centrist Justice Sandra O'Connor by the staunchly conservative Samuel Alito has had profound effects on the law.

A big shift to the right on the Court was neither expected from nor promised by then D.C. Circuit Judge John Roberts in 2005. At his confirmation hearings, Roberts promised to be a moderate and honor existing precedent. As he told the Senators: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire... I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

As it turned out, Roberts broke that promise and has since made several decisions that have tilted the playing field heavily in favor of the GOP and the wealthy. In the 2010 Citizens United decision, Roberts skillfully engineered a 5-4 straight party line majority that threw out decades of settled law on campaign finance. The Citizens United decision has made it possible for the wealthy to donate unlimited funds to so-called Super PACs and keep those donations secret.

There is nothing in the First Amendment to the Constitution that equates money with speech. Roberts and his four fellow Republican appointees on the Court simply invented this doctrine out of whole cloth. It is hard to imagine that the Founding Fathers ever intended for the wealthiest Americans to be able to put unlimited and secret funds into dishonest political advertising.

We all saw the effects of this infamous decision during the Nebraska Republican primaries in May 2014. A series of dishonest and secretly funded television advertisements poisoned the primary process and unfairly trashed some of the Republican contenders for the U.S. Senate and Governor. As Don Walton of the Journal Star aptly stated: "It seems increasingly clear that the old problem of the uninformed voter has transformed into the new problem of the misinformed voter, who has been manipulated and misled by a deluge of half-truths and mis-truths not only during this campaign, but has been subjected to a lot of that every day."

Another pernicious decision in 2013 by the five GOP appointees gutted the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. This decision gave the green light to numerous states to pass voter ID laws and to scrub their voter rolls of poor and minority voters. Obviously, this decision makes it harder for poor people and Democrats to vote and has further tilted the playing field in favor of the wealthy and the GOP.

The Roberts Court's favoritism to the GOP and the wealthy hasn't gone unnoticed. As Jeffrey Toobin said: "In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party." In 2014, Atlantic magazine went so far as to label Roberts the "most accomplished Republican strategist of the day."

Given his obvious partisan leanings, Roberts would like to have some reinforcements to his majority after the 2016 election cycle. This is an older Supreme Court and it's composition will likely undergo a radical change during the next Presidency. The Justices most likely to retire are Anthony Kennedy - age 79, Antonin Scalia - age 79, Ruth Bader Ginsburg - age 82 and Stephen Breyer - age 77.

The consequences of a Republican President shaping the Supreme Court beginning in 2017 would be nothing short of disastrous. If Chief Justice Roberts gets a larger majority on the Court, it is most likely that the long standing precedent in Roe v. Wade would be overruled. Once again, politicians, unelected judges and bureaucrats would be in charge of womens' most intimate health care decisions.

We could also expect an enhanced conservative Republican majority on the Supreme Court to shred the last few remaining campaign finance limitations and even throw out the Affordable Care Act. As Senator Edward Kennedy forecast back in 1987, an extreme Supreme Court majority could bring back a country where: "women would be forced into back-alley abortions, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."

As Democrats we simply can't let that happen. We must educate the voters about the consequences of a radical right wing majority on the Supreme Court. For most people, the Supreme Court isn't on their radar screen and they have no idea what a run away Supreme Court could do. I would submit that most fair minded voters who don't regard themselves as staunch conservative Republicans would be absolutely appalled at the prospect of the appointment of additional justices like Roberts and Alito.

The stakes couldn't be any higher in 2016. The Republicans already have control of the Congress and they will do everything they can to win the White House and once again dominate Washington like they did during the last Bush Administration. We can't outspend the GOP and their billionaire allies but we can outwork them. Now let's get out there and do it before it is too late.

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share

Middle Class v. Trickle Down Economics: What Works?

There has been a raging debate in the country for decades between the Democratic and Republican parties about what economic approach works best to bring about prosperity for all Americans.  On the one hand, the GOP and the conservative movement have been telling us that if we just give the wealthy and corporations more money and power, that wealth will somehow trickle down and benefit all Americans.  We Democrats have taken the position that the path to prosperity for all lies in investing in the middle class.  We believe that all Americans will benefit and prosper if we make it easier and less expensive for middle class Americans to obtain health care, a good education, fair wages and family leave.

We have had several real world experiences in what economic approach is superior since 1993.  That year, President Clinton proposed to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut spending in order to reduce the huge budget deficits he inherited from the two previous Republican Administrations.  Ronald Reagan increased the national debt by 186% and the national debt grew an additional 54% during the Administration of George H.W. Bush.

Every Republican in 1993 fearlessly predicted that  President Clinton's economic plan would be a failure. Then House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich predicted: "I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine's recession. And each one of them will be held personally accountable."  John Kasich (then a Republican congressman from Ohio, now that state's governor) contended that: "I feel bad for the people who really are the working people in this country, people in my family, who are going to get the penalties from people who don't want to invest more, take any more risks. They're going to lose their jobs, and that's the tragedy of this program.  The proof will be in the pudding. We're going to come back here next year, there will be higher deficits, there will be more spending, we'll continue to have a very slow economy, people aren't going to go to work."

As Steve Kornacki wrote in 2011: "It’s important to note that this was not an isolated event — that Newt and his friends simply fell victim to some heat-of-the-moment hyperbole. This was the Republican Party’s line for all of 1993, one repeated by senators, congressmen, talk shows hosts, activists, and state and local officials at every level of the ballot."

Just how did those Republican predictions of doom and gloom play out? As we know, they were dead wrong.  What followed the passage of the 1993 Clinton budget package was the greatest peacetime economic boom in U.S. history.  During the Clinton Presidency, 22 million new jobs were created, unemployment declined from 7% to 3%, median family income rose, and poverty declined to its lowest rate in 20 years.  The Clinton budget also converted what was then the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus.

After President Clinton left office in 2001, we got yet another real world experiment in the effectiveness of the two major, competing economic theories.  In 2001 and 2003, George W. Bush muscled through the GOP dominated Congress huge tax cuts that largely benefited the wealthiest Americans.  Something like 40% of the Bush tax cuts went to the the top 1% of income earners. The GOP predicted that those tax cuts would create 250,000 jobs per month and pay for themselves.  

Unfortunately for our country, those GOP predictions turned out to be wildly off the mark. According to the January 9, 2009, Wall Street Journal, Bush had the worst jobs creation record since Herbert Hoover. Only 3 million jobs were created during the Bush Presidency or around 31,000 jobs per month. By the end of 2008, the economy had collapsed and the U.S. was facing the prospect of another Great Depression. At the same time, the hard earned $238 billion surplus created by President Clinton had exploded into a $1.3 trillion deficit by the time President Obama took office in 2009.

At the time he was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, President Obama inherited the worst economic situation since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933.  The economy was losing 800,000 jobs per month, GDP had shrunk nearly 9% in the last quarter of 2008, and the Dow Jones had slumped to around 6,500.

In response to this economic crisis, President Obama proposed and passed the 2009 American Recovery Act.  This landmark legislation consisted of the biggest middle class tax cut in history, invested in infrastructure projects and kicked off a revolution in renewable energy.  Then Senator Ben Nelson played a crucial role in helping this vital legislation overcome a GOP filibuster and getting it passed into law.

Contrary to what you will hear on Fox News and AM radio, the Recovery Act was a big success.  According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, this unfairly maligned stimulus bill: "added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession."  

The next (and most recent) chapter in this long running debate occurred in late 2012 and early 2013.  Due to some budget gimmicks used by the GOP to hide the costs of the Bush tax cuts, these tax cuts were all due to expire by operation of law on December 31, 2012.  As a consequence, there was a raging debate in 2012 on whether to extend or repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

As usual, the GOP predicted that raising taxes on the wealthy would hurt the economy.  For example, then House Majority Leader Eric Cantor predicted that the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would result in the loss of over 700,000 jobs.  Closer to home, Creighton University economist Ernie Goss prognosticated that the elimination of these tax breaks for the wealthy would  "adversely affect small-business owners, who, as a result, might hire fewer workers or lay off current employees."  Goss further contended that the wealthy would "respond by investing less in their enterprises. That means fewer jobs and spreads the misery to everyone."

As it turned out, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were repealed by the Fiscal Cliff bill that passed on January 1, 2013.  After this tax increase went into effect, all of the conservative prognostications of doom and gloom once again turned out to be wrong.  In 2013, the economy created 183,000 jobs per month.  That job growth accelerated in 2014 when the economy created 224,000 jobs per month - which was the best year for jobs gain since 1999.  That robust jobs growth has continued into 2015.  Thus far, the economy has created 200,000 jobs per month this year.

We have now had the last 22 years to evaluate what is the best approach to job creation and economic prosperity.  The evidence is in and middle class economics is the clear winner.  It isn't even close.  Yet the Republicans steadfastly adhere to their failed economic theories.

Once again, this approach to economic policy making will be on the ballot in 2016.  If the Republicans win the elections and gain control of the White House and the Congress, they will bring back the failed economic policies of George W. Bush.  The last time the GOP passed it's economic agenda during that Administration, they ruined the economy and exploded the deficit. We simply can't let them do that again.

Share on Twitter
Bookmark and Share