The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best? (Part I of III)

The U.S. economy is in the news yet again with many economists and business leaders predicting a recession in the near future.  Some say it will be short lived; others say it will be deep and prolonged.  The candidates who are running for their party's nomination have already put their two cents in.  

 

If a recession does occur, it will be the second one on this President's watch.  The first occurred in 2001.  That leads to the question, which party's President, in the last 28 years, has had the best economic policy for the economy and its people?  The undisputed answer and fact is the Clinton Administration.  That is one of the main reasons Clinton left office with an approval rating of 65%, the highest approval rating of any President in modern times. One could go back 40 years and the Clinton economy would still come out on top.  

 

Reagan-Bush served 12 years, Clinton 8 years and G.W. Bush 8 years.  Those 3 republican presidents served a total of 20 years.  Reagan was the first of the neocons who championed an ideology that claimed the GOP was best at balancing the budget, creating jobs, lowering unemployment, cutting the budget, managing the economy, and lowering crime.  But sadly, those 3 republican presidents were reckless with the people's money and (1) Failed to keep their promises to the country and its people; (2) Betrayed the voters; (3)  Created massive debt for our children and grandchildren; (4) Placed in jeopardy our democracy by being in bed with Corporate America, and (5)  Deliberately tried to put the U.S. government's financial situation in jeopardy with debt in order to bankrupt social security, medicare, and other social services on which millions of Americans depend. 

 

One will not have to be a deep thinker to absorb the facts.  The actual numbers will tell the story because they are already written in the history books.  There are those who have lived through the 28 years and will still not believe the facts.  They have a right to believe what they want to believe, but they do not have a right to call those 3 republican presidents fiscal conservatives, nor do they have a right to call liberals big spenders.  The facts will show just the opposite.

 

George Bush said the tax cuts of 2001 and the stimulus package that was passed by Congress ended the recession of 2001.  Now he is talking about another stimulus for the predicted recession to come soon.  The reader needs to keep in mind the republican problem.  They have, through the years, a tax cutting policy but not an economic policy.  They believe in the trickle down theory.  On the other hand president Clinton had an economic policy to deal with the 12 year fiscal mess Reagan-Bush left the country in. 

 

An economic policy is lasting and covers a broad spectrum while a stimulus package does not answer the real problem and, in fact, comes after the fact.  Ditto for the tax cuts that the republicans propose because they favor the most wealthy people.  Simply put it: trickle down economics is a fairytale. 

 

Ron Paul is the only republican candidate running for president who has spoken about fiscal responsibility, while the other republicans have talked about emulating Reagan and Bush.  Senator Clinton is the only democratic candidate for president who talks about getting back to fiscal responsibility as the best way to deal with the economy and our other problems. 

 

Sadly, the massive spending and debt the republicans have put the country in is never discussed by the journalists in the news media.  Stay tuned because part II will deal with the Reagan-Bush years and part III with the Clinton and Bush years.

Why Michigan And Florida Need To Count

There has been a ton of buzz, both on the blogs and in the media, because Sen. Hillary Clinton asked the DNC that both Michigan and Florida delegates be seated at the convention.  Many have suggested that this is unfair; that Hillary Clinton is only doing this because she won Michigan and might win Florida.  Well, maybe thats partly the truth, but nonetheless, Michigan and Florida need to count.

Reason 1:  Both Michigan and Florida are key swing states come November.  The Democratic nominee will need every last vote they can get in those states.  By not seating the delegates, some Democratic voters get pretty pissed off and simply won't vote. And they certainly have a right to get angry at the Democratic party. That brings me to reason two.

Reason 2: Every last voter in this country deserves to get their voice heard, regardless of who they voted for.  It's unfair to the voters of Michigan and Florida that the voters of 48 other states will have their voices heard at the convention, but they won't.  

Reason 3: The reason the DNC gave for stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates was that they moved their primary up too early.  I usually agree with the DNC, but they were wrong in this situation.  Every state should get a change to have an equally strong voice in the nomination process.  Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina shouldn't be the only states to get in on the action.  Thats why I have said repeatedly that there needs to be a national primary come 2012.  

So along with Sen. Clinton and the people of Michigan and Florida, who have voted and will soon vote, I ask the Democratic National Convention to seat their delegates at the convention.  Every American who chooses to vote deserves his or her voice be heard when it comes to selecting the next President of the United States.  

Yet Another Failed Middle East Policy

Just a few weeks ago President Bush traveled to the Middle East and visited with the leader of Israel, the leader of the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle East countries.  This was supposed to restart the so called "Road Map" talks and lead to a treaty to solve the Israel and Palestine problem before years end.

 

But the President failed to include Hamas, and the palestinians who occupy the Gaza strip, in the talks.  Keep in mind it was Hamas who won the parliament election in 2006.  How can the U.S., Israel, and the Palestinians, as well as other nations of the Middle East, reach a lasting peace agreement and establish a Palestinian state with borders without Hamas being invited or involved.

 

Now we have Israel and Hamas in conflict again with each other.  Both sides launch attacks against each other and Israel has responded by cutting off all supplies moving into and out of Gaza. Israel has cut off fuel for Gaza's only power plant.  The Palestinians, in order to break the hard ships, blew up the wall separating Gaza and Egypt and flooded Egypt to stock up on supplies.  The breach in the wall is still open and the Palestinians are still moving into Gaza to purchase needy goods and food.

 

President Bush has been A.W.O.L. for 7 years concerning the Israel-Palestinian problem so in his last year he decides to go to the middle east and save face before he leaves office.  But he fails to include Hamas in any of the talks and now Hamas is making its plight known. This is just more incompetence from President Bush.  The world needs a Middle East peace agreement that will actually work. 

1/24 Republican Debate Analysis

"Wow!" was the headline I gave to Monday's Democratic debate, but if a similar headline were to be given to the GOP debate, it would be "Booooring".  Okay, maybe boring is too harsh of an adjective, but it was extremely mild considering the crucial Florida Primary is this coming Tuesday.

So who won?  Many in the media have given then win to Mitt Romney.  Others, although less numerous than the former, halied McCain the winner for simply not doing anything to halt his momentum coming out of South Carolina.  Here's my take:

After watching the debate, it is clear than any one of the Democratic candidates is a thousand times better than any Republican candidate.  With that being said, I have to point out some outright lies by John McCain.  As reported by NBC's First Read:

"Tim Russert asked him this: "Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' 

Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that by your own acknowledgment you're not well versed on?"

McCain replied, "Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from."

Well Sen. McCain, you did say that.  Here is what you said:

“I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics that I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.”

That is the exact quote Russert read and that McCain denied ever saying.  Maybe he's losing his memory as he gets up in age, but McCain did, indeed, say that he is not experienced in economics.  In fact, just last month, McCain had this to say, further illustrating the lack of economic experience McCain now claims he has and has always had:

"The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should." (Boston Globe)

McCain also claimed to have received a majority of the Republican vote in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  This is, again, factually inaccurate.  In New Hampshire, Romney won the Republican vote while Huckabee did the same in South Carolina.  On a side note, it should be interesting to see if McCain can win the Florida primary since only Republican voters, not independents, can vote in it.  If New Hampshire and South Carolina followed the same rules as Florida, McCain wouldn't have won.

McCain stated, in addition to the previous mis-statements, that not a single military official has said that the current troop levels in Iraq can not be sustained.  Well, in fact, many, too many to list, have said that it will be impossible to maintain current troop levels in Iraq for much longer.  Some of those military officials to which I refer include Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. George Casey.  

Well now that I'm done picking apart McCain's apparent lies, let me move on to the analysis.  

Obviously, I'm not a Republican, but I figure to at least try to analyze this crucial debate, I need to get in the mindset of conservative Republicans who make up the bulk of Florida GOP primary voters.  When I do that, I can indeed see why so many in the media have pronounced Romney the winner.  Joe Scarborough was the first pundit to declare Romney the winner and I agree with his analysis.  He is, after all, a Florida Republican---he should know how his own people think and how they vote.  

Why do I think he won? Because: Romney came off seeming knowledgeable concerning the economy, which is the top issue for Florida voters.  Compare Romney's detailed answers on the economy to McCain's, "let's get some people together and work this thing out" approach and Romney was the clear winner.  And the fact that the majority of the debate focused on the economy, and not foreign policy, was a huge plus to Romney and a huge minus for McCain.  

Rudy, in much contrast to Romney, came off looking the worst.  It's as if he has already ceded this race and just wanted to fade away quietly (which is probably a good idea).  Rudy probably said some pretty wacky stuff last night, as he usually does, but to be honest, I just can't remember anything he said.  His performance was forgettable, literally.  

With all that being said, here are my top 3 winners of last night's GOP debate:

1st place: Mitt Romney

2nd: Mike Huckabee (although he's a crazy religious right-winger, he is charming and that goes a long way in a debate)

3rd: John McCain

New York Times Endorses Clinton

Today, the largest newspaper in the country, the New York Times, read by people in all 5o states, has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for President.  Here is some of what they had to say:

"As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election...

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now...

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave...

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right...

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006...

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."

Dems Hail McCain The GOP Frontrunner---But Who's Best To Defeat Him?

It's clear from watching Monday's debate that the Democratic candidates have focused in on whom they believe will be the Republican nominee, and hence their opposition, heading into the November general election---John McCain.  All three major candidates---Clinton, Obama, and Edwards---have made the argument that they themselves would be the strongest nominee to best McCain and win the Presidency.

So who is truly the strongest candidate?  The truth is that they all have points that need to be taken into account.  Obama says that he can bring in independents.  Edwards claims he can bring more rural, traditionally red, states into play come November. Clinton's argument is that she is the only Democratic candidate who keep up with McCain on foreign policy issues.  All the above are excellent points made by each of the candidates.  

So, we've heard the arguments, but what about the numbers?  Well just today, the LA Times and Bloomberg released polling data pitting Clinton and Obama against McCain (sorry Edwards, you weren't included), and here are the results:

-Clinton 46% McCain 42%   (Clinton +4%)

-Obama 41% McCain 42%   (McCain +1%)

As I pointed out before, Clinton has to be considered the best Democrat to go against McCain.  Why?  Because McCain could easily beat Obama over and over again with the claim to experience in general as well as foreign policy experience.  Clinton would cede neither the experience argument nor the foreign policy experience argument to McCain.  She could go toe to toe with McCain on those issues.  Giving McCain Obama as an opponent would be giving him a huge advantage.  What's his advantage over Clinton? Is there one?  We haven't seen one yet.  

1/21 Democratic Debate Analysis

Wow!---thats all I can say.  Watching last night's CNN Democratic debate felt like watching a high speed car crash---where you just know it's going to get uglier and uglier but you just can't turn away.  

The first half of the debate, in addition to housing the fireworks between Clinton and Obama, had some rather odd moments. For one, it seemed as if Obama had rehearsed lines that he was determined to get in on Clinton regardless of what the topic of the question was.  In the first ten minutes, Obama was asked a question about the economy, but instead of spending his one minute of time answering the question, he attacked Bill Clinton.  It was just plain weird to see a question on the economy turn into an attack on Bill Clinton, which of course drew a response from Clinton, and then one back again from Obama and so on. 

One thing I was shocked to see, and I say this from a completely unbiased point of view, was that Obama took the Clintons' bait. It was overtly obvious to anyone watching the past few days that Bill and Hillary wanted to distract Obama from the issues and get inside his head.  And to my surprise, Bill threw out the bait and Obama jumped on it.  It was unproductive for Obama last night, it terms of the more or less national race coming February 5, to attack Bill Clinton.  Obama has South Carolina locked up with its 50% + African American vote, but Super Tuesday is another story.  And by taking the Clintons' bait and attacking Hillary and Bill, rather than answering the questions, Obama was reduced to nothing more than a mere politician.  If I was Obama and I was put in his position, going up against the Clinton machine, I would have risen above the fray and tried to appear untouchable.  

Why Obama aggressively and persistently went after the Clintons, particularly Bill, is beyond my comprehension.  Does he not understand that he played right into the Clintons' hands last night?  This should be common sense for anyone, especially someone with the savvy of Obama---you don't attack Bill Clinton in a Democratic Primary race. It's just plain stupid.

And to make matters even worse for Obama last night, he was the one who started the entire fight, and trust me, it was a fight. Usually it's Hillary who makes a charge against her opponents and more or less starts the dialogue.  Last night it was Obama who appeared overly eager to throw the first punch.  But as Obama found out, Clinton can hit back pretty hard too.  After several minutes of back and forth bickering, Obama made a comment about Clinton and Wal-Mart.  Clinton, clearly having had enough, hit Obama back with the whole Rezco scandal, which does deserve more attention than it's gotten.  You could just tell by the look on Obama's face that he was not ready for that, and he was pretty much "well-behaved" for the rest of the debate.

  

Again, I'll say that those opening moments clearly rattled Obama.  The candidates were asked about a bill that came to the Senate that would put a cap on interest rates for credit cards at 30%.  Clinton voted for it, Obama against it.  Clinton made the charge that by not voting to put a cap on how high credit cards could charge a customer interest, Obama was playing right into the corporate lobbyists' hands. Obama then gave the most bizarre comeback of this campaign season: he voted against it because he though that 30% was too high.  John Edwards, who has mostly sided with Obama in previous debates, turned to Obama, with the a priceless look on his face, and simply asked Obama how the hell does it make sense that you vote against a 30% cap, which by default would allow a company to charge as much interest as they like, and then say it was because the cap was too high.  Isn't a 30% cap better than a 100% cap?  

Edwards also went after Obama over his liberal use of the "present" vote in the Illinois State Senate.  This is really telling, because as Edwards said, if you agree with a bill, you vote yes, if you don't, you vote no.  The present vote is nothing more than a cheap shot at political cover.  Instead of taking a stand on tough issues, Obama decided to straddle the middle.  As Edwards said, America needs a President who is not afraid to take tough positions; America needs a President who will stand up and fight for a progressive agenda.

The best and most substantive policy debate of the night came over the issue of healthcare.  From what I could tell, both Clinton and Edwards looked great defending true universal healthcare.  Democrats have wanted universal healthcare for over a decade, and it's appealing to many to hear Clinton and Edwards stand up firmly for it.  They both correctly pointed out that Obama's plan is not universal.  Every American will not be insured; in fact, an estimated 15 million or more would be left without healthcare coverage.  In 2008, with a Democratic Congress and Democratic President, universal healthcare can get passed.  It would be sad to pass up that opportunity, both in my mind and in the mind of many other Democrats.  

So who won the debate?  Clearly Edwards.  Not because he was particularly great last night, but because the spat between Clinton and Obama virtually cancelled each candidate out.  Unfortunately for Edwards, it's just too late for him to make a comeback.  So in that sense, when you realize that it's now a Clinton-Obama race, Clinton won the debate.  Obama played to the South Carolina base, and did well on that front.  But on the national scale, Clinton was the winner.  

Well If It's The Economy(...Stupid!), Then Hillary Is Your Candidate

Time after time, when talking to friends, surfing the blogosphere, and analyzing the recent polls, there is one single issue that stands in the forefront of people's minds.  It's the economy.  Sure, ending the War in Iraq is a huge issue, as is universal healthcare and the environment, but the economy is paramount.  I've taken the time to review all the major Democratic candidates' proposals for the economy, and one sticks out.  It's Sen. Hillary Clinton's.  Why?  Because, unlike others, hers does not talk in broad based ideas and ideals when coming up with solutions.  It talks specifics. 

Sen. Clinton has also demonstrated her vast knowledge of America's current economic situation in the debates.  She is the only candidate, from either side of the isle, with perhaps the exception of Romney, who looks confident and knowledgeable on the facts.  (In my opinion, Romney is completely wrong when it comes to the economy, but he does at least look confident in talking about it...but thats another story.)  Earlier today, Clinton addressed the worsening global economy.  Here is what she had to say:

Obama Calls Out Bill---Who's Telling The Truth?

In a pre-taped interview with ABC's Good Morning America, set to air tomorrow, Sen. Barack Obama claimed that Bill Clinton had recently been making "factually inaccurate" statements concerning him(Obama) and his campaign.  So, the question has to be asked: Who's telling the truth, Barack or Bill?  Let's look at the facts on some of the issues of which Barack claims Bill was not telling the truth:

1)President Clinton said that Obama's radio ad told Republicans to register as Democrats and vote for him.  Here are the President's exact words:

"There’s a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn’t sound like the new politics to me."

Obama claims that is not true.  But here is exactly what Obama's radio ad said:

"Caucus for Barack Obama Saturday the 19th 11am. You can register right at the caucus. Independents and Republicans who want real change can attend and switch registration." 

In addition to the radio ad, Obama's campaign was also distributing pamphlets in Nevada that urged Republicans to caucus for Obama "if you think a Democrat will win in November and you don't want Hillary."

2) President Clinton told a Nevada crowd that he and Chelsea witnessed voter suppression first hand at casinos:

"There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying 'if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.'"

Obama claims that Bill lied and saw no such thing.  However, the local Las Vegas Sun has confirmed that dirty tactics were indeed being employed by Obama supporters:

"Union representatives, he(Ruben Beltran, a Culinary Union member) said, are telling employees they must caucus for Obama on Saturday, making it sound more like a demand than a suggestion. Beltran said workers feel intimidated because the union holds sway over their jobs."

3) Obama claims that Bill Clinton lied concerning Obama's evolving Iraq War positions.  Here is how Bill characterized Obama's positions:

"It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004, and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since."

Well, here are quotes that prove President Clinton's points:

a. "When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war," Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

b. “On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.” (Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04)

c. Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because “the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over."

d. "Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. " (ABC News, 5/17/07)

So, my friends, there are the quotes and the facts, do with them what you please.  

Rev. Dr. Calvin O. Butts III Endorses Sen. Clinton

Abyssinian Baptist Church Pastor Reverend Dr. Calvin O. Butts, III, has endorsed Sen. Clinton for President.  Here is what he had to say:

Rev. Butts said it best when he said:

"As a nation, we cannot afford four more years of uninspired and uninspiring leadership. In our quest for change, it's time that we returned to the fundamentals - experience, ability, respect, character. It's time for Senator Hillary Clinton."