In this book the author explains how the president morphed into his real father- Barack Obama Sr, who was an avowed anti-colonialist, by making his father's dream become his dream. Also read "Dreams From My Father" to understand the connection.
D'Souza argues Obama is an anti-colonialist and buys into the five arguments the author suggests are the ones held by anti-Colonialists:
1)Empires are produced by murderous conquest and sustained by violence.
2) Colonist regimes are racist.
3) Colonialism is a system of piracy and systematically steals from colonized countries.
4) The United States is the new leader.
5)There is no end to this system of injustice without getting colonizers out.
The author concludes Obama's anti-colonialism is deeply felt, drives his ideological thinking and acts. His father's dream is the president's dream and he is imposing it with a vengeance. If one looks at what he says and does through an anti-Colonialist prism then our president is more easily understood.
Obama I, is who American voters thought they were electing. He said: "I may not have won your vote but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president."
No sooner than he said this, he became a consummate liar and turned into Obama 2. He became the arrogant, race baiting president who lambasts, demonizes and blames. But in all fairness to both Obama 1 and 2, he warned us he would seek to change us and he has but neither in the direction of The America most Americans know, nor in the direction of our Constitution but in his anti-Colonial direction of his father .
I have argued consistently, if Obama is as smart as people say then his acts are purposeful and D'Souza explains why this is assuredly so.
Perhaps D"Souza's explanations go a long way towards understanding why this president has picked a fight with Israel, gave back Churchill's bust, went to Egypt and apologized for America's behaviour and now finds it difficult to act against Arabs and Muslims etc.. (See 1 below.)
Re-elect him at our nation's peril!
---
Is Europe actually getting its act together as our president embraces their failed economic approach? (See 2 below.)
---
When Palestinians say no and then blame Israel why does this stick? (See 3 below.)
---
We are all titled for living in this blessed land but some more entitled than others! (See 4 below.)
And why those who rebel at entitlements just "suck" so watch below!
---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One can take two views of the Republican vote to continue paying unemployment:
One view may be the desire to let this president have his way in the 'mistaken' belief Americans will awake
to the folly of his reckless spending.
The second reason perhaps suggests Republicans have caved in order to buy votes as Democrats do
The second reason perhaps suggests Republicans have caved in order to buy votes as Democrats do
and to avoid the anger and rage of our anti-Capitalist and anti-Colonialist president who will surely turn
their' no' vote against them claiming they are heartless racial cretons. You decide. (See 4a below.)
---
Christians beware because you too are deemed anti-Colonists and now are paying the price. (See 5 below.)
---
---
Christians beware because you too are deemed anti-Colonists and now are paying the price. (See 5 below.)
---
Obama's budget even worse than appears! (See 6 and 6a below.)
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Crisis in US-Israel relations over nuclear talks with Iran
In the last 24 hours, the approach of international talks with Iran on its nuclear program has escalated already high tensions over the issue between the Obama administration and the Israeli government and triggered the following developments:
US President Barack Obama decided to send his US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon to an urgent visit to Israel Saturday, Feb. 18, for three days of talks “on regional issues including Syria and Iran.”
This unusually long trip by a top White House official over the weekend is a measure of the crisis in relations.
The visit is part of the US “unshakeable commitment to Israel's security,” according to a White House statement. It was called “the latest in a series of regular, high-level consultations between the United States and Israel, consistent with our strong bilateral partnership.”
Such pledges no longer wash in Jerusalem, political sources report, in light of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s strong sense of betrayal from what he sees as surreptitious US diplomacy with Iran for promoting talks that will end the promised sanctions for halting Iran’s momentum for building a nuclear weapon now in its final stages.
In private conversations, Netanyahu has said he feels cheated. By its actions the Obama administration leaves Israel with no recourse other than to grapple with the Iranian menace on its own, he has said, and be less sensitive to Washington’s wishes.
A bipartisan group of concerned US senators warned President Obama Friday that they would strongly oppose any proposal in talks with Iran that would allow it to continue uranium enrichment activities.
A letter signed by a dozen senators from both parties expressed concern that Iran would try to use a resumption of talks with world powers on its nuclear program to buy time and dilute international pressure on it.
"Such tactical maneuverings are a dangerous distraction and should not be tolerated," the senators said.
Belgium-based SWIFT, which provides 10,000 banks in 210 countries with a system for moving funds around the world, said Friday that it was ready to block its network to money transfers by Iranian banks.
Expelling Iranian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication would shut down Tehran's main avenue for doing business with the rest of the world.
Two Iranian warships sailed through Suez Canal to Mediterranean Friday on their way to Syria. Israel called their mission a provocation.
Wednesday, Netanyahu blasted Iran – and indirectly Washington– when he said in Cyprus that sanctions “haven’t worked” and that for a regime which attacks diplomats to have nuclear weapons “is something of enormous concern for the United States and for Israel.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Europe's Supply-Side Revolution
Following Germany's lead, euro-zone nations are pursuing pro-growth reforms that Reagan and Thatcher would admire.
By DONALD L. LUSKIN AND LORCAN ROCHE KELLY
Looking beyond the latest headlines about Greece's debt crisis, the long-term question for the European Union is: Can it grow? The conventional answer is that it's too sclerotic, too socialist, too indebted. Not so.
Germany is the largest economy in Europe, and it's been the first to recover and the best-performing developed economy since the start of the Great Recession. Since bottoming in 2009's first quarter, German output has grown at an annual rate of 2.8%, compared with 2.4% for the U.S. since its bottom in 2009's second quarter. Germany's unemployment rate is an astonishingly low 5.5%. German youth unemployment is lower than U.S. overall unemployment.
Skeptics point to Germany's success not as proof that Europe can grow, but as a reason why it can't. They worry about the imbalances of German competitiveness versus the large southern economies of Italy and Spain. They argue that the euro—the common currency of Europe—rules out devaluation by less competitive nations, which they hold out as the surest path to rebalancing.
Enlarge Image
Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti says growth will "come from structural reforms or supply-side measures."
But this is the blessing of the euro, not its curse. The common currency prevents politicians from fantasizing that they can devalue—and inflate—their way to prosperity. Instead, as Italy's new prime minister, Mario Monti, put it, growth "will have to come from structural reforms or supply-side measures."
That's how Germany became what it is today. A mere decade ago Germany was called "the sick man of Europe." It was still painfully digesting the unification of the former West Germany's relatively free and modern economy with the former Soviet-enslaved East. Ten years ago German unemployment was 8.2%—the same as Europe's overall—while U.S. unemployment was 5.7%. What did Germany do that allowed it to charge ahead and trade unemployment rates with the U.S.?
Starting in 2003, Germany under then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder began to implement a program of long-term structural reform called "Agenda 2010." The idea was to transform Germany into an economy where business has an incentive to invest, and where labor has an incentive—and an opportunity—to work. This was pro-growth reform that would be very familiar to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
The centerpiece were labor-market reforms designed by a former human-resources executive at Volkswagen AG. The power of unions and craft guilds was curtailed, making it easier for unskilled youth to enter the job market and easier for employers to hire and fire at will. Germany's lavish unemployment benefits were sharply cut back. An unemployed person in social-democratic Germany today can draw benefits for only about half as long as his counterpart in capitalist America.
The immediate reaction was a brief rise in unemployment, as German business was allowed for the first time to optimize its labor force. And there was a backlash by powerful union and guild interests, costing Mr. Schroeder his bid for re-election. But Germany was transformed.
Today's chancellor, Angela Merkel, who replaced Mr. Schroeder, has praised him for his "courage and determination." She is now spearheading the effort to repeat his Agenda 2010 template throughout Europe. Surely if Germany could start with the wreckage of a communist slave-state and make itself into the most dynamic developed economy in the world, its template could transform sluggish and over-indebted economies like Italy and Spain.
Prime Minister Monti in Italy, and Spain's new prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, are deeply committed to this vision, and they are well on their way to implementing it. It won't be easy. They're up against what Mr. Monti calls "the blocking powers of lobbies and special interests." Read: unions.
In Spain, Mr. Rajoy's government has already legislated new rules allowing companies to drop out of collective-bargaining agreements. Lavish statutory requirements for severance pay, making it financially impossible for businesses to fire workers as competitive conditions change, have been slashed.
With unemployment already at 23%, and youth unemployment at 49%, this would seem to be political suicide. But Mr. Rajoy was elected promising to implement these reforms, which originated with his predecessor José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. The electorate seems to realize that, as the German experience shows, businesses will only dare to hire when they know they have the option to fire.
In Italy, Mr. Monti has raised the retirement age and is shaking up labor markets—crushing barriers to entry in previously protected professions from pharmacy and baking to taxi-driving. He isn't loved by incumbent pharmacists, taxi-drivers or bakers, but he's wildly popular with the electorate that realizes that more competition means more jobs and a higher standard of living.
Similar pro-growth reforms are taking place in Portugal. The dynamic Irish economy doesn't need them—it's still the Celtic tiger; all it needs is to shake off the shock of its banking crisis. Greece? That one is probably beyond reform. But a tiny nation with a GDP the size of Boston's won't hold back Europe's growth.
The transformation of Europe is being made possible—as serious reform is everywhere and always—by crisis. For all the strikes and protests and backlash (which Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher faced), Europe seems to know now that its tax-spend-borrow-and-protect social democratic past cannot be its future.
The discipline of debt is driving Europe to closer political integration, too. And this, in turn, feeds back into Europe's growth potential. It's not just that closer integration would realize economies of scale, accelerating those already begun by adopting a common currency. It's that if Europe's squabbling nations could only erase their political boundaries, its debt problems would vanish.
Consider Italy and Spain. Italy has a lot of debt, but the second lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in Europe, after Germany. Spain has a large deficit, but the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of the large European economies, even Germany. If Spain and Italy were to become a single country—let's call it Spitaly—its fiscal profile would be almost identical to that of France. If all the 17 countries that use the euro were to combine into a single nation—call it Europa—its fiscal profile would be better than that of the U.S.
This is more than a thought experiment. Already Germany and France have bilaterally negotiated the beginning of a fiscal partnership, with harmonized tax rates and joint budgeting. And there are multilateral treaty changes being formalized now, among all 27 European Union members except for the recalcitrant U.K. and Czech Republic, that will enshrine stronger joint fiscal discipline and oversight.
In the 1970s, conventional wisdom held that the U.S. couldn't compete against Japan and, yes, Europe. But fear clarified our minds, and the supply-side revolution we dared to undertake in the 1980s restored America's growth and competitiveness. Conventional wisdom today holds that Europe is doomed. To the contrary. It is, bravely, starting its own supply-side revolution.
Mr. Luskin is chief investment officer and Mr. Roche Kelly is chief Europe strategist at Trend Macrolytics LLC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Big Picture on Why the Palestinians Always Say 'No'
By Jack Schwartzwald
Addressing the Brookings Institution on December 2, 2011, U. S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Crisis in US-Israel relations over nuclear talks with Iran
In the last 24 hours, the approach of international talks with Iran on its nuclear program has escalated already high tensions over the issue between the Obama administration and the Israeli government and triggered the following developments:
US President Barack Obama decided to send his US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon to an urgent visit to Israel Saturday, Feb. 18, for three days of talks “on regional issues including Syria and Iran.”
This unusually long trip by a top White House official over the weekend is a measure of the crisis in relations.
The visit is part of the US “unshakeable commitment to Israel's security,” according to a White House statement. It was called “the latest in a series of regular, high-level consultations between the United States and Israel, consistent with our strong bilateral partnership.”
Such pledges no longer wash in Jerusalem, political sources report, in light of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s strong sense of betrayal from what he sees as surreptitious US diplomacy with Iran for promoting talks that will end the promised sanctions for halting Iran’s momentum for building a nuclear weapon now in its final stages.
In private conversations, Netanyahu has said he feels cheated. By its actions the Obama administration leaves Israel with no recourse other than to grapple with the Iranian menace on its own, he has said, and be less sensitive to Washington’s wishes.
A bipartisan group of concerned US senators warned President Obama Friday that they would strongly oppose any proposal in talks with Iran that would allow it to continue uranium enrichment activities.
A letter signed by a dozen senators from both parties expressed concern that Iran would try to use a resumption of talks with world powers on its nuclear program to buy time and dilute international pressure on it.
"Such tactical maneuverings are a dangerous distraction and should not be tolerated," the senators said.
Belgium-based SWIFT, which provides 10,000 banks in 210 countries with a system for moving funds around the world, said Friday that it was ready to block its network to money transfers by Iranian banks.
Expelling Iranian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication would shut down Tehran's main avenue for doing business with the rest of the world.
Two Iranian warships sailed through Suez Canal to Mediterranean Friday on their way to Syria. Israel called their mission a provocation.
Wednesday, Netanyahu blasted Iran – and indirectly Washington– when he said in Cyprus that sanctions “haven’t worked” and that for a regime which attacks diplomats to have nuclear weapons “is something of enormous concern for the United States and for Israel.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Europe's Supply-Side Revolution
Following Germany's lead, euro-zone nations are pursuing pro-growth reforms that Reagan and Thatcher would admire.
By DONALD L. LUSKIN AND LORCAN ROCHE KELLY
Looking beyond the latest headlines about Greece's debt crisis, the long-term question for the European Union is: Can it grow? The conventional answer is that it's too sclerotic, too socialist, too indebted. Not so.
Germany is the largest economy in Europe, and it's been the first to recover and the best-performing developed economy since the start of the Great Recession. Since bottoming in 2009's first quarter, German output has grown at an annual rate of 2.8%, compared with 2.4% for the U.S. since its bottom in 2009's second quarter. Germany's unemployment rate is an astonishingly low 5.5%. German youth unemployment is lower than U.S. overall unemployment.
Skeptics point to Germany's success not as proof that Europe can grow, but as a reason why it can't. They worry about the imbalances of German competitiveness versus the large southern economies of Italy and Spain. They argue that the euro—the common currency of Europe—rules out devaluation by less competitive nations, which they hold out as the surest path to rebalancing.
Enlarge Image
Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti says growth will "come from structural reforms or supply-side measures."
But this is the blessing of the euro, not its curse. The common currency prevents politicians from fantasizing that they can devalue—and inflate—their way to prosperity. Instead, as Italy's new prime minister, Mario Monti, put it, growth "will have to come from structural reforms or supply-side measures."
That's how Germany became what it is today. A mere decade ago Germany was called "the sick man of Europe." It was still painfully digesting the unification of the former West Germany's relatively free and modern economy with the former Soviet-enslaved East. Ten years ago German unemployment was 8.2%—the same as Europe's overall—while U.S. unemployment was 5.7%. What did Germany do that allowed it to charge ahead and trade unemployment rates with the U.S.?
Starting in 2003, Germany under then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder began to implement a program of long-term structural reform called "Agenda 2010." The idea was to transform Germany into an economy where business has an incentive to invest, and where labor has an incentive—and an opportunity—to work. This was pro-growth reform that would be very familiar to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
The centerpiece were labor-market reforms designed by a former human-resources executive at Volkswagen AG. The power of unions and craft guilds was curtailed, making it easier for unskilled youth to enter the job market and easier for employers to hire and fire at will. Germany's lavish unemployment benefits were sharply cut back. An unemployed person in social-democratic Germany today can draw benefits for only about half as long as his counterpart in capitalist America.
The immediate reaction was a brief rise in unemployment, as German business was allowed for the first time to optimize its labor force. And there was a backlash by powerful union and guild interests, costing Mr. Schroeder his bid for re-election. But Germany was transformed.
Today's chancellor, Angela Merkel, who replaced Mr. Schroeder, has praised him for his "courage and determination." She is now spearheading the effort to repeat his Agenda 2010 template throughout Europe. Surely if Germany could start with the wreckage of a communist slave-state and make itself into the most dynamic developed economy in the world, its template could transform sluggish and over-indebted economies like Italy and Spain.
Prime Minister Monti in Italy, and Spain's new prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, are deeply committed to this vision, and they are well on their way to implementing it. It won't be easy. They're up against what Mr. Monti calls "the blocking powers of lobbies and special interests." Read: unions.
In Spain, Mr. Rajoy's government has already legislated new rules allowing companies to drop out of collective-bargaining agreements. Lavish statutory requirements for severance pay, making it financially impossible for businesses to fire workers as competitive conditions change, have been slashed.
With unemployment already at 23%, and youth unemployment at 49%, this would seem to be political suicide. But Mr. Rajoy was elected promising to implement these reforms, which originated with his predecessor José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. The electorate seems to realize that, as the German experience shows, businesses will only dare to hire when they know they have the option to fire.
In Italy, Mr. Monti has raised the retirement age and is shaking up labor markets—crushing barriers to entry in previously protected professions from pharmacy and baking to taxi-driving. He isn't loved by incumbent pharmacists, taxi-drivers or bakers, but he's wildly popular with the electorate that realizes that more competition means more jobs and a higher standard of living.
Similar pro-growth reforms are taking place in Portugal. The dynamic Irish economy doesn't need them—it's still the Celtic tiger; all it needs is to shake off the shock of its banking crisis. Greece? That one is probably beyond reform. But a tiny nation with a GDP the size of Boston's won't hold back Europe's growth.
The transformation of Europe is being made possible—as serious reform is everywhere and always—by crisis. For all the strikes and protests and backlash (which Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher faced), Europe seems to know now that its tax-spend-borrow-and-protect social democratic past cannot be its future.
The discipline of debt is driving Europe to closer political integration, too. And this, in turn, feeds back into Europe's growth potential. It's not just that closer integration would realize economies of scale, accelerating those already begun by adopting a common currency. It's that if Europe's squabbling nations could only erase their political boundaries, its debt problems would vanish.
Consider Italy and Spain. Italy has a lot of debt, but the second lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in Europe, after Germany. Spain has a large deficit, but the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of the large European economies, even Germany. If Spain and Italy were to become a single country—let's call it Spitaly—its fiscal profile would be almost identical to that of France. If all the 17 countries that use the euro were to combine into a single nation—call it Europa—its fiscal profile would be better than that of the U.S.
This is more than a thought experiment. Already Germany and France have bilaterally negotiated the beginning of a fiscal partnership, with harmonized tax rates and joint budgeting. And there are multilateral treaty changes being formalized now, among all 27 European Union members except for the recalcitrant U.K. and Czech Republic, that will enshrine stronger joint fiscal discipline and oversight.
In the 1970s, conventional wisdom held that the U.S. couldn't compete against Japan and, yes, Europe. But fear clarified our minds, and the supply-side revolution we dared to undertake in the 1980s restored America's growth and competitiveness. Conventional wisdom today holds that Europe is doomed. To the contrary. It is, bravely, starting its own supply-side revolution.
Mr. Luskin is chief investment officer and Mr. Roche Kelly is chief Europe strategist at Trend Macrolytics LLC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Big Picture on Why the Palestinians Always Say 'No'
By Jack Schwartzwald
Addressing the Brookings Institution on December 2, 2011, U. S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
rebuked Israel for not doing enough to promote peace with the Palestinians, demanding that Israel's leaders
"just get to the damned [peace] table." But the notion that Israel bears any (much less primary) responsibility for the absence of peace or Palestinian statehood is a difficult case to make.
During the British Mandate, the Jews of Palestine twice agreed to peace based on the country's partition
During the British Mandate, the Jews of Palestine twice agreed to peace based on the country's partition
into Arab and Jewish states -- first at the time of the 1937 Peel Commission Report and second with the
U.N.'s historic 1947 partition vote. Both times the Palestinian leadership bluntly declined the offer.
The same answer was given when Levi Eshkol discussed Palestinian autonomy with West Bank Arab
"notables" (1968), when Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David Framework for the
West Bank and Gaza (1979), and when Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert made their respective statehood
offers to Yasir Arafat (2000-01) and Mahmoud Abbas (2008).
The most obvious reason for all this Palestinian naysaying is that national expression for Palestinians
The most obvious reason for all this Palestinian naysaying is that national expression for Palestinians
has never been the goal of the "Palestinian" movement. The true goal (pursued in concert with the Arab
world at large), is, and always has been, the eradication of Jewish national expression in Judaism's ancestra
l homeland. No one, perhaps, has expressed this fact more succinctly than PLO executive committee member
Zahir Muhsein, who told the Dutch Newspaper Trouw in 1977, "The Palestinian people does not exist. ...
Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people,
since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose
Zionism."
The assault on Jewish national identity, however, is actually part of a more pervasive strategy pursued by
The assault on Jewish national identity, however, is actually part of a more pervasive strategy pursued by
Islamists throughout the Middle East. "Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and Western decolonization,"
writes Professor Walid Phares, "dominant ethnicities in the Greater Middle East [i.e., Arab, Persian and
Turkish] have subjected regional minorities to territorial and political repression on the one hand, and
cultural and linguistic suppression on the other." Well-known examples of this assault on ethno-religious
identities include Turkey's Armenian genocide (1915-23) and Saddam Hussein's use of poison gas against
Iraqi Kurds.
It was hoped that 2011's "Arab Spring" might lead the region toward greater democratic freedoms,
but as the dictators fell, a less agreeable picture emerged. Libya and Egypt have moved inexorably toward
sharia law (which traditionally treats non-Muslims as subjugated second-class citizens). The peril has
already been felt by Egypt's Coptic Christians -- 100,000 of whom have fled the country since the fall of
Hosni Mubarak.
Many Westerners assume that Muslims are the indigenous people in Arab lands. In fact, there are a multitude
Many Westerners assume that Muslims are the indigenous people in Arab lands. In fact, there are a multitude
of ethnic Christian minorities throughout the region whose heritage antedates the Muslim conquest. The Copts
are such a people. Christianized in the 1st Century AD by Saint Matthew, the Copts date their ethnicity to the
days of the Pharaohs. Since the Muslim Conquest in the 7th Century AD, they have endured unceasing
second-class citizenship in their own homeland. Having no territorial ambitions, the Copts, who constitute
at least 10% of the Egyptian population, have long striven for basic civil rights -- including the right to
speak the Coptic language, which is presently outlawed and kept alive only in Church prayers. Far from
bringing relief to Christians, Egypt's "Arab Spring" has magnified their torment. According to a May 2011
French news report, "an explosion of violence against the Coptic Christian community" has been in
train since Mubarak's fall. On September 30, 2011, for example, Muslim vandals in the town of El-Marinab
set fire to St. George's Church. When members of the Coptic community attempted a peaceful march to
the Maspero state TV building in protest, Egyptian soldiers drove armored personnel carriers into the crowd,
crushing a number of protesters to death. The TV station, meanwhile, falsely proclaimed a threat to the
regime, thereby inciting anti-Christian riots in Cairo.
Iraqi Christians are another case in point. Iraq's Assyrian (Orthodox) and Chaldean (Catholic) communities
Iraqi Christians are another case in point. Iraq's Assyrian (Orthodox) and Chaldean (Catholic) communities
were Christianized in the 1st Century AD, but their ethnicity dates to the Ancient Assyrian Empire.
Since Saddam Hussein's fall in 2003, Assyrian Christians have come under increasing attack by the
Muslim majority. Predictably, the U.S. withdrawal in 2010-11 sparked even more anti-Christian violence.
The worst instance occurred in October 2010, when al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists burst into the
Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad and opened fire on the congregation, killing priests and
parishioners alike. When Iraqi security forces attempted to intervene, two of the attackers detonated
suicide vests. In all, 58 worshipers were killed and many more wounded.
Since 2003, an estimated 800,000 of Iraq's 1.4 million Christians have fled. The unprecedented exodus
Since 2003, an estimated 800,000 of Iraq's 1.4 million Christians have fled. The unprecedented exodus
has prompted Iraqi Christian leaders to demand an autonomous province guarded by Christian security forces
in Iraq's Nineveh Plains region. Meanwhile, many Assyrian émigrés have settled in neighboring Syria,
only to face fears that they will be sent fleeing again should Bashar Assad's regime fall. Lebanon's Maronite
Church patriarch has spoken publicly on the topic, saying, "We are with ... reforms and human rights
[in Syria,] but we hope the price will not be the same as what happened in Iraq."
Other examples are legion. Lebanon's Maronites (and other Christian sects) accounted for 54% of
Other examples are legion. Lebanon's Maronites (and other Christian sects) accounted for 54% of
Lebanon's population in 1932. The PLO ravages of the 1970s-80s, the 1975-76 Civil War, and,
more recently, maltreatment at the hands of Hezb'allah have lowered this figure to an estimated 30%-40%.
(During the 2006 Lebanon War, Hezb'allah terrorists fired rockets and mortars from Christian neighborhoods
hoping that Israeli return fire would strike innocent Christians.) In southern Sudan, 2 million
African Christians and animists have been killed in a decades-long struggle for autonomy from
the domineering Arab north. Even the "long-suffering" Palestinians have found opportunity to
persecute Christians. When the Palestinian Authority obtained control over Bethlehem in 1994, the city
had a 60% Christian majority. Anti-Christian violence and intimidation since that time have caused a
general flight. By 2001 Christians accounted for just 20% of the population, and they continue to leave.
The list goes on -- and it constitutes something more than simple persecution of Christians.
The list goes on -- and it constitutes something more than simple persecution of Christians.
Walid Phares has termed it "the negation of cultural identity" of targeted minorities living in the "circle of
Arab states." Arab and Palestinian attitudes towards Israel are simply further examples of the ongoing
process. For what is the Palestinian refusal to allow Jews to pray on the Temple Mount (Judaism's holiest site
) or their denial of the existence of a Jewish Temple there (even as they labor to destroy priceless
Temple artifacts from beneath the Mount's surface) or their official Palestinian Authority maps
(showing Israel wholly replaced by a Palestinian state) if not an attempt to negate Jewish cultural
identity in Judaism's birthplace?
In viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Leon Panetta has demonstrated an inability to perceive
In viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Leon Panetta has demonstrated an inability to perceive
which side is obstructing peace. Perhaps if he takes a step back and looks at the big picture, he will see
things in sharper focus; for it is the regional Islamist aspiration to suppress non-Muslim ethno-religious
identities -- and not a lack of Israeli pacifism -- that explains why the Palestinians always say "no."
Jack Schwartzwald is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Brown University and the author of Nine Lives of Israel (McFarland Publishing, Spring 2012).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Entitlement Mentality Destroying America
By Andrew Packer
Pop quiz: What’s the single biggest thing the U.S. government does?
It’s not the military. National defense is a declining component of federal spending, and President Barack
Jack Schwartzwald is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Brown University and the author of Nine Lives of Israel (McFarland Publishing, Spring 2012).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Entitlement Mentality Destroying America
By Andrew Packer
Pop quiz: What’s the single biggest thing the U.S. government does?
It’s not the military. National defense is a declining component of federal spending, and President Barack
Obama has come out with a plan to scale back the military to pre-9/11 levels. It’s not any other kind of security, either.
The government spends most of its budget writing checks to individuals.
Add up the budget for programs like Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits,
The government spends most of its budget writing checks to individuals.
Add up the budget for programs like Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits,
student loans, farmers and veteran’s benefits. Direct payments to individuals topped $2.3 trillion dollars,
or nearly 66 percent of federal spending last year. Payments to individuals took up only 2.5 percent of the
federal budget in 1945.
This trend won’t decline anytime soon. The president has been on the warpath for wealthy individuals
This trend won’t decline anytime soon. The president has been on the warpath for wealthy individuals
to pay their “fair share.”
Never mind that such a term is nebulous. Never mind that the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers already
Never mind that such a term is nebulous. Never mind that the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers already
fund more than half of the federal budget.
Never mind that wealthy individuals like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett have gotten wealthy because of
Never mind that wealthy individuals like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett have gotten wealthy because of
how the government has chosen to tax investments versus income.
Behind all of Obama’s recent statements lies a bigger issue. He’s reinforcing the sense that entitlements
Behind all of Obama’s recent statements lies a bigger issue. He’s reinforcing the sense that entitlements
are a fundamental right. His latest proposal is a $2.4 billion program to provide cell phones for the poor.
Relief and entitlement programs used to carry a stigma to those who utilized them. But there is no stigma
Relief and entitlement programs used to carry a stigma to those who utilized them. But there is no stigma
for today’s beneficiaries now that it’s viewed as a right and not an act of charity.
The contemporary psychological reaction is a shrug worthy of Atlas. Food stamp usage surged from
The contemporary psychological reaction is a shrug worthy of Atlas. Food stamp usage surged from
26.3 million in 2007 to 44.7 million at the end of 2011. Today the poor can qualify for food stamps
but still enjoy the electronic trappings of a middle class lifestyle that didn’t exist two generations ago.
As defined in 1965, poverty as we know it in America has been wiped out. Naturally, the government
has kept raising the bar.
The increasing role of entitlements shows a perverse incentive. Rather than acquire a minimum wage job,
The increasing role of entitlements shows a perverse incentive. Rather than acquire a minimum wage job,
a basket of benefits can provide the equivalent lifestyle, all while freeing up 40 hours a week. At least
under most New Deal programs, there was work to be done.
As Ronald Reagan used to say, “If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something,
As Ronald Reagan used to say, “If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something,
tax it.” Today, we subsidize indolence. We tax investment success and wage earners. At the rate entitlements
and regulations are increasing, we’ll soon end up as little more than Diet Europe.
And we’ll create an environment that completely stifles investment.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should do away with welfare programs. We've got to restructure
And we’ll create an environment that completely stifles investment.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should do away with welfare programs. We've got to restructure
them so that the safety net acts more like a trampoline, rather than a spider's web. Until we do, America
will continue sliding in economic potential, personal freedoms, and new investment opportunities.
American ingenuity isn’t dead by any means. But it’s becoming rarer. Our current welfare policy
American ingenuity isn’t dead by any means. But it’s becoming rarer. Our current welfare policy
hinders, not helps.
© Moneynews. All rights reserved.
4a)Payroll-Tax Cut Pact Clears House
Posted By Cowboy Byte
The House on Friday voted to extend a payroll-tax-cut package through the remainder of the year, taking a
© Moneynews. All rights reserved.
4a)Payroll-Tax Cut Pact Clears House
Posted By Cowboy Byte
The House on Friday voted to extend a payroll-tax-cut package through the remainder of the year, taking a
critical step toward avoiding a looming tax increase on millions of Americans.
By 293-132, the House voted to pass the measure. The Senate still must clear the legislation, with a vote
By 293-132, the House voted to pass the measure. The Senate still must clear the legislation, with a vote
expected shortly. Lawmakers are heading out of town after today for a week-long recess.
The package was the product of negotiations between both parties and chambers, with a key concession
The package was the product of negotiations between both parties and chambers, with a key concession
from House Republicans, who agreed to extend the payroll-tax cut without finding a way to pay for it.
Under the deal, the tax paid by workers to Social Security will remain at 4.2% instead of reverting to 6.2%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)After surviving sectarian mob, Egyptian Christians expelled from village
By Kristen Chick
The case sends a worrying signal that Egypt's new parliament is allowing a Mubarak-era system of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)After surviving sectarian mob, Egyptian Christians expelled from village
By Kristen Chick
The case sends a worrying signal that Egypt's new parliament is allowing a Mubarak-era system of
local justice to trump the rule of law
|
HARBAT, Egypt— (TCSM) Ten-year-old Romany sits in the same room where his family huddled together
|
HARBAT, Egypt— (TCSM) Ten-year-old Romany sits in the same room where his family huddled together
nearly three weeks ago, afraid for their lives, as a violent mob attacked their house.
His family had fled to this room on the top floor, where pictures of Jesus and Coptic saints hang on bare
His family had fled to this room on the top floor, where pictures of Jesus and Coptic saints hang on bare
cement walls. His parents dragged heavy furniture to the door, barricading it as they heard people try to break
in below. The mob was throwing rocks at the windows, and he heard gunfire, says Romany. They were cursing
Christians."
We kept praying that God would be with us," says the fourth-grader. "And He was."
As the mob set fire to the home of a Christian family across the street, Muslim neighbors saved Romany's
We kept praying that God would be with us," says the fourth-grader. "And He was."
As the mob set fire to the home of a Christian family across the street, Muslim neighbors saved Romany's
family, hustling them out of their house by a back entrance, into a car, and out of the village, until it was
safe enough to return.
The violence in Sharbat began as many sectarian conflicts in Egypt do - with rumors of an affair between
The violence in Sharbat began as many sectarian conflicts in Egypt do - with rumors of an affair between
a Christian man and a Muslim woman. It ended with eight Christian families forced to leave the village, their property and belongings left to be sold on their behalf by a local committee. The punishment for those who looted and burned Christian properties? None.
The decision was the outcome of a "reconciliation meeting," in which the fate of the accused is determined
The decision was the outcome of a "reconciliation meeting," in which the fate of the accused is determined
by locals rather than the law. The meetings have long been used in Egypt to handle sectarian conflicts, l
eaving victims little recourse. Hosni Mubarak may have been ousted a year ago, but methods haven't changed.
Members of Egypt's new Islamist-dominated parliament sat in on some of the Sharbat meetings, effectively
sanctioning the use of extrajudicial means.
Ishak Ibrahim, a researcher for the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) who wrote a report on
Ishak Ibrahim, a researcher for the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) who wrote a report on
the incident, says that political parties must set a new precedent for dealing with sectarian tensions by
applying the law in this case.
"If Islamic parties, and all parties, insisted on applying the law, and don't accept the results of these
reconciliation meetings - if we do that, I think it may have a positive effect on sectarian incidents," he says.
"Because one would know if he torched or destroyed houses or shops of Christians, he will go to court
"Because one would know if he torched or destroyed houses or shops of Christians, he will go to court
and be charged."
Refusing to stand up for justice for Christian victims in Sharbat, by contrast, could have dangerous i
Refusing to stand up for justice for Christian victims in Sharbat, by contrast, could have dangerous i
mplications for future religious strife in Egypt, which is home to the Middle East's largest Christian population.
'THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A REASON TO ATTACK CHRISTIANS'
Sharbat is a small village near the western edge of the fertile Nile delta. Along potholed streets, hand-painted
'THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A REASON TO ATTACK CHRISTIANS'
Sharbat is a small village near the western edge of the fertile Nile delta. Along potholed streets, hand-painted
signs for the salafi Nour Party cover the cement shelters of bus stops, fences, shops, and the walls of homes.
Samir Rashad, Romany's father, says the recent violence in Sharbat was not the first case of tension between
Samir Rashad, Romany's father, says the recent violence in Sharbat was not the first case of tension between
Christians and what he calls radical Muslims there. But it was the worst. It started with rumors that a local
Christian man had photos or videos showing him in a sexual relationship with a local Muslim woman.
The man surrendered to police, and no images were found. But on Jan. 27 a large crowd gathered in front
The man surrendered to police, and no images were found. But on Jan. 27 a large crowd gathered in front
of his father's home. Armed with rocks, Molotov cocktails, and guns, they stomped on wooden crosses and
shouted about defending the honor of Islam, says Rashad, who lives just across the alley.
They soon began attacking Christian homes and shops in Sharbat. At least three Christian homes were
They soon began attacking Christian homes and shops in Sharbat. At least three Christian homes were
completely destroyed after crowds lit them on fire, and at least 10 shops owned by Christians were looted,
including Rashad's tailoring shop. Some were burned.
Amid the attacks, the son of local Christian businessman Abskharon Suleiman fired a gun, in what
Amid the attacks, the son of local Christian businessman Abskharon Suleiman fired a gun, in what
Mr. Suleiman says was an attempt to scare off the attackers who looted and burned his shops and
his family's homes. No one was shot. According to EIPR's report, security forces only intervened hours later,
though village leaders had called them when the violence began.
Rashad says there are many honorable Muslims in the village and some intervened to save Christian families
Rashad says there are many honorable Muslims in the village and some intervened to save Christian families
like his. But he blamed the violence on radicals. "This was just an excuse for them to generalize everything
against Christians and say we want to get them out of the village," he says. "Those radical Muslims have been
meaning to do something like that. They were looking for a reason to attack the Christians."
HOW THE CHRISTIANS' PUNISHMENT WAS DETERMINED
In the wake of the violence, several reconciliation councils convened, attended by elected representatives
HOW THE CHRISTIANS' PUNISHMENT WAS DETERMINED
In the wake of the violence, several reconciliation councils convened, attended by elected representatives
from the Nour party. Lawmakers from Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) also
attended some councils. Some of the councils were overseen by police and governorate officials.
They first agreed to expel the man who supposedly had the affair, along with his father, his brother, and
They first agreed to expel the man who supposedly had the affair, along with his father, his brother, and
their families from the village. But, angered by the Suleiman family's use of a gun, another mob burned
another home. A subsequent reconciliation meeting decided that Suleiman, his four sons, and their
families would also leave. The committee, led by a local salafi sheikh, would sell their belongings for
them and pass the proceeds to the Suleimans.
EIPR says those meetings were illegal, because the law demands a criminal investigation into arson.
EIPR says those meetings were illegal, because the law demands a criminal investigation into arson.
Those who sponsored the agreement, says EIPR, "flagrantly violated the law." A document that details
the terms of Suleiman's departure says that the sheikh will be responsible for finding those who attacked
Christian homes.
PARLIAMENT BEGINS INVESTIGATING
Two and a half weeks after the incident, on Feb. 13, the speaker of Egypt's parliament tasked the human rights
PARLIAMENT BEGINS INVESTIGATING
Two and a half weeks after the incident, on Feb. 13, the speaker of Egypt's parliament tasked the human rights
committee with investigating it. But secular lawmaker Emad Gad said he had asked the speaker,
FJP's Saad El Katatni, to take action nearly a week before and was ignored until the issue was picked
up by local media.
In a recent TV interview, a Nour party spokesman said that it contradicts Islamic law to evict Christians
In a recent TV interview, a Nour party spokesman said that it contradicts Islamic law to evict Christians
from the village, but said salafis intervened to keep bloodshed from happening in the village.
Ahmed Gad, an FJP member of parliament from Alexandria who visited Sharbat after the violence, says
Ahmed Gad, an FJP member of parliament from Alexandria who visited Sharbat after the violence, says
the party supports applying the law in such situations. But he also says it is normal, in rural areas, for
families to resolve disputes through reconciliation meetings. "Most of them are Bedouins, and this is
how Bedouins solve things," he says.
Ahmed Gad says no families were forced to leave the village except those allegedly involved in the
Ahmed Gad says no families were forced to leave the village except those allegedly involved in the
inter-religious affair, and that the incidents in Sharbat were not sectarian. He accuses Suleiman of
igniting violence, and said he left the village voluntarily. "The one who caused the problem was
Abu Suleiman," as he is known in the village. "Abu Suleiman put himself in this situation, and he left
because he's the reason that things have gotten worse after he and his sons shot at people with their machine guns," he says. "If Abu Suleiman wants to come back to the village, he can come back today."
SULEIMAN: I DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE
Suleiman, who looks the part of a village patriarch, with a carefully grown mustache and traditional dress,
SULEIMAN: I DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE
Suleiman, who looks the part of a village patriarch, with a carefully grown mustache and traditional dress,
says he didn't really have a choice. He also looks weary as he tells his story in the traditional reception
room of the Muslim family outside Sharbat who took in him and his family. He said the council told him that
if he and his family didn't leave the village, the violence would continue. "I agreed to leave to prevent violence,
" he says.
An FJP statement Feb. 12 said "there is calm and stability in the village now, and Copts have no problems.
" But Rashad says otherwise.
Though he and his sons have since returned to his home, he sent his wife and daughters to stay with
Though he and his sons have since returned to his home, he sent his wife and daughters to stay with
family in southern Egypt, afraid that they would be abducted after the mobs threatened Christian women.
A man recently pulled a knife on one of his young sons, gloating that "we trapped you like mice." When
the family escaped the mob, his house was robbed, including the items meant to furnish the new house
of his daughter, whose wedding is in April.
"We had nothing to do with this," he says. "It's a story that involves two people. Why are we involved?"
"We had nothing to do with this," he says. "It's a story that involves two people. Why are we involved?"
6)Barack Obama's Budget Is Even Worse Than It Looks
While running for president, Barack Obama promised the American voters that he would change the way things were done in Washington.
Well, he's kept his promise—though not perhaps in the way many people who voted for him had in mind. Under his leadership, the federal budget has exploded dramatically, leading to record deficits and bringing total federal indebtedness to a level equal to just about one year's U.S. gross domestic product.
Under his budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2013, released earlier this week, the trends not only continue, they accelerate. Over the 10 year period FY 2012 and FY 2022, Obama's budget proposes an astounding $8.011 trillion in new deficit spending, with the deficit for FY 2013 being the fourth trillion-dollar deficit in a row. And that's only the beginning.
According to an analysis prepared by the House Republican Study Committee, if Obama's budget for FY 2013 is adopted as written, the federal budget "would never balance again."
"The president's budget does not just propose large deficits in the short-term, but they actually start increasing again from 2018 to 2022. Beyond that point, the president's proposal to keep entitlement spending unreformed would ensure that the long-term budget outlook is worse," the committee said.
The Obama budget would also increase the total tax burden from 15.4 percent of U.S. GDP in 2011 to 20.11 percent of U.S. GDP by 2022. Over the 10-year period contemplated by the budget document, revenues would average almost 19 percent of U.S. GDP which, the committee said, is notably above the 40-year average of 18 percent despite the large deficits.
Obama's budget furthers the orgy of spending upon which he embarked as soon as he came into office, with proposed federal spending at 24.3 percent of GDP, almost a full percentage point higher than the previous peacetime record of 23.5 percent set in 1983. And that's on top of a 27.5 percent hike in federal spending since FY 2008, from $2.98 trillion to $3.82 trillion.
It's doubtful the president's budget will be enacted as is. Under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's leadership, the U.S. Senate has gone more than 1,000 days without approving a budget—probably because Reid does not want to force his fellow Democrats to go on record in favor of all the spending Obama wants. Nevertheless, with numbers like these it is no wonder that the American electorate is up in arms about federal spending. The budget is simply too big to keep pace with the ability of a weak economy to generate the revenues needed to support it. What is needed now, more than anything, is a focus on economic growth, not Washington subsidies. It's true that Obama has committed to "spread the wealth around" but, in order for him to be able to do that, the wealth has to exist. Instead, the president's budget seems to be a commitment to wiping it out altogether.
6a)Obama's bold deficit pledge comes back to haunt him
By Jason Lange and David Lawder
One month after taking office, President Barack Obama summoned the nation's top lawmakers and budget experts to the White House for a summit to figure out how to tame huge federal deficits.
Standing at a podium in the elegant East Room, the Democratic president wasted no time in reminding his audience, which included Republican congressional leaders, that he had just inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit in the midst of "an economic crisis unlike any we have seen in generations."
He gave a finger-waving talk on fiscal responsibility and boldly pledged to halve the deficit in four years.
There was no hint in his remarks of the behind-the-scenes debate that had taken place among his advisers over whether such an ambitious promise could be kept. And as the economic recovery failed to take off, he stuck with it for the next two years.
On Monday, three years after first making that pledge, Obama conceded that he would not be able to keep it.
The pledge casts light on how Obama's administration, in its attempt to articulate a bold vision for a nation in crisis, made a politically risky bet based on rosy assumptions that were later wrecked by an economy that did not play ball.
"If there was a mistake here, it was in making a pledge that was going to be a function of variables you couldn't foresee," said Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden's former chief economist.
Republicans, aiming to make Obama a one-term president in November, have jumped on the broken pledge with glee, trying to turn up the heat on the leader even as a stronger economy threatens to undermine their argument for voting him out.
While his opponents seek to make political hay over the issue, analysts say voters are likely to judge Obama on his broader handling of the economy when they vote in November.
Obama played down the broken promise this week, blaming economic events beyond his control. The recession was much deeper than anyone had realized when he made the pledge on February 23, 2009, he told an Atlanta broadcaster on Tuesday.
"A lot of us didn't understand at that point how bad it was going to get," he said.
That is true, budget experts agree. But they say the promise was still overly ambitious and left little room for surprises that could, and did, knock the economic recovery off course.
While it became frighteningly clear that the recession had been extraordinarily severe and the recovery lackluster, Obama reiterated his promise, even as late as February of last year.
"They made a dumb commitment," said David Walker, a former U.S. comptroller general who took part in Obama's 2009 summit.
'ROLLING THE DICE'
Obama's plan was based on the idea that the economy would post a quick recovery, much like it had after other recent recessions. It was supported by White House economic forecasts that were more optimistic than those of many private economists.
Many experts expected the financial crisis to do more lasting damage to the economy. Only months earlier, the nation's banking system had nearly seized up as panic gripped Wall Street following the bursting of a housing bubble.
"They had to know in so many ways with regard to housing and credit and jobs that they were in a problematic situation for economic recovery," said Ethan Siegal, a fiscal policy expert who advises investors on Washington politics.
Still, Siegal said it was expected that a president would strike an optimistic tone during a crisis, helping him to project leadership. "Part of politics is rolling the dice."
The White House said this week the government could still halve the deficit inherited by Obama by 2014, a year later than promised and not soon enough for Republican critics.
"We've heard a lot of excuses from this administration for why the president broke his promise," said Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee. "But what we haven't heard is any semblance of accountability."
A senior administration official said at least some of the blame for missing the target lies with Republicans in Congress, who walked away from an offer by Obama last summer to pursue a grand bargain on the deficit.
Nonetheless, the issue is a weak spot for Obama. A poll by Gallup earlier this month showed only 32 percent of Americans approve of Obama's handling of the deficit, even lower than his 38 percent approval rating for economic issues.
The nation's reliance on deficit spending looms ominously over the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently said keeping current tax rates low would help balloon the national debt so much it would start choking off private investment within a decade, hurting economic growth.
Under Obama's budget plan for fiscal next year, money owed to bondholders would nearly double to $19.5 trillion by 2022.
While the White House expects debt to be stable as a percentage of total economic output - suggesting it is not a major threat - private experts say this assumes lenders do not lose trust in Washington's ability to pay them back in full.
That would lead to higher interest rates on the debt, making it more expensive for Washington to borrow.
"Unless we start to address these budget issues seriously, it's only a matter of time before the credit markets start to consider us as another Greece," said Kim Rupert, an analyst at Action Economics LLC in San Francisco.
OBAMA'S VULNERABILITY
Seeing the president's vulnerability, Republicans in Congress plan campaign ads this fall about Obama's "broken promise" to halve the deficit, said Andrea Bozek, a spokeswoman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Bernstein acknowledged some in the administration were not convinced the deficit would fall as fast as they hoped when Obama made the pledge.
"Everybody had different levels of confidence. I and others certainly recognized that those types of forecasts are fragile when you're at that kind of point of uncertainty in the economic cycle," he said. "There was some discussion, of course."
Obama is not the first president to dial back on a big economic promise. Former Republican President Ronald Reagan never balanced the budget, as he had vowed to do.
"We never got close," said Murray Weidenbaum, a senior economist for Reagan between 1981 and 1982 who was involved in backing off that administration's pledge.
But when asked whether Obama will suffer a voter backlash, he notes his former boss cruised to re-election victory in 1984 despite big increases in the deficit under his watch.
"It's a little embarrassing but you just move on," Weidenbaum said.
(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan and Lily Kuo in Washington and Burton Frierson in New York; Editing by Ross Colvin and Vicki Allen)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6a)Obama's bold deficit pledge comes back to haunt him
By Jason Lange and David Lawder
One month after taking office, President Barack Obama summoned the nation's top lawmakers and budget experts to the White House for a summit to figure out how to tame huge federal deficits.
Standing at a podium in the elegant East Room, the Democratic president wasted no time in reminding his audience, which included Republican congressional leaders, that he had just inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit in the midst of "an economic crisis unlike any we have seen in generations."
He gave a finger-waving talk on fiscal responsibility and boldly pledged to halve the deficit in four years.
There was no hint in his remarks of the behind-the-scenes debate that had taken place among his advisers over whether such an ambitious promise could be kept. And as the economic recovery failed to take off, he stuck with it for the next two years.
On Monday, three years after first making that pledge, Obama conceded that he would not be able to keep it.
The pledge casts light on how Obama's administration, in its attempt to articulate a bold vision for a nation in crisis, made a politically risky bet based on rosy assumptions that were later wrecked by an economy that did not play ball.
"If there was a mistake here, it was in making a pledge that was going to be a function of variables you couldn't foresee," said Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden's former chief economist.
Republicans, aiming to make Obama a one-term president in November, have jumped on the broken pledge with glee, trying to turn up the heat on the leader even as a stronger economy threatens to undermine their argument for voting him out.
While his opponents seek to make political hay over the issue, analysts say voters are likely to judge Obama on his broader handling of the economy when they vote in November.
Obama played down the broken promise this week, blaming economic events beyond his control. The recession was much deeper than anyone had realized when he made the pledge on February 23, 2009, he told an Atlanta broadcaster on Tuesday.
"A lot of us didn't understand at that point how bad it was going to get," he said.
That is true, budget experts agree. But they say the promise was still overly ambitious and left little room for surprises that could, and did, knock the economic recovery off course.
While it became frighteningly clear that the recession had been extraordinarily severe and the recovery lackluster, Obama reiterated his promise, even as late as February of last year.
"They made a dumb commitment," said David Walker, a former U.S. comptroller general who took part in Obama's 2009 summit.
'ROLLING THE DICE'
Obama's plan was based on the idea that the economy would post a quick recovery, much like it had after other recent recessions. It was supported by White House economic forecasts that were more optimistic than those of many private economists.
Many experts expected the financial crisis to do more lasting damage to the economy. Only months earlier, the nation's banking system had nearly seized up as panic gripped Wall Street following the bursting of a housing bubble.
"They had to know in so many ways with regard to housing and credit and jobs that they were in a problematic situation for economic recovery," said Ethan Siegal, a fiscal policy expert who advises investors on Washington politics.
Still, Siegal said it was expected that a president would strike an optimistic tone during a crisis, helping him to project leadership. "Part of politics is rolling the dice."
The White House said this week the government could still halve the deficit inherited by Obama by 2014, a year later than promised and not soon enough for Republican critics.
"We've heard a lot of excuses from this administration for why the president broke his promise," said Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee. "But what we haven't heard is any semblance of accountability."
A senior administration official said at least some of the blame for missing the target lies with Republicans in Congress, who walked away from an offer by Obama last summer to pursue a grand bargain on the deficit.
Nonetheless, the issue is a weak spot for Obama. A poll by Gallup earlier this month showed only 32 percent of Americans approve of Obama's handling of the deficit, even lower than his 38 percent approval rating for economic issues.
The nation's reliance on deficit spending looms ominously over the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently said keeping current tax rates low would help balloon the national debt so much it would start choking off private investment within a decade, hurting economic growth.
Under Obama's budget plan for fiscal next year, money owed to bondholders would nearly double to $19.5 trillion by 2022.
While the White House expects debt to be stable as a percentage of total economic output - suggesting it is not a major threat - private experts say this assumes lenders do not lose trust in Washington's ability to pay them back in full.
That would lead to higher interest rates on the debt, making it more expensive for Washington to borrow.
"Unless we start to address these budget issues seriously, it's only a matter of time before the credit markets start to consider us as another Greece," said Kim Rupert, an analyst at Action Economics LLC in San Francisco.
OBAMA'S VULNERABILITY
Seeing the president's vulnerability, Republicans in Congress plan campaign ads this fall about Obama's "broken promise" to halve the deficit, said Andrea Bozek, a spokeswoman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Bernstein acknowledged some in the administration were not convinced the deficit would fall as fast as they hoped when Obama made the pledge.
"Everybody had different levels of confidence. I and others certainly recognized that those types of forecasts are fragile when you're at that kind of point of uncertainty in the economic cycle," he said. "There was some discussion, of course."
Obama is not the first president to dial back on a big economic promise. Former Republican President Ronald Reagan never balanced the budget, as he had vowed to do.
"We never got close," said Murray Weidenbaum, a senior economist for Reagan between 1981 and 1982 who was involved in backing off that administration's pledge.
But when asked whether Obama will suffer a voter backlash, he notes his former boss cruised to re-election victory in 1984 despite big increases in the deficit under his watch.
"It's a little embarrassing but you just move on," Weidenbaum said.
(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan and Lily Kuo in Washington and Burton Frierson in New York; Editing by Ross Colvin and Vicki Allen)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment