Showing posts with label budget crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget crisis. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Transcripts of Obama's and Boehner's speeches regarding the budget

[caption id="attachment_6386" align="alignleft" width="384" caption="Flag flying in front of Independence Hall. Philadelphia, PA Summer 2008. Photo/Kay Mathews"][/caption]

As a news organization it is our duty to provide you with the means to make informed decisions and with that responsibility in mind we have decided to include on our front page the transcripts of both Obama's and Boehner's speeches regarding the budget.

As Americans it is our duty to stay abreast of major events in our nation. We must make informed decisions when we vote and make informed suggestions when we contact our representatives. There are times when our responsibility means we must take serious considerations of both sides of the political spectrum.

Obama:

Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we've been having in Washington over the national debt - a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.

For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation's credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more - on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.


Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can't balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money - the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won't have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that's what we've been trying to do. I won't bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let's live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let's cut domestic spending to the lowest level it's been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let's cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let's cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare - and at the same time, let's make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let's ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn't happen so abruptly that they'd be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren't happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said "Yes, I'm willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem." And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn't on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach - an approach that doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about - cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn't about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don't need and didn't ask for?

That's not right. It's not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country - things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we're talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade - millionaires and billionaires - to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they've pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

"Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer."

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach - an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate.

Now, what makes today's stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling - a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand - raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won't be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they'll vote to prevent America's first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills - bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans' benefits, and the government contracts we've signed with thousands of businesses.

For the first time in history, our country's Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis - one caused almost entirely by Washington.

Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn't solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there's no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

But there's an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we've seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.

That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It is a dangerous game we've never played before, and we can't afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can't allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington's political warfare.

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don't have to go through this again in six months.

I think that's a much better path, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I have told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress - a compromise I can sign. And I am confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don't see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They're fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can't seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They are offended by that. And they should be.

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government. So I'm asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: "Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society."

History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.

That's who we remember. That's who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let's seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth - not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.



Boehner:

Good evening. I'm John Boehner. I serve as Speaker of the whole House -- of the members of both parties that you elect. These are difficult times in the life of our nation. Millions are looking for work, have been for some time, and the spending binge going on in Washington is a big part of the reason why.

Before I served in Congress, I ran a small business in Ohio. I was amazed at how different Washington DC operated than every business in America. Where most American business make the hard choices to pay their bills and live within their means, in Washington more spending and more debt is business as usual.

I've got news for Washington - those days are over.

President Obama came to Congress in January and requested business as usual -- yet another routine increase in the national debt limit -- we in the House said 'not so fast.' Here was the president, asking for the largest debt increase in American history, on the heels of the largest spending binge in American history.

Here's what we got for that spending binge: a massive health care bill that most Americans never asked for. A 'stimulus' bill that was more effective in producing material for late-night comedians than it was in producing jobs. And a national debt that has gotten so out of hand it has sparked a crisis without precedent in my lifetime or yours.

The United States cannot default on its debt obligations. The jobs and savings of too many Americans are at stake.

What we told the president in January was this: the American people will not accept an increase in the debt limit without significant spending cuts and reforms.

And over the last six months, we've done our best to convince the president to partner with us to do something dramatic to change the fiscal trajectory of our country. . .something that will boost confidence in our economy, renew a measure of faith in our government, and help small businesses get back on track.

Last week, the House passed such a plan, and with bipartisan support. It's called the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' Act. It CUTS and CAPS government spending and paves the way for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which we believe is the best way to stop Washington from spending money it doesn't have. Before we even passed the bill in the House, the President said he would veto it.

I want you to know I made a sincere effort to work with the president to identify a path forward that would implement the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance in a manner that could secure bipartisan support and be signed into law. I gave it my all.

Unfortunately, the president would not take yes for an answer. Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the president's demands changed.

The president has often said we need a 'balanced' approach -- which in Washington means: we spend more. . .you pay more. Having run a small business, I know those tax increases will destroy jobs.

The president is adamant that we cannot make fundamental changes to our entitlement programs. As the father of two daughters, I know these programs won't be there for them and their kids unless significant action is taken now.

The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today. That is just not going to happen.

You see, there is no stalemate in Congress. The House has passed a bill to raise the debt limit with bipartisan support. And this week, while the Senate is struggling to pass a bill filled with phony accounting and Washington gimmicks, we will pass another bill - one that was developed with the support of the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate.

Obviously, I expect that bill can and will pass the Senate, and be sent to the President for his signature. If the President signs it, the 'crisis' atmosphere he has created will simply disappear. The debt limit will be raised. Spending will be cut by more than one trillion dollars, and a serious, bipartisan committee of the Congress will begin the hard but necessary work of dealing with the tough challenges our nation faces.

The individuals doing this work will not be outsiders, but elected representatives of the people, doing the job they were elected to do as outlined in the Constitution. Those decisions should be made based on how they will affect people who are struggling to get a job, not how they affect some politician's chances of getting reelected.

This debate isn't about President Obama and House Republicans … it isn't about Congress and the White House … it's about what's standing between the American people and the future we seek for ourselves and our families.

You know, I've always believed, the bigger government, the smaller the people. And right now, we have a government so big and so expensive it's sapping the drive of our people and keeping our economy from running at full capacity.

The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if you're spending more money than you're taking in, you need to spend less of it,

There is no symptom of big government more menacing than our debt. Break its grip, and we begin to liberate our economy and our future.

We are up to the task, and I hope President Obama will join us in this work.

God bless you and your families, and God bless America.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Semantic propaganda feeds stupidity

[caption id="attachment_7140" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Propaganda"][/caption]

Joel S. Hirschhorn--We would already have had a much needed American revolution in response to the tyranny of the money-fed two-party plutocracy that is destroying the middle class except for one big problem: so much of the American population is just plain stupid.  Too stupid to behave like angry Greeks and rise up in the streets to rebel against the dysfunctional government.

In the never ending fight of Republicans and their cancerous (make that stupid) Tea Party members to gain even more control of the US political system, economy and culture they have fixed on another semantic weapon.  The latest attack on intelligence is the constant use of the term job creators in place of words like the rich or wealthy.  Not just plain Republicans in Congress are doing this, but especially the large crop of Republican presidential candidates.

This bit of cleverness surely was deemed necessary because much of the nation was beginning to appreciate the class warfare going on.  Rising economic inequality, unemployment set in concrete, and merging of the middle class into the poverty stricken lower class were all becoming clearer.

Keep this in mind: As Zuckerman pointed out, the US “experienced the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000.  From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs.  This is contrary to all previous recessions.  Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off from full-time employment.” Business sectors have discovered that they can maximize profits with smaller US work forces; they export jobs and their capital investments.  And they benefit from all kinds of tax loopholes protected by Republicans so that they pay very little if any US taxes.

A terrific new article by Jeff Reeves makes the case that unemployment will actually rise to over 10 percent, because of anticipated layoffs in the financial, technology, and aerospace and defense sectors.  The data are compelling.  All this despite high profits.

Apple is sitting on an amazing $76 BILLION in cash.  Other than understanding that people are paying too much for their products, just imagine if they invested a big fraction of that on moving manufacturing of its products from foreign countries to the US.  An enormous number of good jobs could be created here.

What were Republicans to do, especially as they used the current crisis surrounding the need to raise the national debt limit to seek huge cuts in federal spending affecting ordinary Americans and prevent higher taxes for the greedy rich and corporate forces?

What better way than to falsely claim and constantly presume that those that should be paying higher taxes are exactly the ones who create jobs and that they would not do so if hit by higher taxes.  In truth, this is a bold lie.  The richest Americans have been paying the lowest taxes in many decades and corporate profits have been enormous, and this reality has clearly had absolutely no positive impact on the unemployment and underemployment plaguing at least 30 million Americans and their family members.

Go back to the post-World War II era when the richest Americans paid very high taxes and you discover that jobs and fairly distributed wealth were created in abundance.

Neither wealth nor jobs trickle down from the Upper Class.  Proper government policies are required to prevent criminally large fractions of the nation’s wealth going to the most greedy and selfish elites.  Those NOT rich that support Republicans are very stupid; they have been brainwashed by the steady stream of Republican lies and propaganda that are used to serve the rich and corporate interests sustaining Republicans with much money.  The return on their investment has proven more than adequate to justify their endless input of money to Republicans.

We probably will soon see President Obama cave in and giver Republicans much of what they want.  There will be major cuts in federal programs that will place millions of Americans in even more precarious economic uncertainty and pain.  And there will probably be far too little increases in taxes on the rich and corporations.  Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security may all be cut in ways that harm many people.

Lies are constantly being fed to the public.  Will you be smart enough to see them for what they are?  The more you face this ugly, disturbing reality, the more embarrassed you will be about the US political system and, hopefully, the more inclined you will be to stop voting for any Republicans or Democrats and participating in our delusional democracy.



Friday, July 22, 2011

The aging of the population and how it will change the world

[caption id="attachment_7133" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="PUSH"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - In January 2011 the oldest of the baby boomers turned 65, with the first “shot over the cannon’ signaling a major shift in population that impacts the entire world,  while the US government labors over the budget crisis.

Early this year Richard Johnson of the Urban Institute answered five questions about aging and its impact on the future of the United States and the rest of the world.   He tells us at the outset that the problems of the growing numbers of elderly persons is a global problem.

13 percent of Americans are age 65 and over by January of 2011, with the percentage anticipated to be 16 percent by 2020 and by 2040 to 20 percent.  In the meantime birth rates are falling.

This means fewer young people to economically support in some way a larger and continually growing older segment of society.

.By 2020, that share will jump to just over 16 percent. By 2040, it'll top 20 percent. The graying of the population is really a worldwide phenomenon as birth rates fall and longevity increases.

Those who follow the Ayn Rand philosophy maintain that as long as producers are allowed total freedom of production free of government restraints, then social upheavals will be prevented as people seek prosperity.  Those who believe government should step in and take care of people who can’t take care of themselves represent another major philosophy, in opposition to the first.  These two extremes remain the ongoing debate in the major countries of the world, with the labels for representative factions changing as the politicians shift with popular opinions during economic crises.

The first world impact of aging has to do with how choices have to be made among groups needing assistance vs. the needs of the greater culture as a whole.  Infrastructure maintenance, education, energy and defense form a rival with what some refer to as entitlements.  The problem with the word entitlements itself has to do with it means to their beneficiaries, some of whom see Medicare and Social Security as funds maintained by those beneficiary contributions.  It was anticipated that when retirees reached age 65 there would be sufficient money to pay out those benefits.  That was the case in theory when the institutions were created.  The problem, however, is that by 2015 the system will be paying out more money than it takes in.  Furthermore it is estimated that by 2040 as much as 9/10 of the Federal budget will consist of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payouts.

At the same time by 2030 it is estimated the elderly will pay ¼ of their incomes on health care costs.

Johnson believes we need to make it easier for older workers to be employed by taking away the taxes on incomes of people who continue to work after age 62 and the artificial ceiling for retirement at age 65 created by the culture.  He believes the elderly have information and skills society needs, and that more members of that group should be employed.  He calls for training for older people, along with raising the Social Security retirement age.

But while Congress continues to debate raising the Social Security retirement age, Johnson also recommends that people delay taking the benefits themselves in order to increase the payouts that will continue to grow with the additional months and years.  He also observes that people should educate themselves about financial products and save for retirement.

The problems of long-term care and how to finance it are major obstacles for seniors all over the world, Johnson explains, although he has no real answers for the problem outside of additional savings along with research studies on patterns of saving of present pre-retirement groups.

In his discussion Johnson doesn’t examine the unpredictability of economic trends that impact senior incomes, just as government begins to decide on debt limits and entitlement adjustments.

In Portland, Oregon Christopher D. Werner offers financial direction and investment products through his company the Werner Group.  He agrees, “We have to be defensive when we know some of our clients are seniors.  What is recommended for older folks in the investment mix will be somewhat different, of course.  On the other hand, I won’t advise someone at any age be involved in an investment vehicle I wouldn’t have for myself.  You have to look at how investment managers have performed over time.

As for the future, yes we can’t predict it.  We can only give our best answer based upon our knowledge of specifics now.  Saving is fundamental to getting to a safe retirement, and cash isn’t the only option.”

Chris Werner, a 30+, energetic man looks at the cup half full, as his life in most ways is beginning, with a future in the financial world.  His view continues to include the tried and true recommendations of balance, growth and saving.

It is, however, for Werner and for Johnson, as it is for seniors who did plan and save, the unknown face of the budget crisis aftermath that offers the greatest concern for elderly and for which there seem to be no good answers.  And while working longer may seem the easy answer, seniors continue to be the most vulnerable group to layoffs and unemployment, making it difficult, if not impossible, for those younger baby boomers to plan at all.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Debt crisis insight from the 'Art of Selfishness'

[caption id="attachment_7095" align="alignleft" width="225" caption="John Galt Sign"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff  -  The organization devoted to Ayn Rand’s philosophy addresses the current budget crisis as caused by  those who seek handouts and who should be ashamed of their contribution to the collapse of industrial America by taking from productive members of the culture,

The diatribe against those takers of personal freedom begins with the view taken in Atlas Shrugged, which was the Ayn Rand tome that became the Bible of the Art of Selfishness, which was the orientation and philosophy of the author and her devotees.

The press release reminds us of the prophetic nature of Atlas Shrugged,  that “ portrays the collapse of industrial America as a war between producers and expropriators—just what we see in America today.

"To solve the debt crisis, productive Americans must declare to every elected official that they have a right to their own lives and the fruits of their labor; that government has no right to redistribute their wealth; and that other Americans should be ashamed of themselves for trying to steal it," says Edward Hudgins of The Atlas Society www.atlassociety.org .  "Productive individuals would reject government handouts and thus governments would not run up debts that will destroy the productive."

After pointing out the philosophy according to Rand with respect to producers and those seeking handouts, the Rand view is described as one that encourages producers to seek happiness and prosperity by the creation of goods and services.  These same producers seek justice and protection but otherwise want to be left alone to earn a living.  Those who wish to expropriate from them by government means are working against what is best for society, and now those productive people have awakened to what is called a “moral obscenity” inflicted upon them.

In other words, no bailout, no debt ceiling, no compromise.  Producers are the capitalists who create the value  and “paternalistic politicians” are involved in taking from them through bailouts and free healthcare and stimulus money.  What are these handouts?  Student loans, expanded health care and Social Security, the Ayn Rand group explains.

Rand belief is based on the notion that “your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness”  Altruism is a word and idea she decries, as the true purpose is not to save others but to maintain one’s own well being and that if everyone sought this same direction, then there would be no need for saving anyone.

As the two political parties struggle over the mounting debt crisis and decide whether or not to raise the debt ceiling, it is important to recognize that many of those leaders were educated in their early years during a popular wave of Ayn Rand materials.  Those who favor the Ayn Rand direction in politics promote capitalism, production and individualism.  They see Social Security, welfare and other programs designed to help the elderly and handicapped as unnecessary in a productive society where people seek to create material wealth.  It is that art of selfishness that is echoed in the halls of the Congress by those who believe that wealth will “trickle down” in some unique way so that everyone benefits from those who prosper.

A similar doctrine to Ayn Rand is this:  “We believe most Americans do not want out-of-control spending in Washington, bailouts, government controls of private businesses, socializing of Americans' health care and other non-essential government-run services,” the signature statement from the Tea Party organization.