Why “Trickle-Down” Economics Has Lost Favor Since Katrina…

ENOUGH!

Last Thursday night, along with about 38 million other Americans, I tuned in to watch Barack Obama give his historic acceptance speech for the nomination of his party. I have to admit that I was already a strong supporter, but I was happy to be so powerfully reminded why. I’m proud to support a candidate who will stand up to the powers that be and say, “ENOUGH!”

As he began to lay out the case for his economic plan, over John McCain’s, he obliquely referred to “trickle-down” economics:

“For over two decades, he’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy—give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is—you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps—even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own.

Well it’s time for them to own their failure. It’s time for us to change America.”

As most people know, this weekend is the three year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina causing 53 different breaches in the levees surrounding greater New Orleans, which led to eighty percent of the city being submerged in water. When I hear the term “trickle-down economics,” I can’t help but think of those poor souls crowded into that stadium, rain dripping from above, to weather the storm. After spending most of the Labor Day weekend that year, transfixed by the Katrina coverage, I posted a brief response, which listed four words, which had started running through my mind that weekend, and corresponding quotes:

“AMERICA,” as in: “Is this really happening in AMERICA?”

“POVERTY,” as in: “If you live in POVERTY, you don’t have an SUV to drive out of town before the hurricane arrives.”

“LEADERSHIP,” as in: “People aren’t frustrated by the lack of LEADERSHIP, they’re dying because of it.”

“WATER,” as in: “The streets are filled with WATER!” and “Where the fuck is the food and WATER?”

The aforementioned words inspired the following QUOTES OF THE WEEK:

AMERICA:
“I love AMERICA more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”
—James Arthur Baldwin
“If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone ‘AMERICA died from a delusion that she had moral leadership.’”
—Will Rogers
“I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If AMERICA shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.” (…unless you’re poor.)
—George W. Bush

POVERTY:
“It is a tragic mix-up when the United States spends $500,000 for every enemy soldier killed, and only $53 annually on the victims of POVERTY.”
—Martin Luther King, Jr.
“The mother of revolution and crime is POVERTY.”
—Aristotle
“POVERTY may be the mother of crime, but lack of good sense is the father.”
—Jean de la Bruyere
“POVERTY is the worst form of violence.”
— Mahatma Gandhi

LEADERSHIP:
“One of the true tests of LEADERSHIP is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.”
— Arnold H. Glasgow
“The only safe ship in a storm is LEADERSHIP.”
—Faye Wattleton

WATER:
“You don’t drown by falling in the WATER; you drown by staying there.”
—Edwin Louis Cole
“WATER, WATER, every where, Nor any drop to drink.”
—Samuel Taylor Coleridge

I can’t help but notice that the quotes I posted that day resonate even more today than they did three years ago.

In Thursday’s speech, Barack Obama had it right when he spoke of his and and the Democratic party’s promise to America. He said:

“Ours is a promise that says that government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.”

Yes, we all hate paying taxes. That said, we do pay taxes as part of our compact with the government that it will use that money to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

The quote from Glasgow about leadership reminds us that:

“One of the true tests of LEADERSHIP is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.”

Last week, both Obama and Biden made the case that John McCain “doesn’t get it.” In Joe Biden’s Aug. 27, 2008, convention speech he said of McCain:

“He voted 19 times against the minimum wage for people who are struggling just to make it to the next day.”

Obama made this point:

“John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush was right more than ninety percent of the time? I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change.”

Obama and Biden have met that test many times in their statements and speeches both last week and throughout Bush’s presidency.

McCain has failed it miserably many times:
January 10, 2008:
John McCain says, “I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong. This is a rough patch, but I think America’s greatness lies ahead of us.”

March 16, 2007:
McCain said “he was ’stumped’ when asked whether contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV.”

October 31, 2005:
Three years ago, John McCain said, “Afghanistan—we don’t read about it anymore in papers because it succeeded.”

Septeptember 12, 2001:
Senator McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Finally, I want to speak briefly to the issue of whether or not Barack Obama is ready to lead:

There are those who argue that he lacks the experience to lead this nation. However, that claim falls flat with me, as I have watched him lead an inspired and inspiring national campaign for the nomination of his party, of my party.

Under his leadership, the Obama campaign both strategically and tactically outmaneuvered the most powerful and experienced political organization in modern times. Strategically, he understood from the beginning that “change” was what voters were looking for. Clinton could easily have claimed the ”change” mantel, but she chose a different strategy. Additionally, his team investigated the intricacies of the primary process, like how many delegates were up for grabs in which state and; used this information to formulate the tactics that would result in the most delegates. Clinton’s strategy was to focus her resources on winning the majority of delegates in the states with the largest number of delegates. This meant that tactically, they lacked the field operations to do as well in the caucuses as the Obama campaign did.

While some argue that the process was somehow “unfair,” I must admit that I’m puzzled by that argument. Every decision our next president makes will involve thoughtful and intelligent navigation around and through unfair obstacles created by eight years of poor leadership. The Commander-in-chief will be left with a military that has been stretched to its limits, while still facing war on two fronts and threats on many more. Our next leader will face a deficit of good-will in the rest of the world, at a time when we most need their cooperation. The dollar has become weaker, gas and oil prices have risen, economic inequity is at an all-time high. These are but a few of the unfair circumstances that will challenge any efforts our next president makes to improve our daily lives. From day one, I’ve seen Barack Obama exhibit the judgment and character to devise and refine a winning strategy. Going forward, we will see if he and his
supporters manage to take back the White House, but from my vantage point, he is the only leader who has proven he can win.

As the Republican Convention and Hurricane Gustave loom, and the memories of Katrina linger, I’m comforted by the knowledge that Barack Obama is at the helm of the ship that promises change. As Faye Wattleton reminds us, “The only safe ship in a storm is LEADERSHIP.”

That’s something I try to remember when the leaders of this country tell us to eat cake:

Why PUMA People Piss Me Off…

As my closest friends know, I am an avid consumer of political commentary. My television has the MSNBC logo burned into it. I get and read the New York Times everyday and; I actually think it’s “fun” to watch CSPAN. I love to talk politics more than anyone I know, so my friends and family often encourage me to post my own political commentary here. In part they do so because they believe I am fairly well-informed, given my new consumption. They tell me my thoughts would be a valuable contribution to the public political discussion going on in the world today. Mostly I suspect they would just like me to shut up about it and hope to channel this energy toward my blog and away from them =-)

Unfortunately, while I’ve written many a post in my head about whatever is pissing me off at the time, I’m often too distracted, busy and/or lazy to actually type out my thoughts. Well, not so today. Last night, while watching Hardball on MSNBC, there was a segment on “Hillary Clinton Democrats for McCain.” The guests really annoyed me so; I went online to find more information about their group, PUMA. What I found agitated me enough to actually post something about it, so here I GO:

There were two people included in the Hardball segment, Darragh Murphy, founder of PUMA PAC, and Will Bower, who started a PUMA website called “Just Say No Deal.” Both insisted that they were planning to vote for John McCain, despite being Hillary Clinton supporters in the primary. Bower and Murphy described PUMA as a “movement” driven by frustrated Hillary Clinton Democrats, like themselves, who are devoted to “righting the wrongs” perpetrated on Clinton and her supporters. They accused the DNC and the Democratic Establishment of “silencing” their voices.

It doesn’t take an Obama supporter to notice the absurdity of the sentiment that the voices of Clinton and her supporters have been “silenced,” given that the first two days of the Democratic Convention will feature speeches by both Hillary and Bill Clinton, not to mention the fact that Hillary’s name is even scheduled to be put into nomination for the first roll call. By the way, the last time a primary loser insisted on such a display, it was Jerry Brown in 1992, when he lost to Bill Clinton. Reportedly, it really pissed Clinton off. The reason going into this is moot is that Clinton’s candidacy really has nothing to do with the PUMA cause, at least as far as I can tell. Will Bower’s Just Say No Deal Website tells it all when it opens with the following statement:

“We are a coalition of millions with one thing in common: NObama”

Presumably, the site would at least say “we are a coalition of millions with one thing in common: electing Hillary Clinton.” That is, if there were any truth to what they’ve been claiming their motives to be in their media interviews.

In the Hardball interview, Darragh Murphy explains that P.U.M.A. stands for “People United Means Action.” However, in researching PUMA, I found that the original derivation of this acronym, is “Party Unity My Ass,” which is appropriate since it’s much more akin to a bowel movement than a political movement. The thing that most offends me about these people and their media coverage is that they are claiming to be “Democrats.” Democrats My Ass…

If you look up most of the people representing PUMA in the media on the campaign contribution tracking Website, NEWSMEAT, they’ve only given money to Republicans in the past, or not at all. Darragh Murphy, for example, gave John McCain $500 in his 2000 primary run. Kim Mann, a PUMA supporter recently quoted in a CNN article about PUMA, has only contributed once to any candidate since the 1980s. According to NEWSMEAT, that was $250 to Republican Jim Ramstad from Minnesota in 1991.

My favorite “Democrat” has to be Will Bower, who recently quit his job to spend all his time administering JustSayNoDeal.com. One of the main areas of this site is the “Oppo-research” area. If you have any doubt about the motives of this site, go there and you’ll find a list of links to right-wing blogs on topics that range from Obama’s “Muslim Heritage” to his “Terrorist Ties.” It’s hard to imagine any reason to foster false rumors and innuendos, meant to smear and “swift-boat” Obama, other than a desire to keep Republicans in the White House for another term. Pointing visitors to lies about Obama will hardly change the outcome of the primaries and make Hillary the Democratic Nominee. It might improve McCain’s chances of being elected. It’s certainly an effort to make people more afraid of things that aren’t true about Obama than they are about things that are true about McCain…like the fact that McCain has promised to continue numerous policies that have been unpopular under Bush if he, McCain, is elected.

I’m not saying that all the PUMA people are closet Republicans. What I am saying is that many of the founders of the group are. Furthermore, those who aren’t might as well be. They are more dedicated to destroying Obama than they ever were for the things Clinton stands for. If that weren’t the case, they’d be supporting Obama now, whose policy positions are close to hers, while McCain’s are MILES away from those of either.

Did I mention these people piss me off?