Hooray For CHANGE!

Archive for June, 2011

The recent spin out of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the new Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairperson, is enough to make anyone get dizzy and vomit.

On June 15, POLITICO’s Chief White House Correspondent, Mike Allen, interviewed Schultz at Playbook Breakfast, an event series hosted by POLITICO. During this morning conversation about policy, politics and the news of the day, Schultz was posed a question, “At what point do Democrats take responsibility for the economy?”

The former Florida Congresswoman who, according to Project Vote Smart, has never held a private sector job said, “We are clearly responsible… the last year of the Bush presidency we lost 3.7 million jobs… we created a million jobs in the private sector in just the last six months, 2.1 million in the last 15 months… the manufacturing sector has had 15 straight month of growth, we rescued the American automobile industry and made sure Americans continued to have a choice about the kind of car they want to drive… If it were up to Republicans, particularly Republican candidates for President, they would’ve pushed the American car industry off a cliff and said good luck to you later… that’s 1.4 million jobs… Yeah, we own the economy.”

And then, of course, she had to throw in for good measure that we ought “not go back to the policies of the past, the Bush administration, that put us in this mess”

I found that the Democrats stating that they created 2.1 million jobs since Obama took office rather strange since the unemployment rate has dropped from 7.6 percent to 9.1 percent during that same period of time, so I had to look at this further.

Back in October 2010, Schultz stated that Obama was on pace to “have created more jobs in this year than in the entire Bush Presidency.” This was echoed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in January 2011 who stated adamantly that President Obama and the Democratic Congress have created “more jobs in 2010 than President Bush did over eight years.” When pressed, she clarified that she meant private-sector jobs only

The Bureau of Labor Statistics disagrees, unless, of course, the DNC Chairperson and House Minority Leader are cherry picking their information and comparing apples to oranges. Here is an accurate accounting, or as Bill O’Reilly says, a “No Spin” look at the private sector job creation by Bush in his eight years as President and Obama in his first twenty-nine months as President:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed almost 4.2 million private-sector jobs during the first year of the Obama. Schultz and Pelosi omit this fact and want the naïve voter to only hear the sound bites, “the Bush presidency lost 3.7 million jobs” and “we created 2.1 million private sector jobs in the last 15 months,” and, of course the old favorite, “we can’t afford to go back to the policies of the Bush administration.”

Here are the cold hard facts:

The fact is that during the Obama administration’s first 28 months, there was a net loss of 2.5 million jobs because the workforce population grew by 4.8 million people.

The fact is that Bush only created 188,000 private sector jobs in eight years, but that he was saddled with a tech bubble bursting in 2000-2001 leading to a recession, the 9/11 attacks at the end of 2001, and the housing bubble bursting in 2007-2008, leading to the recession all through 2008.

The fact is that the Republican controlled Congress between 1994 and 2005 gained about 18.5 million private sector jobs.

The fact is that Democrats controlled Congress from 2006 through 2011, lost approximately 5 million private sector jobs.

The fact is that comparing Bush’s best job growth period with Obama’s best job growth period, Bush bests Obama by approximately 6 million private sector jobs.

The fact is that the average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.2 percent.

The fact is that the average unemployment rate under Obama is 9.4 percent.

These are the indisputable no spin facts… like them or not.

Aside from all the spin the DNC is giving to the Democrats use as ammo against the Republicans lately, the do have one fact correct. Democrats claim they own the current economy… they absolutely do.

Democrats own a 9.1 percent unemployment rate.

Democrats own a 16 percent unemployment rate for African Americans.

Democrats own the fact that the average unemployed person has been out of work for 39.7 weeks.

Democrats own inflation, which just hit a 2-1/2 year high

Democrats own the rising core inflation (up 1.5 percent versus the expected 1.4 percent in May)

Democrats own the weakening of the average hourly earnings (when adjusted for inflation earnings have dropped to 1.2 percent)

Democrats own the rising food costs

Democrats own rising gasoline and energy costs

Democrats own the weak dollar (dropping over 6.5 percent in value in 2011)

Democrats own the 32nd straight month the federal government has been in the red

Democrats own a housing crisis that is now worse than the Great Depression

Democrats own the $14 trillion in debt ($1 trillion in just the last 7 months)

Democrats own the possibility of a debt downgrade

Democrats own the misery index… now at a 28 year high.

Democrats own the stagflation that has just arrived

Yes, Debbie Schultz and Nancy Pelosi are right, the Democrats are clearly responsible and they own this economy. Please, let’s not forget that in 2012.

Between 2002 and 2008, the Left in America maintained a consistent assault against President George W. Bush which included a number of pejoratives, most notably calling him a “NeoCon.” Even my Democrat friends would look me straight in the eye and say, “Bush… that, that NeoCon!” And I would reply, “Wait! What exactly is a NeoCon?” And they didn’t know. All they knew was that it wasn’t good. But where are all those Democrats now that Barack Obama is in office? Because Obama is the greatest NeoCon of all.

So, what is a NeoCon anyway? It’s a term we’ve all heard from time to time, but what does it mean? And why did it become so prevalent during the Bush years? Is it really a word designed to demonize or does it have a valid and constructive meaning? And if Bush was such a terrible NeoCon, then why isn’t Obama receiving the same treatment?

The term, NeoCon saw tremendous growth in the American lexicon during the Bush years. Google showed an increase from 26,300 search results for the term in 2002 to 1,610,000 by 2008.

UrbanDictionary.com, a Web-based dictionary containing of over 10.5 million user-created definitions of slang words and phrases which are regulated by volunteer editors and rated by site visitors, has seven definitions of “NeoCon” created between 2004 through 2006:

In short, the term NeoCon became a derogatory term that described Bush, Conservatives, Right Wingers and Republicans as no good low life lying rotten inbred war-mongering blowhard lemmings who are criminally insane spenders and the lowest forms of life around… and, oh yes, Nazis in pinstripe suits.

By 2008, the Left had successfully demonized Bush as a war mongering nation building “NeoCon.” Whichever Republican won the nomination would simply need to be tied to Bush and victory would come easy for whoever the Democrat nominee was… even if it was a former community organizer with no executive experience whatsoever. And that is exactly what happened.

Since, Obama took office in 2009, the “NeoCon” chatter began to get quiet. After all, the Democrats had a Supermajority in Congress and a Democrat President… there was no Republicans to call a NeoCon anymore. Google search results for “NeoCon” dropped by 130,000 hits… almost ten percent (10%).

So, what is a NeoCon?

The term was created and used by the Left as a tool to verbally assault those moving from the Left to the Right. Its roots go as far back as 1883 when a periodical called Today, featured an excerpt of Karl Marx’s book Captial, that discussed “the principles of neo-Conservatism as expounded by the late Lord Beaconsfield…” Lord Beaconsfield was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1874 to 1880 and it was said that he started his career somewhat on the Left and ended it as a staunch Conservative.

The term remained somewhat dormant for the next century until socialist Michael Harrington wrote an article for Dissent Magazine in 1973 titled, “The Welfare State and Its Neoconservative Critics.” The term, neoconservative, maintained the same meaning during this time as a former Leftist who had moved Right; however, it was now being related to those Democrats who supported a “socially progressive” domestic policy (support for a welfare state and a mixed economy) as well as strong foreign policy that supported the Vietnam War in spite of the Democrat party’s growing opposition.

In other words, it referred to those Democrats moving away from the political party with an agenda that saw a strong domestic policy that included a large federal government playing a central role in the American economy as well as having an aggressive foreign policy that resulted in the spread of democracy all across the globe.

In 2002, Bush gave a State of the Union address which was a response to the 9/11 attacks and outlined what would later be coined the Bush Doctrine, “I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” Bush’s aim was simply to protect America and promote democracy around the world. And the term NeoCon was given new life once again.

Bush, with the full consent of Congress, sent Troops into Afghanistan and Iraq. The reasons were not to spread democracy. The U.S. went into Afghanistan as a reaction to 9/11 and went into Iraq because of a looming threat of another such attack. The democratization of these states was not the primary goal, rather a by product of the primary goals.

On the domestic front, President Bush’s policies grew the government and increased spending. From education to domestic security to space exploration to agricultural subsidies to Medicare, Bush expanded public spending by seventy percent (70%), more than double the increase under President Clinton; however, he opposed many a “socially progressive” ideas such as creating a welfare state or a mixed economy.

Bush’s domestic agenda didn’t matter. The Left in America focused on his foreign policy and suggested that Bush was not simply protecting America from those who have and would do us harm, but that he was nation building, using armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy. This was enough to begin the propaganda that Bush was an imperial president… a NeoCon.

If Bush was such a terrible NeoCon, then why isn’t Obama receiving the same treatment?

On the domestic front, the first twenty months of Obama’s presidency saw him add as much debt as Bush created during his entire presidency… and his spending plan calls for the doubling of the national debt in five years and tripling it in ten years. This spending increase doesn’t comes from defense spending, it comes from socially progressive plans that included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending ten percent (10%) for the last half of fiscal year 2009… not to mention increases of nondefense discretionary spending another twelve percent (12%) for fiscal year 2010. Add on Obamacare and the numbers are ridiculous.

And Obama’s foreign policy? He failed to bring home the Troops in Iraq as promised, he increased the number of Troops in Afghanistan, he did not close Gitmo as promised, and he – without Congressional approval – attacked Libya. Why did he attack Libya? Was it in our national interest? No. Was the United States under imminent threat? No. Obama unconstitutionally attacked Libya because Qaddafi did not step down when Libyan protesters were calling for a regime change, but rather began a military campaign against those Libyan protesters.

This wasn’t any different than any other countries holding major protests in the Middle East. At that time Algeria saw 8 deaths, Bahrain 22 deaths, Djibouti 2 deaths, Jordan 2 deaths, Oman 6 deaths, Syria 100 deaths (1,300 deaths and 10,000 arrests as of June 13, 2011) and Yemen 122 deaths, Iran 3 deaths (1,500 arrested), Morocco 6 deaths, Saudi Arabia 2 deaths (100 arrested), Sudan 1 death and Western Sahara 1 death.

Yet, Obama attacked and continues an assault on Libya. Why? According to his March 28, 2011 speech, he stated that “For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom… Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean…. America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.” So, it was clearly a humanitarian effort. But why Libya and not the other dozen Middle Eastern countries that were doing the same thing to its people?

Obama is clearly working with the protestors to bring democracy to Libya. He is nation building. Obama is acting as an imperial president.

But where is the Left protesting Obama? Where are the new UrbanDictionary definitions of NeoCon? Where is Cindy Sheehan camping out these days? Where is Code Pink? Where is MoveOn? Where is the Mainstream Media on this issue?

So, in the end, for all the heat Bush took for being a “NeoCon” between 2002 and 2008, Obama has actually lived up to the title. His domestic policy has stayed solidly Left wing with the greatest increases in socially progressive spending of any President ever and his foreign policy has moved more to the right and become increasingly hawkish. Attacking the Libyan government in an effort to help the protesters democratize the nation is the true essence of a NeoCon.

Quite objectively, Obama just might be the greatest NeoCon this country has ever seen.