Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Do we ignore our guys’ missteps?

A friend of mine passed on a bit of wisdom this morning at the Amarillo Town Club that I’d like to share here.

All this give-and-take on social media — particularly Facebook — he says, makes him think about whether he is looking critically enough at his “guys'” missteps, mistakes, goofs and blunders.

He was speaking about some of the Facebook threads that have developed among people of differing political points of view. I’m happy to report that some of the threads to which he refers is in response to posts that appear on this blog.

I’ve given some thought to what he said and his wisdom makes sense.

We all have our own bias. I tilt to the left and I recognize my bias there. Many of my friends in the Texas Panhandle tilt the other way — no surprise there, right? I like sharing ideas with them, even though I recognize they’re always wrong and I’m always right.

OK, back to the seriousness. My pal, a well-educated man who works in the public sector, takes note of the need to assess whether we’re being as analytical as we can be when assessing some of these issues.

Some of the social media posts do twist off in irrational directions. Barack Obama is seen by many on the right and far right as a traitor who intentionally seeks to degrade America’s ability to defend itself. I try to restrain myself when I see that kind of opinion tossed into cyberspace. My friends on the left and far left are equally perverse, suggesting for example that George W. Bush actually sanctioned the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to get us into a war with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I also restrain myself on that nonsense as well.

The vast middle ground between those extremes is where we need to focus our attention.

I’m willing to talk sensibly with anyone. I’m also willing to acknowledge that I tend to look differently when my guys mess up than when the guys on the other side mess up. I’m not going to apologize for that. It’s my bias and I’m entitled to wear it on my sleeve, just as the other side is entitled to display its own bias.

My friend’s point about taking care to look critically at my side, though, holds up.

I hereby pledge to seek to do so — even if it produces the same response.

Obama might be able to fix border crisis

What? You mean the president of the United States has the executive authority to tinker with an immigration law and can start sending some of the children back to their home countries?

And he can do it without fighting with Congress?

Do it, Mr. President.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-may-hold-fix-flood-immigrant-kids-172132339–politics.html

Two key lawmakers, one Republican and one Democrat, think President Obama has it within his power to act. Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said the president needs to “re-engage” this effort. “We can safely get them home,” Rogers said on “Meet the Press.” He said, “And that’s where the president needs to start. So he needs to re-engage, get folks who are doing administrative work on the border. They need to make sure they send a very clear signal.”

But would he get sued for acting on his own? Let’s hope not. Congressional critics have been complaining that the president hasn’t acted forcefully enough on a whole host of issues, the immigration crisis being the latest. The children and young adults are political refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Sending them back willy nilly could expose them to mortal danger.

A 2008 law signed by President Bush was implemented to help prevent human trafficking. It supposedly makes it more difficult to send children back when they’ve entered the country illegally. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. Smugglers have taken that 2008 and sent these young people here to take advantage of that law. And for that the president has been pounded?

Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein said the law allows for administration action in the event of “exceptional circumstances.” She should know; Feinstein helped write the 2008 legislation.

If the president is facing a protracted fight with Congress over the emergency spending bill he has requested, then he should just take the action he has authority to take.

Tax cut … with no spending offsets?

I’ll have to admit that I’m a little slow on the uptake at times.

Folks have to explain some things to me on occasion to help me make sense of trends and decisions.

This decision by the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives falls into that head-scratching category.

http://www.kxly.com/news/politics/house-republicans-vote-for-business-tax-cut/26906060

The House has approved a $287 billion business tax cut. It hasn’t included any spending offsets to pay for it. Speaker John Boehner boasts that the House is working to create jobs. Maybe it will. Then again, maybe those businesses benefiting from the tax cuts will take that money straight to the bottom line. That’s been happening quite a bit lately, you know?

What’s got me puzzled is why the House GOP keeps insisting on spending offsets whenever the Obama administration proposes job creation ideas. Infrastructure spending? Can’t afford it unless we cut spending in other places.

Another thing needs noting. The deficit is coming down in rather dramatic fashion. A tax cut of the size just approved by the House is going to blow up the deficit yet again.

My memory isn’t perfect, but I do remember a time when Republicans belonged to the party of “fiscal responsibility.” They loathed deficits, while Democrats blew them off. Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980 partly because President Carter and Congress ran deficits of a whopping $40 billion annually; there was some other stuff also that contributed to Carter’s defeat.

Memory also reminds me of how quick congressional Republicans were to share in the credit for the balanced budget and the surpluses run up during the final years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. They made sure we all knew that their spending restraints were more responsible for the surplus than the modest tax increases proposed by the president — and, oh yes, approved by Congress.

The new age of Republicanism, though, sees the party in control of one half of one branch of government talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Spending offsets only count when the other guys want to do something. Tax cuts for business? Who cares?

In the meantime, President Obama is asking for $3.7 billion in emergency spending to help deal with that crisis along our southern border. The GOP response? It costs too much money.

Go figure.

Stop laughing, Mr. President

A friend of mine got upset early today at a picture.

The picture showed President Obama sharing a light moment with someone at a conference table. Texas Gov. Rick Perry also is present. He’s not laughing. At the moment the picture was snapped, he appeared to be scowling. I doubt that was the emotion he was expressing.

Pictures such as the one to which I refer serve to inflame partisans. My pal was angry that the picture showed Obama laughing at a meeting called to discuss the border crisis involving those tens of thousands of children who are fleeing into the United States from Central America.

I have no clue what caused Obama to chuckle at that moment. Neither does my friend.

Strangely enough, I understand why he would be upset. He’s angry about the crisis. He thinks the president should do something to stop it. There’s nothing funny at the meeting, my friend believes.

Well, maybe someone said something that tickled Barack Obama’s fancy. Maybe the governor of Texas cracked a joke later, or perhaps he’d done so earlier.

Pictures, as they say, can tell a thousand words. This one, though, tells just a few. The president of the United States had the temerity to actually laugh.

God have mercy if this kind of thing is going to get us upset.

Obamacare is — what? — working? Who knew?

The Affordable Care Act has done what? It has reduced the number of uninsured Americans?

Goodness, gracious. That must mean the act — aka Obamacare — is working. It’s doing its job. It’s providing health security for millions of Americans.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-lowers-uninsured-108789.html?hp=l1

A story on Politico.com by David Nather reports: “Survey after survey is showing that the number of uninsured people has been going down since the start of enrollment last fall. The numbers don’t all match, and health care experts say they’re not precise enough to give more than a general idea of the trend.”

And yet, House Speaker John Boehner is suing President Obama because the president allegedly changed a law by postponing the mandatory employer mandate provision in the law — which I believe is what Boehner and his Republican colleagues actually wanted done.

My head is spinning.

The numbers being reported aren’t yet rock-solid. Nather reports there remains a “lot of variation” in the statistics of uninsured Americans. Still, the bottom line is that fewer Americans are uninsured today than when the Affordable Care Act was rolled out.

As expected, Republicans continue to call the ACA a failure. Sen. Ted Cruz told Politico: “Four years ago, before the law was implemented, it was possible to have good-faith disagreements about whether the law would work. Today, seeing the utter disaster that has played out … to me, it is the essence of pragmatism to realize that the law isn’t working, and to repeal it and start over.”

Wait a minute, senator. The law is working. The number of uninsured has declined. Isn’t that the goal?

Meanwhile … the budget deficit keeps shrinking

Bad news tends to run laps around good news.

People are drawn to negativity in a curious way. Positive developments? Oh, forget about it. We’ll get to the good stuff later — if we remember to think about it.

I hereby want to present a bit of cheer amid all the tumult over child refugees, Israel vs. Hamas, Iraqi insurgents, impeachment, congressional lawsuit and anything else of late.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/wh-budget-deficit-will-drop-to-583-billion-108822.html?hp=l9

The federal ran a surplus of $71 billion in June. There’s more. The annual budget deficit is going to hit — at most by some estimates — $583 billion for the current fiscal year that ends Sept. 30; indeed, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of $492 billion.

It’s that surplus business that has me most intrigued.

Could it be the spurt of new jobs, which reached 288,000 in June, producing more tax revenue for the Treasury? Might it be accompanied by a burst of new business activity, which generates even more revenue?

Why, you would think we’d hear cheers from both sides of the political aisle.

Didn’t happen. Nope. We’ve been fixated by that negativity thing. We respond to the bad news and shrug at the good news.

I’m no Pollyanna. I know we’ve got problems at home. We damn sure have them around the world. Our government is coping as best as it can, or one should hope.

The budget deficit, which once was the Bogeyman of the Right, is being slain. It’s not gone yet. It’s still too great. It’s less than half of what it was when the current administration took over.

I think I’ll hoist a cold one in honor of the good news.

Boehner lawsuit comes into focus

So, now we know the basis for Speaker John Boehner’s desire to sue the president of the United States.

He is angry because the president unilaterally postponed the employer mandate provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans want to eliminate altogether, but they’re mad because they didn’t the chance to do it.

I believe that’s what I heard Boehner say today.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/211912-boehner-to-sue-over-obamacare-delay

It’s not that Barack Obama has used executive authority excessively. He hasn’t. Boehner wants to sue the president because of a single act that he had the authority to perform as chief executive of the United States of America.

This foolishness is going to proceed while:

* Veterans health care issues remain unresolved.

* Highway infrastructure plans remain unattended.

* Immigration reform is stuck in the mud.

* The president’s $3.7 billion request for emergency spending on the border crisis remains in limbo.

I’m sure I’m missing some other issues, but you get my drift.

Instead, the speaker of the House wants to ask for permission from his colleagues to sue the president because of action he took that seeks to give employers some flexibility in following through on the ACA.

This is baffling in the extreme.

Here is what former White House press secretary Jay Carney said: “The ability to postpone the deadline is clear,” Carney said. He urged reporters to “read the Federal Register,” the official docket for federal regulations, to survey similar examples of delays.

“The fact of the matter is this is not unusual, and it is evidence of the kind of flexibility and deference to the concerns and interests of, in this case, a small percentage of American businesses with more than 50 employees that you would think Republicans would support,” Carney said.

I concur with Barack Obama’s assertion that Congress wants to sue him for doing his job while the legislative branch dawdles.

Who said anything about 'blank check'?

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner says Congress won’t give President Obama a “blank check” to spend as he sees fit on trying to solve the border crisis.

Interesting, yes?

Who on God’s Green Earth said anything about writing a blank check?

“I’ll tell you this, we’re not giving the president a blank check,” Boehner said of Obama’s request for a $3.7 billion emergency fund for the humanitarian crisis. “Beyond that, we will await further discussions with our members before we make any final decisions.”

OK, Mr. Speaker. Set the ground rules for how the money should be spent if you wish.

If I heard the president correctly, all he’s asking is for you and your congressional colleagues to approve the spending request so he can deploy the resources he needs to help solve the problem of all those kids coming here from Central America.

The speaker and others in Congress — mainly Republicans — are critical of Obama for failing to act. Well, he cannot act on his own — right, Mr. Speaker? So he’s asking for money that only Congress can appropriate.

Meantime, let’s stop the sniping and get down to doing the people’s work.

Why not act on your own, Mr. President?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry reportedly posed an interesting notion to President Obama when the men met this week in Dallas to discuss the illegal immigrant/refugee border crisis on the Texas border with Mexico.

Why not take action on your own, Mr. President? Perry asked.

Interesting, yes? Obama said he responded that such executive decisiveness has produced the real threat of a lawsuit by House Speaker John Boehner, who contends Obama does too much of that kind of thing already.

No can do, governor.

Obama is pushing Congress now to act on his request for a $3.7 billion emergency spending bill to deal with the crisis that involves the flood of young immigrants coming into the United States from Central America. Congress insists the president do something about it. He has asked Congress to give him the money to do what it asks. It’s now up to Congress to, um, do what it has insisted on doing all along.

Can the president act alone? I suppose there are ways he can do a little of this and that administratively.

It’s interesting nonetheless that Gov. Perry would have made such a suggestion at a time when his Republican colleagues in Congress are considering legal action to prevent that very thing.

The ball has been kicked back to Congress. What are you going to do with it, ladies and gentlemen?

Obama to GOP: Pass the supplemental

Here is where we stand on the border crisis erupting in Texas and elsewhere on the southern border.

President Barack Obama has met with Texas Gov. Rick Perry to discuss ways to solve the problem. Obama asked Congress for $3.7 billion in supplemental aid to provide greater border security and enhance detention and repatriation efforts. The president and the governor have reached broad agreement on what to do. The next move now belongs to Congress.

Will it approve the request or will it stall?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/barack-obama-texas-immigration-108738.html?hp=t1_3

The president has called Congress out and asked lawmakers to do as he has asked and as they have insisted. Gov. Perry agrees with him — in what might one of the rarest political alignments in recent memory.

So get it done.

The president and the governor had what Obama called a “constructive” meeting. That’s a start. It’s good the men had a chance to talk things over and to settle on areas of agreement.

The border crisis didn’t just erupt overnight. It’s been years in the making. Obama now wants Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform, which includes more border officers, greater enforcement tools, and streamlining of wait times for immigrants to have their cases resolved.

Politics, of course, gets in the way of everything.

First things first. The supplemental request needs to become law. Send it to the Oval Office and let the president sign it. Now.