Weekly Address: Priorities on Taxes

Basically, the President's plan for spending was to let the Bush tax cuts expire, for the wealthy, and freeze discretionary spending. Republicans, meanwhile, want to extend the Bush tax cuts for all citizens, and underfund or outright un-fund large portions of government, in order to return discretionary expenditures to 2008 levels ─ as if we weren't running a deficit before Obama took office. Neither plan is good, but Obama's is about $200billion better.

2 things currently not on the table:

Defense Spending
Nationally, we need to acknowledge that while it's unfortunately necessary to maintain a standing military, the defense budget is bloated and certain programs very likely deserve to be on the chopping block, as much as anything else in the budget. Pay and benefits for military personnel and veterans ought not be touched, but anything else can and should be looked at.

Tax Increases
The tax code needs a solid review & simplification ─ loopholes need to be closed, effectively raising taxes ─ after that, taxes may still need to be raised as a second step. The conventional wisdom says, any tax increase is political suicide and conservative ideology states taxes undermine personal liberty or the free market economy. Still, I believe a new tax, with a finite duration of no more than 10 years, dedicated exclusively for the elimination of the national debt and coupled with comprehensive reform of the congressional budgeting process & the Federal Reserve Bank. Deficit spending shouldn't happen.

Since I'm talking about raising taxes, I should address the accusations of class warfare, socialism, and wealth redistribution ─ frankly, by enabling and fostering trade through the railways, interstate highways and airports the federal government has disproportionately benefited the rich, without mentioning corporate welfare in the form of government contracts & subsidies ─ compared to what the poor get from Medicaid or welfare and the middle-class gets from Medicare and Social Security (a traditionally & deliberately self-sustaining program).

Whether it was intended to, the federal government now exists as the only means to fight the oligarchical interests of Wall Street; while maintaining the infrastructures which have enabled modern business to prosper.

Weekly Address: Working Together on the Economy

Obama's rhetoric switched back toward an advocation of bipartisanship, something he'd seemed to abandon early in Aught-Nine. He's also rocking a violet tie and deep-purple suit, while the video itself has slightly purple cast to it ─ I don't want to call it subliminal messaging ─ but, the tie and suit definitely offer a subtle and deliberate statement, combining the Republican Red and Democratic Blue, whereas the skewed colour in the video may be incidental or just my eyes. I'm genuinely impressed and optimistic after this weeks address, something Obama hasn't inspired in me for a while.

The President's rhetorical shift itself, is coloured by his Wednesday interview with Jon Stewart, and perhaps Jon Stewart's Rally To Restore Sanity. But, the looming contextual punctuation is the 2010 Midterm Election results ─ common wisdom is that Republicans will regain the House and the Democrats will lose their super-majority but maintain control of the Senate ─ the overall message is, therefore, conciliatory.

What I like, is that this address seems to pick up on the tone which national politics have been taking on at the local level. There seems to be discordant harmony among conservatives and heavy dejection among the liberals, both of which play into an apathetic malaise afflicting the non-affiliated and centrists. It feels like it doesn't matter who you vote for ─ not because there's no substantive difference between the parties ─ not because there are fascist cabals controlling the government ─ but because the House and more especially the Senate, follow arcane & defunct rules of procedure.

If the President finally gets it, and if the Democratic party follows his lead, and if the Republicans understand that their victories represent a referendum on the state of politics and government (not on their Democratic opposition), maybe we will see some cooperation, leading to long-overdue institutional reforms in the Congress.

Vote.

President's Weekly Address: Letting Wall Street Run Wild Again

An integral part of candidate Barack Obama's presidential platform, was a promise to maintain a transparent administration; with the predictable caveats (for national security & etc) in place. Undoubtedly, this President and his Cabinet, have been more readily accessible to the news media, than his predecessor was. Meanwhile Organizing for America ─ the grassroots organization behind Obama's election campaign ─ has been leveraged to trumpet his message across the landscape of new media.
[Facebook Likes: 15,172,983 | Twitter Followers: 711,666 | YouTube Views: 154,149,236]

Presidents Weekly Address: The Republican Corporate Power Grab

I believe President Obama is referring to H.R. 5175, which reads as a potent reform of campaign financing, right up until the final clause of the bill:

Title IV - Other Provisions:

Section 401-
Authorizes judicial review of the provisions of this Act by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and on appeal by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Grants Members of Congress the right to: (1) bring an action to challenge the constitutionality of a provision of this Act; or (2) intervene in any action challenging the constitutionality of a provision of this Act, either in support of or opposition to the position of a party to the case.

Section 402-
Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any provision of law, rule, or regulation which waives a requirement to disclose information relating to any person in any case in which there is a reasonable probability that the information disclosure would subject the person to threats, harassments, or reprisals.

Corporations are limited liability legal entities and legal personages. These facts combined, are the reason for the majority decision on the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling and subsequent outrage from certain factions in Washington DC. All persons in the US have the right to freedom of expression and corporations are debatably people.

So, H.R. 5175, Title IV, Section 402 simply undermines the entire bill: corporations and similar legal entities are legal persons and are therefore shielded by the wording of the section, especially if a boycott legally constitutes a "reprisal."

Image via Wikipedia

There is a perspective, represented by Justice Antonin Scalia, essentially arguing that corporations are people working in unison, therefore limiting corporate rights (in fact) limits human rights. As rational as this perspective may seem, I vehemently disagree.

Corporations are contrived legal shelters─ minimizing taxes paid, limiting legal liability, etc. amongst investors─ people who constitute an elite class within our country. With the benefits that come from incorporating, it seems reasonable that there would be various trade-offs for that entity, but not the individual investors. Limiting corporate rights has no bearing on individual rights. What would be, and has been for the last century, denied to them is the ability to directly fund political propaganda from corporate coffers, under 1st Amendment protection.

The threat here lies in the fact corporations (foreign or domestic) could outright buy elections through direct marketing campaigns and there's little chance the general public will know who financed the winning ad-campaign. Candidates should be beholden to the people who voted for them, not to the corporations that financed their campaigns and this was a major challenge prior to the Citizens United v. CEF ruling.


Researching this, I became extremely disappointed in the Republicans: I want a minority party to act as a firewall for bad legislation, not a brick-wall for progress.