Barack Obama – Page 2 – Sanity First!

Obama and Israel III

Few statements bother me more than the oft-repeated assertion that “Obama is anti-Israel.” As I’ve said many times, on this blog and elsewhere, feel free to disagree with specific policies, but to say that the president of the United States is “anti” one of our closest allies is absurd. Recognize that the prefix “anti” unambiguously signals that he knowingly and intentionally takes actions designed to damage the Jewish state.

Buried within this article from Bloomberg BusinessWeek is one sentence that obliterates the ridiculous anti-Israel argument:

When it comes to aid to Israel, and specifically the all-important military aid, “…Obama has done more than his predecessors, financing the development of Israel’s Iron Dome rocket defense system on top of the annual $3 billion U.S. subsidy to the country.” (Emphasis added)

Are we clear? “More than” every other U.S. president. Ever.

Case closed.

Obama is staunchly pro-Israel. He has said so many times, often in moving and deeply personal ways, and his actions back up his words. Importantly, he has been honored and acclaimed by many prominent Israelis (not all, obviously!) repeatedly over the years he has been in the White House.

If you disagree with a particular action, great, that’s democracy. But let’s please stop the nonsense about Obama being anti-Israel.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Please pass this message on.

Ken

Where is the Democrats’ Backbone?

You’ve not heard much from me this election cycle. Aside from personal reasons (all good, I’m happy to say) I am disheartened by the way Democrats are running their campaigns; if they lose, it will be because they are wimps.

I’ve been in a number of different states over the past few months, and I watch the local political ads. Democrats have a great story to tell, but they, or their high-priced consultants, focus on tiny snippets of issues, and send out attack ads instead of reminding the electorate of the big issues.

Worse still, Democratic candidates are working hard to distance themselves from the president.

Why? If a Republican president had exactly Barack Obama’s track record, the GOP would be highlighting these positives with intense and repetitive enthusiasm…

A massive improvement in the economy. In 5 years under Obama the economy has created twice as many jobs as were created in 8 years under George W. Bush. And the stock market has soared, adding billions of dollars to middle class nest eggs.
The Federal deficit is shrinking rapidly. It’s been cut by two thirds since 2009.
Income taxes on middle-income families are near historic lows.
Millions of Americans have health care for the first time. No one can be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition.
Two wars ended or winding down.
The U.S. now produces so much energy we now are a major exporter of oil. And gasoline prices have fallen sharply (despite repeated GOP screams that under Obama prices would skyrocket).

And MANY more! For an eye-opening list of the major accomplishments under Obama, all carefully documented, click here.

If that was say, Mitt Romney’s list of accomplishments, the Fox-holers would be falling all over themselves in orgiastic glee. Their told-you-so’s would be deafening and non-stop.

But instead of reminding folks which party stands up for a higher minimum wage to keep working people out of poverty, women’s rights, minority rights, sane environmental laws, helping students with college debt, better education for all students, and so many other important issues, for the most part Democratic candidates and the ads they run stay mum about their party’s core beliefs and achievements! It’s a stupid strategy. And attack ads disgust everyone and turn people away from politics.

The polls indicate that Democrats are likely to lose control of the Senate next week. The silver lining is that in 2016 the Republicans have far more seats to defend, and it’s likely they will almost certainly cede Senate control back to the Dems after that election.

I just hope that between now and then the Democrats grow a spine.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Please pass this message on.

And if you know of someone who should be reading these messages, please provide their email address.

Better for the Economy: Reagan or Obama?

Forbes magazine and its web site, forbes.com, are owned by Steve Forbes, a former Republican presidential candidate. I say that so you will recognize that the source for this post is not some “liberal media” outlet.

In clear, devastating fashion, financial expert Robert Deitrick methodically dismantles the notion—so dearly held by Grumpy Old People—that St. Ronnie did everything better than anyone else.

Read the entire forbes.com article if you’d like, or just read this, the final paragraph (emphasis added):

Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a “smaller government.” Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy.

So the next time some ill-informed flag waver like Donald Trump (“Obama is the worst president ever!”) or any other Fox News acolyte attacks President Obama’s economic record, you now know where to turn for the facts.

As the mid-term election nears, remember that the GOP has consistently tried to block virtually every Obama initiative. Please help to counter them by supporting Democrats in any way you can. America’s future is at stake.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

Please pass this message on.

And if you know of someone who should be reading these messages, please provide their email address.

Previous Sanity First messages are archived at the blog http://sanityfirst.com/

Obamacare and the failed GOP predictions

Here’s a headline that tells you everything you need to know about the Affordable Care Act. It comes to us courtesy of the non-partisan RAND Corporation:

Survey Estimates Net Gain of 9.3 Million American Adults with Health Insurance.

Millions of Americans now have the fundamental peace-of-mind that comes from knowing they have at least minimal health insurance. That is a huge, game-changing improvement over the previous situation.

The GOP, of course, told us that Obamacare would be the ruination of our great land. That’s why the GOP-dominated House voted more than 50 times to repeal it. (Talk about insanity!) But as Bill Maher recently pointed out…

They said Obamacare would use death panels. It doesn’t. They said it was a government takeover. And the insurance industry is making record profits. They said it covers illegals. It doesn’t. They said it was a job killer. It hasn’t been.

Have you noticed that the shouting about Obamacare has started to fade as the facts have come in?

And to be fair, as Maher continued…

Now for sure Obama also told a lie. He said everyone who likes their healthcare plan can keep it. And for about 2% of the population that did turn out to be false. The difference is he stopped saying it. He stepped up and said you’re right, my bad. Because he understands there is this thing called observable reality!

(Bill was on a rant about “Zombie Lies” that Republicans tell, lies that just won’t die even in the face of overwhelming facts.)

Want more truth about the success of the ACA? Look here.

The program is certainly not perfect, but it is a success.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

Please pass this message on.

Looking Back at the First Term

You didn’t notice, but I have not posted anything since the election. (Gloating is so rude.)

To ease back into the political world, this entire post is merely hoping you take a look that this article (a chart, really) from the New York Times.

It is a blunt and fair assessment of the President’s first four years. He deserves much credit for, among other things, saving us from a full-blown Depression, ending two horribly costly wars, and beginning the difficult task of fixing our notoriously antiquated health care system .

And he clearly stumbled as well, particularly, in my view, in his handling of the housing crisis and Wall Street Reform.

Let’s hope the “New Obama” we saw at yesterday’s glorious Inauguration festivities carries through on his promises, explicit and implied, over the coming four years.

Who Are YOU Aligned With?

OK, one last shot.

Let me be blunt — If you vote for the GOP you are aligning yourself with some of the most radical, hateful, and ill-informed people in our country. Here is just one TINY example. Today I received an email from the Traditional Values Coalition (I have no idea how I got on their list, but I’m glad I am). And here are a few choice quotes from the frantic email…

I won’t bore you with the details of the last four years — you know them all too well: Obamacare, the HHS mandate, “religious toleration” replacing religious liberty, the bombshell discovery of how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds and fuels the radical left, four years where Islamists have been able to freely build radical mosques and entrench shariah in our neighborhoods and communities, the suspension of “don’t ask don’t tell” and the crackdown on our military chaplains.

A few paragraphs later…

Nowhere does the issue of friendly liberal judges have greater momentum within the homosexual and transgender left than with the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

This pet bill would — at a stroke — put transgenders in the classroom, in our small businesses, and in our government as a legally protected class… taking the legal protections for disadvantaged minorities such as women or African-Americans and appropriating them for when Marvin decides he wants to become “Mary.”

Got that? Forget about fixing the economy, protecting women’s rights, ensuring clean air and water, ending wars and helping veterans. Ignore our failing infrastructure, growing income inequality, protecting Israel and stopping Iran from getting the bomb.

You fools! Don’t you see that our really big problem is … transgenders in the classroom! Oh, how could I have been so blind?!

Dear readers, that ridiculous email is the smallest tip of a massive iceberg. The GOP depends on “low-information voters.” Vote for the GOP and you reward their massive campaign deceptions, widespread and despicable efforts to suppress voter turnout (in Democratic strongholds), and you are voting, absolutely, to turn back the clock to the disasters of the Bush years.

And you align yourself with climate change deniers, virulent and violent anti-choice groups, gay bashers, covert and overt racists, and proponents of “creationism” and other hard-core anti-science belief systems.

Why in the world would you do that?

Please vote with your head, and please urge other to do the same.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

“The Economist” Picks Obama

Here’s what you need to know about The Economist magazine.

It is based in London and is considered the world-wide paper for serious examination of economic issues,
It leans right … as do most of their readers.

True, they endorsed Obama four years ago, but clearly they are not Obama fans. In fact, their endorsement article knocks the President for a number of what they see as failings. (And truthfully, I agree with a few of them.)

Nevertheless, they look at Mr. Romney and come to the conclusion that he is a far worse alternative.

Here’s just one of the damning paragraphs (emphasis added):

Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises. Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.

The full endorsement article is here.

And in case you didn’t notice, in the past two days General Colin Powell (Secretary of State under George W. Bush) and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (billionaire businessman, former Republican and now Independent) have endorsed Barack Obama.

Finally, to my fellow citizens in the North East – I hope you and your loved ones survived Sandy and are safe and dry.

Please vote! It IS important.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

Have a comment? Please post it on the blog! Thanks.

It Should Have Been a Knockout.

As great as the President did in the second debate, it should have been a knockout. The case for four more years is rock solid. Yet the Dems don’t seem able to match Repubs when it comes to pithy sound bites.

Here’s what I mean about going for knockout punches. At one point Mitt turned to the President and asked about oil production on Federal lands. (Yawn.)

In the same way, President Obama should have asked these questions…

“Governor Romney, thanks to the Bush tax cuts you paid only 14% in Federal taxes. That saved you millions of dollars. Please tell us how many jobs you created with those extra millions? How did your personal savings – much of which you sent overseas – help America in any way? “

“Governor Romney, when you ran for office in Massachusetts you campaigned as a ‘moderate.’ During the primaries you said you are ‘severely’ conservative. Which are we to believe?”

“Governor Romney, your position on abortion changed so many times that Ted Kennedy labeled you ‘multiple choice’ and you have continued to bounce from one position to another. Isn’t it true that you change your position just to get elected?”

“Governor Romney, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center said your tax cuts will cost the government $5 trillion over the coming ten years. You say you will offset those colossal tax cuts mainly by eliminating deductions and closing loopholes. That would be a massive shift in tax policy and vast numbers of Americans must feel the pain of those changes. Tell us specifically, who will feel the pain? Homeowners? Students? Business owners? Charities? The middle class? WHO?”

“Governor Romney, for the past six years you have done nothing other than campaign for president. You had plenty of time to form your thoughts. Yet a few months ago, when you were speaking to other wealthy people, you disrespected almost half of all Americans. That was no quick flub — you spoke at length about how you can’t be concerned with those people. Since you didn’t know you were being recorded, wasn’t speaking dismissively of 47% of Americans how you really felt?”

“Governor Romney, the main thrust of your campaign is that you know how to create jobs. Yet when you ended your one term as governor (with very low approval ratings) why was your state ranked third worst in the nation for job creation?” (All fact checkers confirm that Mass. ranked 47^th. Why is that not hammered home?!)

“Governor Romney, one of the TV ads your campaign runs the most claims that I gutted welfare reform. You approved that message. But governor, every fact checker in the country has said that ad is blatantly false. Why do you keep lying to the American public? How can we believe anything you say if you personally approve an ad that is 100% false?”

President Obama, and all the other Dem talking heads, should be labeling Mitt a “Master Flip-Flopper.” That phrase should have been repeated thousands of times. Mitt says only what needs to be said at the moment. He has no core beliefs. He has flipped on abortion, gun control, Afghanistan, healthcare, access to contraception, tax policy, and on and on.

And the President should come out aggressively and say, “Yes, as a matter of fact, you are much better offtoday. “ And then he should elaborate…

The stock market is up strongly and interest rates are down sharply.
Before any of my policies could take effect unemployment went all the way up to 10%. Now it is down to 7.8%.
Hundreds of thousands of our soldiers and their families are together tonight because I ended the war in Iraq … and we are winding down the war in Afghanistan.
Millions of students have (or will have) more financial help, at lower rates, than ever before.
Millions more Americans will have health insurance, and none of you will get jerked around by insurance companies.
As Joe Biden says, General Motors is alive and Bin Laden is dead!

And above all, the President and all Democrats must pound home the message that the Romney/Ryan plan of lower taxes for the rich and reduced regulation is exactly the same as George Bush and ALL Republicans – and those are the policies that brought us to the brink of a second Great Depression. We CANNOT go back to those disastrous policies!

Romney Debates Himself

Character counts.

During the debate last week Mitt Romney looked into the camera and flat out lied. That is not an opinion. During the entire campaign, Mitt has been saying over and over that he will reduce taxes for everyone. Obama must have been flabbergasted to hear his opponent suddenly declare “I will not reduce the taxes paid by high income Americans.”

The following video has been viewed more than a million times. It would be funny if the stakes were not so serious.

Watch the one minute video. http://youtu.be/cPgfzknYd20 Then come back and read the transcript. Both the video and transcript are from the wonderful Daily Kos web site. And because you’re busy, I’ve added my own emphasis.

Mitt Romney, 10/3/12: I will not reduce the taxes paid by high income Americans.

Mitt Romney, 2/22/12: There were so many misrepresentations in there it’s going to take me a little while. Number one, I said today that we’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by twenty percent—including the top one percent.

Mitt Romney, 10/3/12: The key to great schools? Great teachers. So I reject the idea that I don’t believe in great teachers or more teachers.

Mitt Romney, 6/8/12: He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government.

Mitt Romney, 10/3/12: Actually, it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.

Mitt Romney, 3/27/12: If they’re 45 years old and they show up and they say I want insurance because I’ve got heart disease, it’s like: “Hey guys, we can’t play the game like that.” You’ve got to get insurance when you’re well, and then if you get ill, then you’re going to be covered.

It’s mind boggling. This man is running for U.S. President. I have no idea how any of this is defensible.

Mitt vs. Mitt is a recurring theme. He was a “moderate Republican” when he ran in Massachusetts, but now he swears he is “severely conservative.” He spoke back then with passion about a woman’s right to choose; now he holds a radical right anti-abortion stance. And of course, he argued with skill about the merits of Obamacare, back when it was Romneycare.

Character counts. He won’t release his tax returns because, as Ann Romney said, it will provide “ammunition” to his opponents. (The gold-standard for transparency regarding tax returns when running for president was set by Gov. George Romney, Mitt’s father. George released 12 years of returns.)

Please, please pass this on to others. Or at least send the video link to people you know who will vote. Here’s the link again…

http://youtu.be/cPgfzknYd20

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken

Have a comment? Please post it on the blog! Thanks.

Do The Math!

Ah, the debate. Those of us who support Mr. Obama were shocked by his apparent lack of combativeness in the first debate. But then I thought back to what I learned when going for my Master’s degree in Communication years ago: at the time of the very first televised debates, voters who watched on TV (the majority) gave the clear victory to Kennedy. Those, however, who listened on radio gave the edge to Nixon.

Now, I am not going to compare our current president with Tricky Dickey. But in reading excerpts of the recent debate, it becomes clear that Mr. Obama did land some body blows.

Specifically, let’s focus on the sword play around the “$5 trillion tax cut.” The president said that’s how much Mitt’s tax cut plan would reduce revenue over the next decade, and independent non-partisan studies back up that claim (well, they actually come up with “only” $4.8 trillion, but a little rounding is permissible).

The former governor says his proposal is “revenue neutral.” That means while the federal government would be taking in much less money via taxes, his plan will “pay for” those reduced revenues by having the government spend much less. In other words, one dollar less in tax will be offset by one dollar not spent. This is the crux of the issue. But HOW will he pay for those tax cuts? If he cannot offset those tax cuts, he explodes the deficit.

Mr. Obama pounced: “He is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he’s been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn’t been able to identify them.”

That is correct. In TV and radio interviews, in press interviews, both Mr. Romney and Rep. Ryan sidestep the specifics. They want us to trust them. They have some secret sauce that will magically close deductions and loopholes, and the Congress will happily go along.

For anyone who knows anything about real-world politics, this is insane. Armies of lobbyists would swamp Capitol Hill fighting furiously to preserve their favorite tax break. And they will win many of those fights, just as they always have in the past.

Mitt gave a great performance at the first debate. But that’s all it was – a performance. The more his script is analyzed, the more we see that it was a sad charade.

For a balanced look at how the math does and doesn’t add up, check out this article from Bloomberg News.

Thanks for caring about the truth.

Ken