out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement
ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity
Monday, November 21, 2011
By John A. Ostenburg
Every time I pick up a newspaper, turn on a television news station, or read a commentary on the internet, I hear the same thing: Barack Obama is in trouble and his re-election chances are iffy at best.
And, truthfully, there are only two basic reasons the pundits put forth as the basis for his election trouble: (1) the bad economy that President Obama inherited hasn’t magically improved overnight, and (2) he can’t get anything through the 112th Congress of the United States.
Now the pundits’ argument seems to me to defy logic for several reasons.
First of all, the bad economic conditions that Mr. Obama has been unable to completely turn around were created during a Republican administration and that administration played a key role in allowing them to happen. Given that fact, why on earth would voters want to elect another Republican president at this time? Because Mr. Obama can’t walk on water?
Secondly, the current congress matches the famed “do-nothing” congress of 1947-1949, when Republicans at that time blocked virtually every proposal put forth by President Harry S Truman. And know what? In the election of 1948 not only did Mr. Truman prove all the pundits of his day wrong by winning re-election, voters also threw out the Republican majorities in both the House and Senate after their brief two-year tenure of being in charge.
I think the same thing may happen in November 2012.
I happen to believe that Barack Obama has been a very effective president during his first three years in office, especially considering the huge number of roadblocks that have been thrown in his way – some naturally, and some not so. My belief isn’t based on the fact that I’m a lifelong Democrat, nor on the fact that the President hails from my home state (he may have been born in Hawaii, but he was an Illinois resident when elected to the White House and his voting residence remains in Chicago). Rather, my opinion of Mr. Obama’s performance is based on the facts.
Health Care – It may not be as complete a bill as some would have desired, but Mr. Obama’s health care initiative is the most far-reaching since Medicare was created during the administration of President Lyndon Johnson. Mr. Johnson managed to pass Medicare because he had a solid majority in Congress, which had massively gone Democratic in the elections of 1964 as an aftermath to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Medicare first was proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt as a component of the Social Security Act but failed to pass the Congress at that time. President Truman also tried to get national health insurance for the elderly enacted but failed to do so. It was on the agenda of President Kennedy before his administration came to a sudden halt on November 22, 1963. The post-Johnson extension of health insurance to a larger population than just the elderly had been a major item for President Bill Clinton, but his efforts also failed. What President Obama was able to accomplish, with a slight Democratic majority in Congress during his first two years in office (especially given that many of those Democrats were almost as conservative as some Republicans), truly was a wonder.
The Economy – The Obama administration was overly optimistic about the extent to which the National Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 would positively change our national economy, and it shared that optimism with the American public. As a result, because the Recovery Act didn’t accomplish as much as had been anticipated, too many people view it as a failure. It wasn’t. In fact, it made major steps in stopping the extremely rapid down-hill slide that was occurring when Mr. Obama took office in January of 2009. The U.S. auto industry was saved, and that meant thousands of jobs protected. Major public works projects were undertaken across the U.S., putting construction workers back on the job and allowing them to earn money to keep their families in their homes and to keep food on the table. And – perhaps one of the most crucial components of the Act – unemployment benefits were extended for those who were out of work and unable to find a job. The Recovery Act was an investment in America and its people and it worked.
Jobs – Even before Mr. Obama introduced the American Jobs Act – a monumental undertaking that has the potential of restoring the U.S. economy to its former position at the same time that it addresses major national needs, such as infrastructure repairs and improvements – private sector jobs were on the increase. The major component of increases in unemployment over the last several months has been the loss of public sector jobs. As governments are receiving fewer tax dollars because of the economic downturn, more and more state and local governmental workers have been laid off. Jobs, however, are increasing in the private sector, at a rate of about 100,000 per month, and much of that growth is directly attributable to federal policies initiated by the Obama administration.
Terrorism and America at War – Democrats always are described by Republicans as being soft on national security. What a myth! Who oversaw the removal of Osama bin Laden and other key figures within Al-Qaeda? Who gave U.S. support to those seeking to end lengthy dictatorships in Egypt and Libya? Who has brought closure to the U.S. engagement in Iraq, restoring that nation to self-reliance and withdrawing our troops from that country? Mr. Obama’s predecessor issued a dramatic proclamation of victory in Iraq when he made a tailhook landing onto the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln; that publicity stunt occurred in May 2003, but the real end of the conflict was eight years in the coming. It is President Obama who has ended the U.S. presence in Iraq and who is bringing U.S. troops back home.
The Deficit – Republicans like to say the deficit is growing because of policies of the Obama administration. Again, a myth! The two major causes of the current U.S. deficit are (1) the hugely costly two wars that have been going on for nearly 10 years, and (2) the reduction in revenue coming to the federal government because of the huge tax cuts that the Bush administration gave to the wealthiest Americans. The current tax rate on the wealthiest Americans (those who earn about $350,000 or more) is between 30 and 40 percent. That’s the lowest since the Great Depression, when taxes on the wealthy were at about 25 percent. During the time that Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, the wealthiest Americans paid taxes at a rate of about 70 percent; during Republican Ronald Reagan, it was about 50 percent. At the same time that George W. Bush dramatically escalated U.S. costs by engaging in two wars (USA Today estimated in 2010 that the cost of the two wars was approximately $1 trillion per year), he cut the revenue that could pay for those wars by reducing taxes on the wealthy. By withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, and by seeking an end to the conflict in Afghanistan, President Obama is advancing a key component for bringing the deficit under control; by urging Congress to return the tax rate for the wealthiest of U.S. citizens to the level it was at before the Bush cuts, he is advancing the next best key component to deficit reduction.
These are just a few high points of the Obama administration’s accomplishments. And, meanwhile, there are some areas – such as education, the environment, and immigration – where solid administration proposals have been put on the back-burner while some of the more crucial issues are given more comprehensive attention. We can only hope, in a second Obama administration, that more of those other issues will be given major attention.
Whatever accomplishments President Obama has had, however, have not come without battles with his opponents. Can anyone ever recall any other president whose place of birth has been contested? Even at the highest point of anti-Vietnam protest, were either President Johnson or President Richard M. Nixon subjected to the personal insults that have been hurled at Mr. Obama? The venom that being spewed by his opponents is unprecedented in the history of the U.S. presidency.
But I think my final reason for being convinced that Mr. Obama will be successful in his re-election bid is the cast of characters on the Republican side who are vying to be his November 2012 opponent.
Mitt Romney can’t make up his mind on what be believes. Rick Perry can’t remember what he believes. Michele Bachmann can’t get U.S. history straight. Herman Cain constantly refers to himself in the third person, perhaps as a way of not owning up to some of his past questionable behavior with women. Newt Gingrich does remember his past womanizing, but says he was unfaithful to two wives because of his patriotism. Ron Paul believes in tradition: he thinks that people who can’t afford health care should just die as they have in the past. No one knows what the other two candidates think because they never gain the media attention that the six front(?)runners do.
So, bottom line? I think the pundits are wrong. I think Barack Obama will win re-election. I also think the Democrats will regain control of the U.S. Congress. Now, let’s hope that Mr. Obama and his Democratic compatriots will spent the four years between 2013 and 2017 putting in place some of those back-burner items that so far have not been given the attention they deserve.
John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.
Hi, The above articles is very impressive, http://www.xrumer.mobi
Posted by: Donvur | 02/12/2012 at 03:17 AM