The Outpost Observer

Pundits may be wrong about Obama re-election chances

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 112^th 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.

To whom were voters sending a message? Barack Obama or Anthony Wiener?

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

Thursday, September 15, 2011 

By John A. Ostenburg

Political pundits have been pontificating for the last several days that the special election in New York's 9th Congressional District on September 13 -- in which newcomer Bob Turner took the seat formerly held by enscandaled (it's fun to make up new words!) former Congressman Anthony D. Weiner -- is a sign that President Barack Obama's re-election is in jeopardy.

Those pundits, along with some Republican officials who like to blame the President for everything, maintain that the special election was a referendum on the President's policies. They say the fact that a heavily Democratic district, one that had not elected a Republican since 1920, went to the GOP challenger is a clear indication that Mr. Obama's policies are unfavorable with the traditional liberal wing of the Democratic Party as well as the conservative tea-party folks who have taken over the Republican Party.

But is that really the case? Was it really a referendum on the President's policies. Maybe that was a part of it, but was it really the major reason behind the victory in a heavily Democratic, Jewish district by Mr. Turner, a 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic whose only claim to fame previously had been a stint as a producer for the Jerry Springer Show?

Actually, political history offers a much different explanation.

Truth be told, one of the easiest things to predict in American electoral politics is that when a current officeholder gets in trouble, he (this simply never happens to women politicians!) is going to be replaced by someone of the other political party. Examples of this are legion.

Earlier in 2011, also in New York, Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican Jane Corwin in a heavily GOP district where a special election was being held to replace Congressman Christopher Lee. Mr. Lee had resigned his seat after bring caught placing personal ads on Craigslist in which he was shown shirtless. It was a little less provocative than some of the photos of his genitals that the married Mr. Weiner had sent to women friends, but it was scandalous behavior by the also married Mr. Lee nonetheless.

That time, the media and Democratic opinion-makers insisted that Ms. Hochul's win was because of the budget Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives had put forth, which would have positioned both Medicare and Social Security on the endangered species list.

Really, though, I think the voters were just angry because their Congressman had made a fool of them and they voiced their outrage in the best way they knew. I think that's also what happened in the election to pick Mr. Weiner's replacement.

The two New York races this year follow a pattern that's been present in several other political races in the past.

In 1980, Democratic Congressman John Jenrette was defeated by Republican challenger John Light Napier after Mr. Jenrette was involved in two scandals, one being his conviction for bribery in the Abscam investigation and the other involving a late-night sexual encounter with his then wife -- Rita -- on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. The latter event was a God-send for late-night comedians looking for good copy.

The South Carolina 6th Congressional District was in Republican hands for only two-years and Mr. Napier was defeated in the next general election by Democrat Robert Fallon Jr. who subsequently served five terms. He was succeeded in 1993 by Congressman James Clyburn who is presently an assistant Democratic leader in the U.S. House. Clearly the district is a Democratic one, albeit voters elected a Republican in 1980 to show their outrage over Mr. Jenrette's behavior.

In 1983, Congressman Dan Crane from Illinois' downstate 19th District admitted to an affair with a 17-year-old female page and was censured by his colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives. Although he had served in Congress for six years, he subsequently was defeated by Democrat Terry Bruce in 1984. A married man with strong conservative political leanings, Mr. Crane was judged by many as being guilty of hypocrisy by his behavior.

By contrast, the same congressional investigation that revealed Mr. Crane's affair also revealed that openly gay Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts had an affair with a 17-year-old male page, albeit a consensual one. Although he was censured at the same time as Mr. Crane, Mr. Studds retained his congressional seat and served a total of 12 two-year terms representing the Massachusetts 10th Congressional District.

Similarly, Congressman Barney Frank who represents the Massachusetts 4th District and also is openly gay, became involved in 1985 with a male prostitute for whom he subsequently fixed 33 parking tickets. He also was reprimanded by a 408-18 vote of his colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives but continues to be re-elected and now is serving his 16th two-year term in the House.

Obviously, Massachusetts' voters don't feel the same level of resentment against openly gay elected officials who engage in gay relationships as other voters do toward those they view as being hypocritical in their behaviors.

In 1994, voters in Chicago's heavily Democratic 5th Congressional District gave the boot to their longtime congressman, Dan Rostenkowski, after it was revealed that he had been involved in matters that resulted in mail fraud charges against him. Mr. Rostenkowski, chair of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee, was decisively defeated by Republican Michael Flanagan. After serving 18 terms in the House, he served his last term in the "Big House."

Mr. Flanagan only represented the district for one term, being defeated in his 1996 re-election bid by Democrat Rod Blagojevich, who held the congressional seat for six years before being elected as Illinois Governor. He was succeeded by another Democrat, current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who also served six years before resigning to become chief of staff to President Obama. The seat remains in Democratic hands today and is represented by Congressman Mike Quigley.

Again, the voters selection of a Republican in 1994 was not an indication of dissatisfaction with Democratic policy; rather, it was a protest to the offensive behavior of Mr. Rostenkowski in whom voters had so long placed their trust.

Mr. Blagojevich became Illinois' 40th governor in a similar set of circumstances. The incumbent Republican governor -- George Ryan -- was subject of a long investigation into corrupt practices and ultimately was convicted and sentenced to prison. At the time of Mr. Blagojevich's election, the Governor's Mansion had been in Republican hands for more than a quarter of a century.

Ironically, Mr. Blagojevich himself became the object of scandal when -- among other misdeeds -- he tried to sell the vacant U.S. Senate seat that formerly was held by President Obama. He was impeached by Illinois lawmakers and subsequently was convicted on numerous counts. His successor, Pat Quinn, is a maverick Democrat who is a stark contrast to Mr. Blagojevich; nonetheless, Mr. Quinn had a hard time with his election and nearly was defeated, in large part because of the anger Illinois' voters felt toward his Democratic predecessor.

In 2006, Republican Congressman Mark Foley of Florida's 16th Congressional District admitted that he had sent sexually explicit e-mail messages to a male 16-year-old former congressional page. Though he stepped down from his post prior to the election, his name was on the ballot nonetheless. His Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, scored a decisive victory against him in that year's election.

Mr. Mahoney himself became the object of scandal shortly afterwards when it was alleged that he had paid hush money to his former mistress in an effort to keep his affair secret. He was defeated in 2008 by Republican Tom Rooney who has held the seat ever since.

Again, the only dissatisfaction being shown by voters was against their elected representatives who misbehaved. It wasn't dissatisfaction with political policies.

The preceding are but a handful of examples of how voters have reacted to scandal by seeking change that is temporary and more a reaction to the bad behavior of their elected representatives than to any significant policy disagreements. As such, while it would be naive not to recognize that some of the voters in the recent New York 9th Congressional District special election indeed may have been expressing dissatisfaction with President Obama's policies when they cast their votes, it also is naive to think that was the major reason why the district went Republican in that contest.

Make a note to follow up on this issue next November. Will the 2012 election prove the pundits correct? Or might I be a little more accurate in my belief that the message voters were sending on September 13 was intended more for Mr. Weiner than for President Obama?

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 posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and school administrator. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

Maybe it's time to really 'give peace a chance'

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

Sunday, September 5, 2010 

By John A. Ostenburg

Recently I had the opportunity to hear a lecture by Kathy Kelly, coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence. Her announced topic was "U.S. Drone Warfare in Pakistan and Afghanistan," but actually her talk covered a much wider scope of things. Really, her presentation should have been promoted with the old John Lennon song title, "Give Peace a Chance."

 

A longtime peace activist and currently one of the Creech 14 -- fourteen protesters arrested in Spring 2009 for trespassing on government property at the Creech Air Force Base in Nevada -- Ms. Kelly has spent lots of time in mideast war zones and has a first-hand knowledge of the devastating effects that modern combat techniques have on the wellbeing of native populations. As she points out, many of the victims of conflict in the mideast are so undereducated as not to understand even remotely what is happening to them, or why.

 

That, she said, is the reason the U.S. and its allies are making so little progress in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and in other areas with large rural populations that live in truly primitive conditions: because our government policy is predicated on the notion that the population wants us fighting there in order to bring about democratic governments. In fact, she maintains, the population has no idea of what "democracy" means but does have a clear understanding that missiles and bombs sent into their homes by "the great satan" are killing their mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, grandparents, brothers, sisters, cousins, and neighbors. She said key advisors to U.S. military leadership have exposed this dilemma time and again, but the Defense Department personal and the generals seem powerless in stopping actions that they themselves have initiated. They're like gamblers who keep chasing their losses, confident that the next throw of the dice or spin of the roulette wheel will make it all well again (my analogy, not hers).

 

The use of drones is particularly problematic, according to Ms. Kelly, because they seem to diminish accountability on the part of those who activate them. She compared the military personnel who deploy the drones, operating from a location thousands of miles away, to youngsters engaged in computer combat who use their joysticks to eliminate or compromise an opponent in some virtual combat scenario. Almost as confirmation of that opinion, an audience member said her own youngsters believe drones are beneficial weapons of warfare because they minimize the potential that they might be drafted into actual combat. Ms. Kelly said that may be true, but it doesn't justify the thousands of deaths that occur -- often to innocent victims and not to enemy combat troops -- as a result of the drones being used in seek and destroy missions by U.S. forces operating from their remote locations.

 

It was in protest to the use of drones that Ms. Kelly and her thirteen compatriots crossed into the property of Creech AFB on April 10, 2009. They said they desired to engage in conversation with the Air Force personnel on the base who actually operate the Predator and Reaper drone missiles that are used in combat in the war zones of Afghanistan and adjacent regions. Instead of being given that opportunity, they were arrested for illegally entering government property. They are scheduled for trial in Clark County, Nevada, on September 14.

 

In part, Ms. Kelly's talk before a group of 100 or more at St. Irenaeus Church in Park Forest was intended to help raise funds for the defense of the Creech 14. Equally as important to her, however, was her goal of convincing her audience and anyone to whom they might in turn reach out, that somebody needs to do something about war and violence. Ms. Kelly made the argument that world peace can be effected if a sufficient number of people get behind the effort. She pointed to the civil rights movement in the United States as an example of how a prevailing national attitude was changed as a result of hard work on the part of a number of dedicated proponents of equality for all races. She told her audience that she sincerely believes the same is possible as regards world peace.

 

While I agree with Ms. Kelly in principle, that the sincere and consistent efforts of even a handful eventually can reap genuine rewards, I also am inclined to believe that it is extremely difficult to control the behaviors of any individuals -- or even nations -- who have hatred in their hearts. Turning the cheek is a personal act that any one of us can take (I might even say, should take), but those charged with the responsibility of protecting the public at large face additional responsibilities that reach beyond that. As Christians, Ms. Kelly and her compatriots do well to imitate the actions of Jesus Christ in how he showed love for those who extended ill toward him; however, even Jesus took up the whip to expel the money-changers in the Temple because of the social ill they were spreading.

 

As such, I find it difficult to accept that absolute pacifism is enough to effect the kind of change that Ms. Kelly would like to see. Lest we forget, law enforcement also was a necessary component of the changes that ultimately brought major controls on racial hatred in the 1960s and 1970s. People had to be arrested, sentenced, and sent to jail; federal officers often had to engage in strong tactics in order to bring the wrongdoers to their knees. And -- even with all the combined efforts of peaceful protest and effective law enforcement -- things today are far from perfect and the ugly head of racism still rises all too often and spews its hateful venom.

 

So, from my perspective, it is legitimate for the U.S. to seek to curtail hateful acts by Al-Qaeda and/or the Taliban. But I also believe the methods we employ in our efforts at self-protection must likewise be legitimate.

 

The "just war" theory has its roots in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and lays out various particulars that create justification for why a nation might go to war. Actions that have lasting and serious harmful effects and for which all other means of finding solution have been exhausted -- for example, the extermination of 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime in Germany -- generally are regarded as legitimate reason for going to war. However, as theologians point out, the tactics of war that are used by the parties engaging in a "just war" must not be even more harmful than what is intended to be corrected. Use of the atom bomb in the Pacific theater during World War II raises some questions for me in that regard. Likewise the use of drone missiles and scatter bombs in the conflicts of today.

 

Over the past 15 years, a gentleman named Greg Mortenson has been establishing schools in remote areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to bring education to children -- especially young girls -- who otherwise probably never would learn to read or write. He has documented his work in a highly acclaimed book, Three Cups of Tea, and recently wrote a second volume on his work, Stones Into Schools. He established the Central Asia Institute after he encountered difficulty in a mountain-climbing expedition in Afghanistan and then received kind treatment from locals. As a "thank you" for the local people's kindness, he decided -- against great odds -- to bring schooling to the children of the region.

 

Mr. Mortenson says the cost of educating one child in Afghanistan or Pakistan is approximately $1 per month. By contrast, I've read that the cost of one drone missile is about $100,000. While I believe that the U.S. needs to take every necessary step to assure that our nation is protected against attacks by terrorists, I can't help but think that we'd have a lot more luck in fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by putting more of our tax dollars into Mr. Mortenson's efforts to improve the life for locals than we will have by continuing to pour funds into more drone missiles to destroy what little quality of life those residents may otherwise enjoy.

 

Maybe doing so would be a better avenue for giving world peace a chance.

 

 

John A. Ostenburg is mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He recently retired as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

Democrats need to step up and offer support for President Obama

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

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 

By John A. Ostenburg

Why do Democrats let the Republicans get away with so much?

Nearly every problem that the current administration of President Barack Obama is facing is the result of something that occurred during the time that former President George W. Bush was in office. Yet, the Republicans continually jump on every reform effort that the Obama administration puts forth and in response the Democrats are silent instead of shouting from the rooftops: "But YOU caused it!"

Yes, health care reform is costly. Yes, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are losing propositions. Yes, the U.S. economy is in the dumps. Yes, schools need more money. Yes, U.S. prestige around the world isn't very high at the moment. But are any of these problems the fault of Barack Obama?

It's true that health care reform has been a need going back to the turn of the century but Republicans have been on the wrong side of the issue for decades. Don't forget, they did everything possible to prevent such programs as Medicare and Medicaid from becoming reality. After Democratic-controlled legislatures passed these measures under the leadership of a Democratic-controlled White House, the GOP naysayers warned of a drastic socialistic takeover of the nation as a result.

How ironic that it's the same naysayers who today are claiming to want protection for Medicare against the (once-again!) "socialistic" reforms that Mr. Obama is asking for.

Remember the proposed health care reforms of the Clinton administration? Those efforts were sabotaged by GOP opponents working in concert with the insurance industry. Despite the crocodile-tears shed by the imaginary characters of Harry and Louise in expensive television commercials sponsored by the Health Insurance Association of America, the Clinton reform proposals would have helped avoid much of the crisis the nation currently is facing regarding health care. Instead, insurance costs have escalated since the Clinton administration (which means during the "W" years) and the only beneficiaries have been (1) the insurance companies themselves whose profits have soared, and (2) the anti-reform members of Congress whose rewards have been hugh campaign contributions from those same firms.

Now comes forward Barack Obama with proposals to improve health care for all Americans, to cut costs for health insurance, to assure that all Americans can afford to live a healthy lifestyle, and who's on the other side once again? The Republicans.

And the Democrats are silent.

And don't get me started about our nation's current involvement in international conflicts.

Whose idea was it to invade Iraq under the false claim that Saddam Hussein had hidden weapons of mass destruction? Under whose administration was Osama Bin Laden allowed to escape into the mountains of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, pulling behind him the life-support system needed to offset his kidney problems. Universally it's accepted that these two military endeavors by the U.S. are costly failures. Yet, efforts by the Obama administration to halt the hemorrhaging of U.S. dollars into the sands and rocks of those two countries is met by GOP criticism that he's soft on terrorists.

If Dick Cheney is so hot on fighting terrorists, maybe President Obama should issue him a uniform, a rifle, and a commission and send him to the front lines. Maybe -- just maybe -- Mr. Cheney might be able to shoot Mr. Osama in the face. That's if he can convince the terrorist to be his hunting partner.

How outrageous that Dick Cheney -- known for his silent back-room maneuvering during W's presidency -- now takes to weekly television shows to assume self-appointed national leadership status. Could his real motive be to discount any potential future evidence that might come forward about his hand in lots of illegal moves while he served as vice president?

And yet, the Democrats are silent.

The economy? Republicans like to say Mr. Obama is failing in his economic recovery efforts of a mere eight months, with no mention of the reality that it took George W. Bush eight years to get us in the mess we presently face. Has anyone taken a look at the statistics lately? The U.S. surplus for Fiscal Year 2000 -- the year Mr. W. was elected as president -- was $230 billion. For Mr. Bush's last year in office, the deficit was $482 billion. That's a loss of $712 billion in eight years. And why exactly is that the fault of the Obama administration?

And the Democrats are silent.

No Child Left Behind left all the funding behind. Democrats gave their support to Mr. Bush's educational reform efforts with the hope that this was one area where he might make a difference. The teachers' unions also supported the initial concepts. But it was a shell game. With no funds to support its requirements on school districts and teachers across the country, NCLB was a colossal failure. But the Obama administration's efforts to make reforms such as NCLB meaningful are criticized by the GOP as merely "throwing money at a problem."

And the Democrats remain silent.

The image of the U.S. abroad is one of an arrogant giant unmindful and uncaring about the feelings of the rest of the world. To a large extent, foreign hatred of the U.S. is the cause of many terrorist acts against us. President Obama has sought to mend fences. The Republicans criticize him for doing so. Some even go so far as to claim his efforts to establish an improved presence in the eyes of the rest of the world are due to the erroneous claim that he's not really a U.S. citizen and therefore shouldn't be president anyway. Despite proof upon proof, the right-wing "birthers" insist that the president wasn't born in the U.S. and is a usurper.

And the Democrats are silent.

I remember as a kid that I once had to write 1,000 times that "Silence is golden; speech is silver." It was in response to my nun-teacher's objection to my speaking out in class on something that she thought was best left unsaid. I fear that too many Democrats had that same nun in class at some time in their past and that they took her admonition a little too seriously.

It's time to get "silver," Democrats!

John A. Ostenburg is mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He is the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

Let's get back to basics on reform of U.S. health insurance system

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

Thursday, August 20, 2009 

By John A. Ostenburg

Lots of people are trying to make the Washington debate on health care much more complicated than it should be.

Actually it's really about only two issues: (1) making sure that the millions of Americans who presently have no health insurance are able to get the coverage they need, and (2) protecting those who presently do have health insurance from the kind of skyrocketing increases in their premiums that have been occurring in recent years.

At a time when the nation's economy is in the basement and unemployment is at dangerously high levels, the first of the items is doubly important. Since so much health insurance in the U.S. is offered through employers, persons who lose their jobs also lose their coverage. What that means is that the rolls of uninsured citizens is likely to increase over the months ahead. Unless the folks who are losing their jobs are able to find work where they can regain their insurance coverage, they're out of luck.

The second item also is important to workers. Increasing insurance rates have led many employers to insist that the employee pick up a larger portion of the costs. At the same time, many firms are not giving their workers salary increases because they claim profits are going more and more to cover health insurance costs. Increases in premium costs, therefore, reach directly into the pockets of members of the public.

Americans who have insurance constantly are telling their political leaders and media representatives that they like what they have. The question, however, that needs to be asked is this: "Like it or not, will you be able to afford it unless some kind of reform occurs?" No matter how much you may like your doctor, if you don't have health insurance -- whether due to losing a job or simply because you are not able to afford keeping up with premium costs -- it's highly unlikely you'll be able to keep seeing him or her without some kind of assistance from someone, be it family member, friend or neighbor, or the government.

While lots of Americans may not recognize what the true issues of the current debate are, you can be sure that the bigwig insurance lobbyists and the legislators they support see things with eagle eyes. They know they've had a great ride over the last few years, doubling insurance rates regardless of what their actual costs may have been. They've been in control, with the power to deny coverage at will even for persons who have paid thousands of dollars in premiums for years before unfortunately being struck with some major illness. They've been free to say "no" to persons seeking insurance coverage because of the potential that some pre-existing condition may force a payout down the road. This latter matter is a major reason why we have so many uninsured residents in the U.S. today.

Because the real reason behind their opposition to health reform is so blatantly self-serving, the insurance moguls and their political serfs have had to find a way to stop the process without exposing their true hand. So, they've planted fears among the public: death panels, socialized medicine, rationed care, reductions in Medicare. Anything to get segments of the population that already distrust government to be even more distrustful of government's efforts to reform health care.

Too many legislators lack the fortitude to stand up to the kind of opposition the insurance industry is pushing, so they've caved in and have proposed bills that cut back here or cut back there, and ultimately offer no true reform at all. So while there are so-called reform bills in the hopper, the content of those bills is of limited value because they either are impossible to pass in both the House and Senate or because they are so watered down as to be totally ineffective.

So what can be done.

It seems to me that there's really only one solution available at this point: true presidential leadership. What President Barack Obama needs to do is show the kind of courage he did on a cold February morning in 2007 on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, when he took on members of his own political party and those of the opposing party in declaring his candidacy for the presidency. What he was embarking on at that moment was a challenge much more severe than the current health insurance dilemma, but he was successful because he was courageous and took control of his own destiny. He needs to do that again.

President Obama needs to send his own bill to Congress, rather than rely on the half-measures that weak-kneeded legislators have put forth. He needs to be courageous in stating clearly that (1) we need health insurance coverage for every American, and (2) we need to set limits on how high premium costs can go. End of story.

Then the President needs to tell Congress, both the members of his own political party and those of the opposition party, in as forthright a manner as possible: "Give the American public what it wants, needs, and deserves, or be prepared to go back home at election time and suffer its wrath."

And he needs to add, "Oh, did I forget to tell you? I'll be on their side!"

John A. Ostenburg is mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He is the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.