Occupy Wall Street and Super Committee

There are many charges against the movement of "Occupy Wall Street" and one of the major one is that the movement lacks a clear and executable agenda.

Due to the democratic nature the movement, it is inevitable that there have been many ideas floating about without a central core but it is indeed high time for ideas and organizations to congeal and make a clear, reasonable and executable demand.

As this nation is in a crucial juncture, it is disheartening to see that President Obama once again, sits on his hands, and let the so called congressional super committee to come up of a scheme to cut the deficit and put it for a vote in the congress; and if the plan failed to pass, an automatic drastic budgetary cut would be enforced.  How brilliant this idea is.  Since the result of failing to pass any plan the "Super Committee" might put forth is a large budget cut, the Republicans - who have been calling to starve the beast (government) for decades - have all the incentives not to pass any plan.

Since the ill conceived and all powerful "Super Committee" is to dictate the direction of the nation for a long time to come, it is vital for the "Occupy Wall Street" to demand to scrap such "Super Committee".  I call it "ill conceived" because it didn't demand an automatic tax increase on certain group (along side with some large budgetary cuts), therefore creating a balanced incentives for both leading political parties to reach an agreement.

Without that threat of automatic tax increases, it is a good bet that the consequence of any plan from such "Super Committee", or the failure to pass such plan, would only exacerbate the bottom 90% or 99% of the population, meanwhile protecting those on top, sitting on piles of gold and refusing to lift a finger to help the underprivileged and the nation they claim that they love, and the nation has done so much for them - deregulation and tax cuts after tax cuts and still more to come.

To replace such an ill-conceived super committee, the movement of Occupy Wall Street ought to demand a new committee, seating people from all economic spectrum, in proportion to the demographics, so as to come up with a plan to reduce deficit and correct the income inequality, and then put the plan to a national referendum, instead of a congressional horse trading.

President Obama, it's high time for you to lead and please lend your support to Occupy Wall Street.

Domesticity © Matthew Felix Sun

Note: Below is National Public Radio (NPR)'s summary of the Super Committee:

How Super Is The Deficit-Cutting Committee? Twelve lawmakers. More than $1 trillion to shave off the deficit. One Thanksgiving deadline. Can they do it?

The debt-ceiling deal struck this summer created a panel of six Republicans and six Democrats — dubbed the "supercommittee" — to find ways to reduce the deficit. If they can't, "sequestration" — a slew of automatic spending cuts — kicks in. While there are high hopes in Washington for the committee's success, skeptics have trouble seeing how the chosen lawmakers will navigate around the main sticking points: Democrats seem set on protecting Medicare and Medicaid and see increasing revenues as essential.  Republicans would prefer to lower taxes if anything and want to make cuts to the big entitlement programs.

President, Constitutional Monarch, Saint

The federal government shutdown was averted at the last moment, after the poor and the middle class paid heavily to make room for tax cut for the rich.  After that, a most amazing event took place - President Obama came out of his hideout and proclaimed victory.

This president's reluctance to fight for any principle is highly unacceptable, considering after George W. Bush's reign, it was a perfect storm for correcting the wrongs.  Obama wrestled the opportunity from his competitors and opponents then squandered it on his vain hope to unite the deeply polarized nation.

His determination to stay above the nitty-gritty politics suits a constitutional monarch well.  For a political leader a president supposed to be, his such effort resulted in the disarming of his own party.

His such effort also rendered a present missing in action.  His opponent liked to call the biggest achievement in his troubled presidency Obamacare.  However, to be fair for those who drafted and fought for the bill, it really should have been called Pelosicare.  What achievement can we really attribute to his most intelligent president?

At the eve of the government shutdown, Obama announced his plan to run for re-election, with a goal of raising $1 billion obscene amount of money.  Why would we want to have a president we might be able to fight for the right direction of the country but refuse to?

Paul Krugman in his article The President Is Missing

During the fight over extending tax cuts for the rich, Obama compromised early and tried to mollify his disgruntled supporters that he would fight it in the future, implying after hie re-election.  However, his track record is a poor advertisement for such hope.  It's too big to be true.

Some Republicans have made defeating Obama their top priorities.  It seems to me that Obama has made his re-election the top priority.  It might be the top priority of his, but by no means the rest of the nation, or the left half of the nation.

We need to yank this country to the right track.  With an aloof, hands off constitutional monarch, such effort is doomed to fail, particularly after he'd surrendered his narrative and ability to define the political debate in the nation.

Paul Krugaman said this in his article The President Is Missing:

His remarks after last week’s budget deal were a case in point.
Maybe that terrible deal, in which Republicans ended up getting more than their opening bid, was the best he could achieve — although it looks from here as if the president’s idea of how to bargain is to start by negotiating with himself, making pre-emptive concessions, then pursue a second round of negotiation with the G.O.P., leading to further concessions.

What’s going on here? Despite the ferocious opposition he has faced since the day he took office, Mr. Obama is clearly still clinging to his vision of himself as a figure who can transcend America’s partisan differences. And his political strategists seem to believe that he can win re-election by positioning himself as being conciliatory and reasonable, by always being willing to compromise.

But if you ask me, I’d say that the nation wants — and more important, the nation needs — a president who believes in something, and is willing to take a stand. And that’s not what we’re seeing. 

If you still believe in his promise to fight the tax cuts, it's time for reality check.  Obama now jumped into Republican's bandwagon and wants to cut more federal spending in the future.  Now you see, that the political debate in the next general election is about spending cut, not tax cut repeal. 

Krugman continued:

I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative.

It seems to me that being a constitutional monarch is not really Obama's goal.  He actually is running for sainthood.  However, I prefer a fresh and blood president who fight for the right principles.

Let's not kid ourselves.  Obama has failed to do what the majority elected him to do.  And if he had refused to act in his honey moon, under best circumstance, would you please he would act after being neutered repeatedly?  More important, would you hire someone for another four years after four years' failure?

Even if hope lingers, can he prevail?  When he claims that the ideas of his opponents are good but he can do better, he sets himself up for a defeat, and consequently another four or eight dismal years for American and the world people.

Dirge © Matthew Felix Sun

Need a Plan to Rebut Calls for Permanent Tax Cut for the Rich

"Unless President Obama develops a plan to rebut calls for premature spending cuts, the tax-cut deal will not do as much good as he says it will." New York Times' Editorial published on December 19th, The Tax-Cut Deal, eloquently pointed out the compromise he made with Republicans would not help our economy much, particularly because the high cost of the little help to the poor and the unemployed, Republicans will call for more spending cuts, which will made the economy recovery more difficult.  It urged President Obama to prepare for the next showdown.  The editorial pointed out that:

In exchange for high-end tax breaks, Mr. Obama won a 13-month extension of federal jobless benefits, a modest one-year cut in payroll taxes and other temporary measures for businesses and low-income families...

New stimulus spending is undermined if it is offset by cuts in existing spending — and, in the next Congress, Republicans will clamor for immediate budget cuts. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, praised the tax-cut deal last week, precisely because he believes it will begin to force spending cuts. John Boehner, the incoming House speaker, has called for a spending level in 2011 that is more than $100 billion lower than President Obama wanted, though he has not said which programs he would cut to achieve those savings.

So the fight has just begun, and only one thing is sure. Unless Mr. Obama finds his voice and develops a plan to rebut calls for premature spending cuts, the tax-cut deal will not do as much good as he says it will...

Deficits are not as pressing a problem as economic recovery. A stronger recovery must not only come first, but is the best way to begin to heal the budget. Fighting to uphold health care reform is also crucial, because, in the long run, that is key to taming the deficit...

When deficit reduction begins in earnest, tax increases and cuts in big-ticket programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense — will be the focus. Before that, Mr. Obama must not be drawn into nickel-and-dime cuts that will not solve the deficit problem — and will impede recovery. He made a deal with the Republicans. Now he has to get them to live with it.

That was very important but far from enough.  In two years' time, Republicans will push to have the "temporary" tax cut for the super rich made permanent, no matter what state the economy will be.  We have heard such arguments before - our economy is good, therefore we must cut taxes; the economy is in terrible shape, therefore we must cut taxes.  This irresponsible argument will be used with great directness and striking efficiency against the poetic eloquence of President Obama.

Therefore, it is pertinent for President Obama to develop a plan to rebut calls for permanent tax cut for the rich.  He needs to act now, because in last two years he has not demonstrated that he was able to win an upper hand in a last-moment parrying.  By surrendering to the Republican now, he owes the lower- and middle-class Americans this.


Bombed Bridge, III © Matthew Felix Sun

We Are The Compromise We Are Waiting For

Less than two years after Mr. Barak Obama became president, his audacious mantra has morphed from "We are the change we are waiting for" to "we are the compromise we are waiting for."

It is a sad trajectory.  Many of his wounds were self-inflicted, such as surrendering public options before negotiation for health care reform began, promising to open up gulf for oil exploration therefore before climate bill was debated, dismissing House's early bill to cut taxes for middle class only, and finally agreeing to tax cut for the super rich before any significant fight, and so on so forth.

I'm afraid that at this moment, the paean of "change we can believe in" sounds quite ironic.  The only "change we can believe" is this:



His Hopeness is now His Hopelessness.

I am not trying to be funny.  I weep.