The Republicans are quick to accuse President Obama of exercising a lack of leadership when it comes to passing legislation, most recently a bill to extend the reduction of payroll taxes. I personally have issues with President Obama’s leadership, but not in the narrow sense portrayed by his Republican detractors.
There are perhaps as many definitions of leadership as there are leaders. For the sake of this discussion I’ll go with Wikipedia’s definition: the “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task".
One of the hallmarks of Presidential leadership is his ability to mobilize a political consensus to move his agenda forward. By his, I mean an agenda he feels is in the best interest of the country. To my way of thinking President Obama has failed to do so, in large measure by being unwilling to go directly to the people in a sustained fashion – using his bully pulpit to engage the citizenry and thereby put pressure on his political opponents. President Obama points out Republican alliances to big business, oil, and the uber-rich, but has lacked the conviction or courage to drive these points home.
Re-electing President Obama will do nothing for his agenda unless he has a Democratic Congress to work with. Even this situation, as evidenced by the first two years of his administration, is an insufficient condition for success. As an example, the Bush Administration avoided a Democratic filibuster of their tax cut package by ruling that the cut could be passed under reconciliation rules. When it came time to reinstate some of these taxes, Democratic leaders lacked the will to take the same tact. Think what would have happened had President Obama had the political instincts of Lyndon Johnson. I’m not sure we would necessarily have been better off, but the much of the agenda that President Obama ran on would have been enacted into law. Lyndon Johnson and Nancy Pelosi would have made a formidable team, much to the consternation of the right.
This leadership failing is not to be confused with the leadership failing called into question by the Republicans. The Republican leadership takes pride in being the party of no: no to any and all judicial and administrative appointments, no to any bills. Just look at the record. Even when the Democrats virtually cave into Republican demands in crafting legislation, the far right remains inclined to defeat the final bill just to deprive Obama of any sense of accomplishment.
President Obama has no influence with the Republicans on the hill and will never have any. His attempts at compromise were never reciprocated in any meaningful way. In fact, his personal involvement only complicates the problems of Congressional democrats in moving legislation forward. The Republican charge of a lack of leadership is without merit: you can’t lead when you have no chance in influencing Republican behavior. You won’t hear Republicans carp about his larger lack of leadership lest the sleeping dog awake and call for a House and Senate that is willing to work with him to address what he believes are the needs of the country.
My Slice of Life ..... a compendium of thoughts on the American political-economy.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Progressive Era Redux
The signers of the Declaration of Independence affirmed three unalienable rights –life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – that were to be secured by the state based on the consent of the governed. Heady words, indeed.
Many question whether their personal ability to purse happiness is being held hostage to the inordinate influences of the top one percent of Americans upon the federal government. Most do not question the right of some Americans to earn and retain substantial wealth. Increasingly, however, they point to the unfair advantages bestowed upon the uber-rich by federal and state governments.
This was not always the case. From the end of the Second World War until the beginning of the Regan administration, a rising economic tide led to substantial increases in the standard of living of all income levels. The growth in family income ranged between 112% - for the lowest 20% of American family income earners – to 99% for the top 20%. The trends diverged beginning with the Reagan tax cuts and continued thereafter. From 1980-2007 the growth in family incomes ranged from 15% to 33% for bottom 80% of population as opposed to 95% for the top 20%. Family income levels for the top 1% of American families rose by a whopping 251%.
This marked shift in income distribution did not raise a hue and cry. Americans do not begrudge the rich, in part because they hope, however unrealistically, one day to be able to similarly enjoy the fruits of their hoped-for success. The banking crisis and subsequent recession has brought these disparities into sharper focus. What has become particularly galling to some, most notably the Occupy Wall Street movement has been the way these gains in wealth have been achieved. Specifically, they look at the influence of the uber-rich on state actions:
• The Bush tax cuts were focused on improving the lot of the wealthiest Americans by virtue of the sharp cuts on taxes for capital gains and taxes;
• Legislation was passed to reorganize the financial services industry and those appointed to oversee financial services were plucked from the very industry they were watching. Not surprisingly, regulators were loath to constrain poor banking practices or otherwise alert the public at large to the potential dangers of excessive bank lending to sub-prime borrowers.
• Legislation was passed that effectively bailed out many banks despite their poor practices: financial community managers were soon once-again collecting substantial financial bonuses.
• Legislation to improve oversight was slow in coming and has yet to be fully implemented because of Republican-led filibusters against Presidential nominees to head the new Agency.
Home ownership is the major form of wealth creation for many middle class families and, in marked contrast to their treatment of the financial sector the government has done little to help those whose property values plunged through no fault of their own. Those whose houses were under water, moreover, found it impossible to take advantage of the fall in interest rates to refinance. Moreover, economic revival is being constrained by the government’s newfound zeal in reigning in deficit financing. While hundreds of billions of dollars were authorized to rebuild Iraq, they find the government reluctant to extend unemployment benefits or lower income tax breaks.
In the late 19th century American citizens rallied behind the progressive movement. Upset over the greed of the Robber Barons and government sanctioned restraint of trade and union movements, they empowered their elected representatives to make fundamental changes to include anti-trust legislation, a highly progressive income tax, and the direct election of Senators (to remove the power of the upper class in the selection of Senators by state legislatures.) Currently President Obama is stirring the pot with progressive-sounding language. Whether he has the mettle or inclination to go forward with this platform is problematical. I would venture that a properly articulated progressive platform would find a willing audience.
Many question whether their personal ability to purse happiness is being held hostage to the inordinate influences of the top one percent of Americans upon the federal government. Most do not question the right of some Americans to earn and retain substantial wealth. Increasingly, however, they point to the unfair advantages bestowed upon the uber-rich by federal and state governments.
This was not always the case. From the end of the Second World War until the beginning of the Regan administration, a rising economic tide led to substantial increases in the standard of living of all income levels. The growth in family income ranged between 112% - for the lowest 20% of American family income earners – to 99% for the top 20%. The trends diverged beginning with the Reagan tax cuts and continued thereafter. From 1980-2007 the growth in family incomes ranged from 15% to 33% for bottom 80% of population as opposed to 95% for the top 20%. Family income levels for the top 1% of American families rose by a whopping 251%.
This marked shift in income distribution did not raise a hue and cry. Americans do not begrudge the rich, in part because they hope, however unrealistically, one day to be able to similarly enjoy the fruits of their hoped-for success. The banking crisis and subsequent recession has brought these disparities into sharper focus. What has become particularly galling to some, most notably the Occupy Wall Street movement has been the way these gains in wealth have been achieved. Specifically, they look at the influence of the uber-rich on state actions:
• The Bush tax cuts were focused on improving the lot of the wealthiest Americans by virtue of the sharp cuts on taxes for capital gains and taxes;
• Legislation was passed to reorganize the financial services industry and those appointed to oversee financial services were plucked from the very industry they were watching. Not surprisingly, regulators were loath to constrain poor banking practices or otherwise alert the public at large to the potential dangers of excessive bank lending to sub-prime borrowers.
• Legislation was passed that effectively bailed out many banks despite their poor practices: financial community managers were soon once-again collecting substantial financial bonuses.
• Legislation to improve oversight was slow in coming and has yet to be fully implemented because of Republican-led filibusters against Presidential nominees to head the new Agency.
Home ownership is the major form of wealth creation for many middle class families and, in marked contrast to their treatment of the financial sector the government has done little to help those whose property values plunged through no fault of their own. Those whose houses were under water, moreover, found it impossible to take advantage of the fall in interest rates to refinance. Moreover, economic revival is being constrained by the government’s newfound zeal in reigning in deficit financing. While hundreds of billions of dollars were authorized to rebuild Iraq, they find the government reluctant to extend unemployment benefits or lower income tax breaks.
In the late 19th century American citizens rallied behind the progressive movement. Upset over the greed of the Robber Barons and government sanctioned restraint of trade and union movements, they empowered their elected representatives to make fundamental changes to include anti-trust legislation, a highly progressive income tax, and the direct election of Senators (to remove the power of the upper class in the selection of Senators by state legislatures.) Currently President Obama is stirring the pot with progressive-sounding language. Whether he has the mettle or inclination to go forward with this platform is problematical. I would venture that a properly articulated progressive platform would find a willing audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)