Attacking The Obama Administration Is A Bad Mistake

Some of the Democratic presidential candidates did a very stupid thing during the Wednesday night debate. They tried to get at Joe Biden by attacking the Obama administration. Frankly, I was aghast.

If they think attacking the Obama administration is going to get them any Democratic votes, they are sorely mistaken!

First, President Obama was a very good president. During his first two years, when he had the backing of a Democratic Congress, he accomplished some very good things. Among these were regulations on Wall Street to prevent another crash (like the one that led to the Bush recession), and the creation of a consumer protection bureau to keep financial institutions from ripping off ordinary Americans.

He also got the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) passed, covering millions of Americans with insurance that had not been able to afford it before. Was it perfect? No, but it was much better than what had been in place before. And President Obama had wanted a better system with a public option, but Congress denied him that.

Second, Barack Obama is the most popular Democrat in this country (with the possible exception of his wife, Michelle). No other Democrat, including all 25 candidates for the 2020 nomination, is as popular with both Democrats and Independents as President Obama.

I can understand the Democratic candidates attacking each other (even though I don't like it at all), but trying to get at Biden (because he was Obama's vice-president) by attacking the Obama administration is beyond the pale. It's just wrong, and it's not the way to win over any Democratic voters!

Fewer Jobs Under Trump Than In Last 6 Years Under Obama

Donald Trump loves to brag about how well he's doing with the economy, and he has been particularly bragging about the number of jobs created during his term. Well, we have the numbers for the full year of 2017, and he really doesn't have anything to brag about.

It turns out that in his first full year in office, the economy produced about 2.05 million jobs. While that's not terrible, it is below the number of jobs created under the Obama administration for the prior six years (2011 thru 2016).

Trump Adm. Killing 450% More Civilians Than Obama Adm.

(The image above is from Waking Times.)

During the Obama administration, an average of 80 innocent civilians were killed each month by U.S. bombing. That's a terrible average, but compared to the Trump administration it seems small. The Trump administration is killing an average of 360 innocent civilians each month -- about 4.5 times the number killed during the term of President Obama.

Trump promised to bomb the s**t out of ISIS and he seems to be keeping that promises (one of the few promises he has kept), but that bombing is indiscriminate (and kills many more innocent civilians). He doesn't seem to realize that the bombing of civilians creates more terrorists than it kills.

ISIS is going to lose the territory it currently holds in Iraq and Syria. It was losing that territory under Obama, and Trump has continued that. But don't be fooled into thinking that will be the end of terrorist acts committed by ISIS, al-Queda, and others. Terrorists have never needed to hold territory to commit their atrocious acts. That will continue -- and the increased bombing of civilians just insures there will be more terrorists to carry out those acts.

White Racism Dropped Slightly During Obama Administration

The charts above are from the Gallup Poll. Here is Gallup's explanation of how they reached the numbers displayed in their charts:

Our review found eight questions that were asked in 2004 and 2007 -- before Obama -- and then again in 2015 and 2016 -- during the Obama years. These questions, combined, provide what we believe is a reasonable measure of racial resentment. Analyzing responses from the two earlier surveys and comparing those with the responses from the two later surveys provides the needed divide between pre-Obama and Obama-era attitudes.

The questions are as follows:

1. In general, do you think that blacks have as good a chance as whites in your community to get any kind of job for which they are qualified, or don't you think they have as good a chance?
2. In general, do you think that black children have as good a chance as white children in your community to get a good education, or don't you think they have as good a chance?
3. Again, in general, do you think that blacks have as good a chance as whites in your community to get any housing they can afford, or don't you think they have as good a chance?
4. Just your impression, are blacks in your community treated less fairly than whites in the following situations?
   • On the job/At work
   • In neighborhood shops
   • In stores downtown/In the shopping mall
   • In restaurants/bars/theaters/other entertainment places
   • In dealing with the police, such as traffic incidents

We looked only at respondents who identified their race as white. The racially resentful answer to each question is the one where the respondent does not believe blacks are treated unfairly and/or that they do have equal opportunities. The interpretation of these responses as racially resentful derives from other scholarly research in this area. Whites who say that blacks have as good a chance as whites to get jobs, schooling and housing, and who think blacks are treated just as fairly as whites across the list of five situations are racially unsympathetic. If racial resentment rose during the Obama years, the assumption is that whites would have become less sympathetic about blacks' situation in American society -- or, in other words, more racially resentful.

The analysis uses the mean of the eight items to construct a racial resentment scale that gives a score to each respondent. The top overall score of "1" means the person answered in the unsympathetic, resentful direction on all eight questions, and "0" means they answered all eight in the other direction.

The charts show that the Obama administration did have an effect on racism among whites in this country. Racism dropped among whites in the general population, among Independents, and among Democrats. The only group that did not show a drop in racist attitudes was Republicans.

It is good that racism dropped, but it didn't drop nearly enough. In a country that claims to offer equal rights and opportunity to all races and ethnicities, the racist index show be close to 0.0. But it isn't. In fact, it is above 0.5 for all groups (including Democrats). 

That shows that racism is still a big problem in the United States -- and any claim to the contrary is delusional.

More Evidence That Trump Does NOT Have A Mandate

Donald Trump is still trying to claim that the American people have given him a mandate to institute his policies. That is not even close to true. About 2.68 million people more voted for Clinton than voted for Trump -- and if that's not enough evidence that there was no mandate given, then look at the charts above.

As the top chart shows, Trump is the only recent president to have less than 50% approval of how he's handling the transition period (41%). And he's also the only recent president to have less than 58% of his cabinet choices (40%).

In addition, he's the only recent president to have less than a 60% favorable rating (with his being only 37%). And then there's the bottom chart, showing the public still doesn't think much of Trump. Although he gets decent marks for patriotism (60%) and being a strong leader (52%), he falls short in several other categories -- honesty (41%), inspiring (41%), qualified (37%), moral (31%), and good role model (26%).  He is also viewed as being hard to like (68%), reckless (65%), and having poor judgement (62%).

Far from having any kind of mandate, Trump still has quite a way to go before even getting half of the population to support him.

These charts were made from a recent survey by the Pew Research Center -- done between November 30th and December 5th of a random national sample of 1,502 adults, with a 2.9 point margin of error..

Poll Shows The Republican Base Is Unconnected To Reality

For the last couple of days I have been bringing you some results from a recent Public Policy Polling survey -- done between May 6th and 9th of a random national sample of 1,222 registered voters, with a margin of error of 3.2 points). But I saved what I believe to be the most troubling part of that survey for today -- a part that shows many Americans, especially Republicans, choose to ignore the truth and evidently live in their own fantasy world.

As anyone who even cursorily keeps up with the news knows, the stock market has rebounded under President Obama -- and currently has a higher value than ever before. Also, the unemployment rate in this country has dropped markedly under President Obama.

Unfortunately, a lot of people in this country have either been living in a cave cut off from civilization, or they choose to ignore the facts. About 17% of Democrats, 22% of Independents, and 32% of the general public believe the stock market has decreased in value under President Obama. And 28% of Democrats, 35% of Independents, and 43% of the general public believe the unemployment rate has gone up under President Obama.

The saving grace is that majorities of those groups all realize the truth -- that the stock market has risen and the unemployment rate has dropped. But it still bothers me that anyone could ignore such obvious truths.

Then we have the Republicans, who seem to be totally disconnected from reality. A majority of Republicans (57%) say the stock market has gone down, and an even larger majority of Republicans (64%) say the unemployment rate has risen. They seem to hate our president so much that facts are irrelevant to them. Either that, or they simply get all their news from Fox (the network that can't admit anything good has happened under the Obama administration).

Regardless of the reason for it, I find it very troubling that so many low-information voters (people actually registered to vote) will possibly be going to the polls in November.

3 Out Of 4 Americans Don't Know The Deficit Is Shrinking

The Republicans have been spreading the lie that the Obama administration's spending is out of control, and has been increasing the federal budget deficit. And that lie seems to have taken root in the American public. Currently about 36% of all Americans believe the budget deficit for 2014 was larger than it was in 2013, and another 39% don't know whether it is larger or smaller.

That means that 3 out of 4 people (75%) don't know that the deficit was actually smaller -- and has been going down for several years. This is depressing, because it shows that most people simply haven't been paying attention (or have been watching Fox News). If they had been keeping up with the real news, they would know the deficit for 2014 was significantly smaller than it was in 2013. It has been going down since 2009 (when President Obama inherited to huge Bush deficit). Here are the actual figures:

2009 -- $1413 billion deficit
2010 -- $1294 billion deficit
2011 -- $1299 billion deficit
2012 -- $1100 billion deficit
2013 -- $680 billion deficit
2014 -- $492 billion deficit

I know the Republicans (who claim the deficit is getting larger) would probably like to claim credit for this shrinking deficit, and their austerity measures did probably have something to do with it. But the biggest reason for the shrinking deficit is the abolishment of the Bush tax cuts (which were a major reason for the ballooning deficit).

And raising taxes on the richest Americans by a small amount, plus making corporations pay their fair share of taxes, could eliminate that deficit even faster. And it would do it without shrinking the economy and hurting job growth (as more austerity cuts recommended by Republicans would do).

Remember, Bill Clinton left office with a federal budget surplus. It was the Republicans, under the failed leadership of President Bush, that destroyed that surplus and created a huge budget deficit (by cutting taxes for the rich & corporations, and waging two unnecessary wars without paying for them). That alone should be enough to make us stop listening to the Republicans on spending and revenues.

The chart above was made from figures in a new YouGov Poll -- done between February 2nd and 4th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of about 4 points.

The CFPB Is A Huge Success Story For Democrats

Before the Dodd-Frank bill was passed early in the Obama administration, the Wall Street banks and other large financial institutions had an enormous advantage over consumers. Even in a case of obvious fraud or mismanagement, those financial giants could afford to send an army of lawyers against a consumer who dared to file suit against them. It was like David against Goliath -- only Goliath won almost every time in that financial battle.

But the Democrats had a warrior of their own -- Elizabeth Warren, who was a financial advisor in the Obama administration. She fought long and hard to include a provision in Dodd-Frank that would create a bureau that would act to protect consumers in their dealings with the financial giants -- and she was successful. That organization is now called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

The president had wanted to appoint Warren as the first head of the CFPB, but that was blocked by a Republican filibuster (at the behest of the Wall Street bankers). It turns out that blocking her appointment was a big favor to Democrats and to Warren -- because she then ran for Senate, and upset the Republican holding the Senate seat once belonging to Ted Kennedy. Now she is a strong voice for consumers in the United States Senate, and a thorn in the side of the Wall Street bullies.

But what about the CFPB -- the bureau she was instrumental in creating? Has it been effective? The answer is that it has been very successful. As of last July, the CFPB had recovered more than $4.6 billion for consumers ($98 million of it for members of our military, who are particularly susceptible to financial wrongdoing while serving overseas -- especially in a war zone). With the CFPB on their side, consumers have the power they needed to take on the giant financial institutions when they are mistreated or ripped-off.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a great success story for Obama, Warren, and the Democratic Party.

Shameful! - The Obama Administration Helped American Corporations Abuse Poor Workers In Haiti

(This image of Haitian garment workers is from the website Haiti Chery.)

I am beginning to understand why the U.S. government was so upset at the secrets being exposed by WikiLeaks. It had nothing to do with any Americans being put in danger (because they just didn't happen). But it did expose some really shameful exploits engaged in by the government of this country. I would love to tell you that all of those shameful exploits were done by the Republicans, but sadly, that is not true. Consider the following example of an action by the Obama administration -- an action that should embarrass all true Democrats.

Back in 2012, the minimum wage for a Haitian garment worker was 24 cents an hour (about $1.92 a day, or $9.60 for a 40 hour week). Even in a poor country like Haiti, those are some dreadful wages. The Haitian government decided to help those workers by raising the minimum wage to a whopping 61 cents an hour (about $4.88 for an 8 hour day, or $24.40 for a 40 hour week).

Now that may sound like a huge raise in pay to some of you, but the truth is that it would still leave many of those workers in poverty. It takes $12.50 a day for a Haitian family with two children to meet their expenses. But the American corporations doing business in Haiti (like Hanes and Levi Strauss) showed they don';t care about their workers. They weren't happy with just keeping those workers in poverty -- they wanted to continue shamelessly abusing them. So they complained to the Obama administration.

And the Obama administration listened to that outrageous corporate whining -- and put pressure on the Haitian government to stop the minimum wage raise to 61 cents an hour. And that pressure worked. The Haitian government capitulated and granted a raise to only 31 cents an hour (about $2.48 for an 8 hour day, or $12.40 for a 40 hour week).

Frankly, I'm shocked. The United States government had no business interfering in the economic affairs of another country. We certainly wouldn't let Haiti (or any other country) tell us what our minimum wage should be, and we shouldn't be telling them. If anything, we should be encouraging them to mandate a wage that would lift workers out of poverty (and our government should be mandating a wage in our own country that does the same).

It just goes to show what many claim may be true -- that we no longer live in a democracy, but a corporatocracy. And both parties are to blame. The Republicans encouraged the outsourcing of these American jobs and even provided corporations with tax breaks to do it (tax breaks which are still in effect). Now we learn that Democrats are caving in to corporate wishes to help them continue their abuse of foreign workers. Is it any wonder that the American middle class is disappearing and American workers can't get an even break? It's because that's what our corporate masters want.

House Comm. Admits No Wrongdoing Regarding Benghazi

(This cartoon image is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.)

This will be no surprise to anyone (except the teabaggers), but the House Intelligence Committee has concluded its investigation into the Benghazi tragedy. That committee, like all House committees, had a majority of Republicans, but after examining all the evidence, they were finally forced to admit there was no wrongdoing on the part of the Obama administration. The report, which they are asking the country's intelligence agencies to approve releasing, "confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. Forces) was given".

In a sane Congress, the Republicans would finally admit they were wrong, and drop their silly obsession with Benghazi -- but this is not a sane Congress. This was the Intelligence Committee -- and there is another committee, headed by Rep. Issa, that continues its vain effort to find something, anything, with which to embarrass the president. And they no doubt will string out this silly exercise until the election -- hoping to get some voters to believe them.

But while the House Intelligence Committee finally cleared the administration of any wrongdoing, they did conveniently overlooked the Republican part in the tragic affair -- the huge cuts in security funding for the embassies and consulates they forced. But then, that wasn't a surprise either.

Green Party Says DEA Administrator Should Be Terminated

Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Clifford Thornton (pictured) wrote the following post on May 20th. He lays out the Green Party position that the current DEA Administrator should be fired because she refuses to get on the same page as her bosses in the administration. I agree. I think it's time for this country to alter its failed drug policies, and any government employee that wants to continue with the failed policies of the past should be terminated. Mr. Thornton writes:

The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration is refusing to support a bill backed by the Obama administration that would modify mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug crimes, putting her at odds with her boss, Attorney General Holder. He hopes to make the bill, the “Smarter Sentencing Act” a centerpiece of his legacy.

As DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart explained, “Having been in law enforcement as an agent for 33 years, [and] a Baltimore City police officer before that, I can tell you that for me and for the agents that work for DEA, mandatory minimums have been very important to our investigations. We depend on those as a way to ensure that the right sentences are going to the... level of violator we are going after.”

Administrator Leonhart, appointed by Bush a Deputy Administrator of the DEA in 2004 and served as Acting Administrator of the DEA in 2007, was appointed by President Obama as Administrator in 2010 over the objections of many drug policy reformers. She has been at the DEA since 1980.

Leonhart has reportedly harshly criticized the President behind closed doors for saying that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. She also said that the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado has only forced DEA agents to become more aggressive; and stated that gangs are taking over in Washington and Colorado in the wake of marijuana legalization, even as there is no evidence that this is true. Holder has said he is optimistic about the way things are progressing in those states.

In 2012, while testifying before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Leonhart refused to acknowledge that marijuana poses fewer health risks than heroin or crack, which would require it to be removed from the Drug Schedule I. Doing that would effectively change marijuana national policy. 

Nobody really expected that a lifetime drug warrior would quietly accept marijuana legalization. But publicly undermining the Obama administration's position on reforming mandatory minimum drug sentences, especially given that it is a crucial part of Attorney General Eric Holder's Smart on Crime initiative, is obvious insubordination.

The Marijuana Policy Project, Director of Federal Policies Dan Riffle said:

“Whether Ms. Leonhart is ignorant of the facts or intentionally disregarding them, she is clearly unfit for her current position. By any objective measure, marijuana is less harmful than alcohol to the consumer and society. It is irresponsible and unacceptable for a government official charged with enforcing our drug laws to deny the facts surrounding the nation’s two most popular recreational drugs.

“The DEA administrator’s continued refusal to recognize marijuana’s relative safety compared to alcohol and other drugs flies in the face of the President’s commitment to prioritizing science over ideology and politics. She is neglecting the basic obligations of her job and fundamentally undermining her employer’s mission.  This would be grounds for termination in the private sector, and the consequences for Ms. Leonhart should be no different.”

It is our position that Ms. Leonhart should resign or be fired. She is stuck in outdated drug war propaganda that has been proven to be wrong and is an impediment to important progress.

GOP Is Not Serious About Immigration Reform This Year

After the last election the national leaders of the Republican Party realized they had a serious problem -- a problem that would only grow over time. The problem was that they have lost several voting groups (women, young people, minorities). Especially important among these groups is the growing Hispanic population in this country. It is by far the fastest growing portion of the population, and that trend is not expected to change in the future.

With the percentage of Whites dropping by about 2% in each presidential election, and the Hispanic portion growing (and expected to grow even faster in the future), it is clear that if the Republican Party clings to its "whites only" policies it will continue to make up a shrinking portion of the electorate. It could become irrelevant on the national stage and might even cease to exist (as the Whigs did).

The national leaders urged congressional Republicans to alter their policies against immigration reform (a reform considered to be very important by Hispanic voters). By moderating their policy on immigration, and helping to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, they hoped to reach out to Hispanic voters. This would have been reasonable, and might have even worked (since Hispanics have voted for Republicans in the past). But the congressional Republicans didn't listen to the advice from the national party, and continued to block any comprehensive reform bill. They preferred to address only punitive measures (border security and deportations).

Recently the party tried one last time to come up with an immigration reform bill, and thought they had done so. It was not a good bill -- offering only legal status to undocumented workers, but no path to citizenship. It was a feeble attempt at reform, but an attempt nonetheless. But it would require all House Republicans to be unified to pass it (since Democrats would be unlikely to support any bill not offering a path to citizenship). But now it looks like even this feeble attempt at reform will be unable to get through the Republican-dominated House, because too many right-wingers are opposing it.

Paul Ryan, one of the authors of the inadequate reform bill, admits now that the bill is not going to be able to be passed this year. And seeing that they will once more be opposing real immigration reform, Ryan and his fellow Republicans are now trying to deflect blame away from themselves. They now claim that their inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform is not because of their own bigoted and anti-immigrant views, but because President Obama cannot be trusted to enforce any new bill (especially on border security and deportations).

This is not just untrue -- it is an outrageous lie. The truth is just the opposite. The flow of unauthorized immigrants into this country has slowed, and at this time there are more undocumented workers leaving than entering the country. In addition, the Homeland Security Department has given our border security its top rating. The fact is that we have already done what can be done to close our borders.

As for the willingness of President Obama to enforce the immigration laws, that is also untrue. The chart below shows the deportations for the last three years of the Bush administration and the first three years of the Obama administration. Note that the Obama administration has deported more undocumented people in each year than any of the years under George Bush. The one thing that the Obama administration has accomplished is that they have put a greater effort toward deporting those convicted of criminal violations (a fact I think most Americans would appreciate).

Clearly the Obama administration has done a better job of enforcing current immigration law than the previous Republican administration did -- making the current Republican excuse a ludicrous one. And there is no reason to believe he would enforce a new law any less rigorously than he has enforced the current law.

So, what is the real reason the Republicans can't even pass their latest feeble attempt at reform? That's pretty obvious to anyone willing to think -- the Republican base remains in the grips of a xenophobic fever, and they are not willing to accept any reform that would make life easier for undocumented immigrants. Note in the chart below that those GOP base voters oppose any level of legalization for those workers -- whether it is temporary, permanent, or a path to citizenship.

The congressional Republicans are just doing what their bigoted base wants them to do (regardless of what is good for the country as a whole). They are afraid if they vote for reform, they will face a right-wing opponent and possibly lose their seat in Congress. There attempt to deflect blame to President Obama is just a futile attempt to help them in the general election (after they survive the primary). I doubt it will help much though. It is just too obviously a lie.

The charts below were made from a recent YouGov Poll -- conducted on January 28th and 29th of 1,000 nationwide adults, with a 3.9 point margin of error.

Considering The Whole Picture

Thetruth is that the Obama administration has not had nearly as many attacks on diplomatic targets as occurred during the years of the Bush administration. Of course, the Republicans don't want to talk about that. They only want to talk about Benghazi, in a pathetic attempt to smear Hillary Clinton in case she runs for president in 2016 (because a Clinton candidacy scares the hell out of them -- and rightfully so). They also don't want to talk about how they handicapped Obama and Clinton by cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in embassy and consulate security -- which makes their attempt to scandalize Benghazi just another GOP exercise in hypocrisy.

Proposed Shield Law Is A Fraudulent Fix

There are several vital freedoms protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- the right to religious freedom, the right to free speech, and the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. It also guarantees the right of a free press, and this may be the most important of all, since the free press is a way to guarantee all of those other rights -- and without a press free from government interference, a true democracy cannot exist.

For years now, president's of both party's have been trying to infringe on the freedom of the press -- especially in the right of journalists to keep their sources secret. The right to keep a source secret from the government insures that people (especially government whistleblowers) will come forward when the government oversteps it legal or moral boundaries. But the recent actions of the Obama administration stepped over the line of what is proper between government and the press -- and could have a chilling effect on our free press.

In an effort to find government whistleblowers who exposed a government action in stopping the bombing of a plane heading for the U.S. from Yemen, the Department of Justice issued a secret subpoena and seized all phone records for a two month period from at least 20 lines at the AP offices in New York, Washington, and Hartford (lines that were used by at least 100 reporters). The government has conveniently claimed that "national security" was at stake. I doubt it. And personally, I believe the government actions endangered our free press and our democracy far more than the leak endangered our national security.

This is a very serious matter. The government should not have the right to secretly seize any records from a reporter or news organization. Reporters must be free to search out the truth without government interference or intimidation.

And it looks like President Obama knows this latest mis-step is not going to go down well with the press (or the public) -- so he is trying to get a little political cover. He has asked Senator Schumer to revive his press shield bill in the Senate, and try once again to get it passed. The bill had died in the last Congress without being approved.

The idea is to give the appearance that the Obama administration is sorry for its action, and now wants to take steps to protect reporters and their sources. I wish that was true, but sadly, it isn't. It is a very flawed bill, and if it had been in effect already, it would not have prevented the government from seizing the AP phone records secretly. That's because the bill contains a provision that allows the government to secretly seize information from reporters by just claiming it is in the interest of "national security" -- a claim the government can make at any time without having to prove it.

As long as that provision remains in the bill, it makes the bill worthless -- nothing more than a public relations lie to make the government look like they are following the restrictions imposed on them by the Constitution. Don't be fooled. This flawed bill solves nothing. Freedom of the press is too vital to our democracy to be played around with like this. Our Founding Fathers knew that there must be limits on the power of the government. Without limits on government power, freedom and democracy cease to exist in any meaningful way. That was why they passed the First Amendment -- and that is why we must now demand the federal government stop trying to intimidate or interfere with the press.

GOP Uses "Scandals" To Hide Obstruction

(Political Cartoon above is by Jim Morin in The Miami Herald.)

Much has been made of the supposed "scandals" of the Obama administration recently, especially by the Republicans in Congress. They are just happy to have the spotlight on something other than their own desire to impose a disastrous austerity on ordinary Americans, while providing more giveaways to the rich and corporate America -- and their continuing obstruction to everything the president proposes (an obstruction that is doing serious damage to this country).

Last Thursday, the New York Times Editorial Board printed an editorial about this. I thought it was excellent, and I re-post part of it here for your perusal (and recommend you read it all). They said:

When politicians want to turn scandals into metaphors, actual details of wrongdoing or incompetence no longer matter. In fact, the details of the troubles swirling around the White House this week are bluntly contradicting Republicans who want to combine them into a seamless narrative of tyrannical government on the rampage.

The Internal Revenue Service, according to an inspector general’s report, was not reacting to political pressure or ideology when it singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny in evaluating requests for tax exemptions. It acted inappropriately because employees couldn’t understand inadequate guidelines. The tragedy in Benghazi, Libya, never a scandal to begin with, has devolved into a turf-protection spat between government agencies, and the e-mail messages Republicans long demanded made clear that there was no White House cover-up.

The only example of true government overreach was the seizure of The Associated Press’s telephone records, the latest episode in the Obama administration’s Javert-like obsession with leakers in its midst.

Many of the Republicans who have added this action to their metaphor blender were also the ones clamoring the loudest for vigorous investigations of national security leaks. But reality simply isn’t solid enough to hold back the vast Republican opportunism on display this week. Whatever cranky point Republicans had been making against President Obama for the last five years — dishonesty, socialism, jackbooted tyranny — they somehow found that these incidents were exactly the proof they had been seeking, no matter how inflated or distorted. . .

But they do have one thing in common: when bound together and loudly denounced on cable television and in hearings, they serve to obscure the real damage that Republicans continue to do to the economy and the workings of government.

While Washington was arguing about e-mail messages about Benghazi, it wasn’t paying attention to the hundreds of thousands of defense furloughs announced this week because of the Republican-imposed sequester, which will become a significant drag on economic growth. It wasn’t focusing on the huge drop in the deficit, which has yet to silence the party’s demands for more austerity. And apparently it’s considered old news that Republicans are blocking several of the president’s cabinet nominees.

For those who are wondering whether this week’s political windstorms will hinder Mr. Obama’s second-term agenda, here’s a bulletin: That agenda was long ago imperiled by the obstruction of Republicans. (See Guns. Jobs. Education. And, very possibly, Immigration.)

Who Will Replace Hillary At State ?

Now that the election is over, President Obama has a very important decision to make. Hillary Clinton has been an excellent Secretary of State, but she has made it clear she does not want to stay in that job for Obama's second term. And with all the turmoil in the world (and the nation still at war), it is critical that the president choose a competent person to replace Sec. Clinton.

The two names that have been mentioned the most are Senator John Kerry and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. Both are very competent, and both would do an excellent job if chosen. But choosing either one also carries some drawbacks for President Obama and the Democrats.

Republican teabagger senator, Lindsey Graham, is still trying to make some political hay out of the death of American diplomats in Benghazi, and he has promised to block any State Department officials that have tried to explain away what happened there -- including Ambassador Rice. This is a silly move by Graham, since the Republicans have as much blame as anyone for that mess (by voting to cut funds for embassy security), but Graham has the ability to block an appointment (or at least delay one for quite a while) and he's never been renowned for his common sense.

The case against appointing Senator Kerry is more about political party balance in the Senate. GOP Senator Scott Brown was just defeated in Massachusetts, once again giving that state two Democratic senators (Kerry and Warren). If Kerry was appointed Secretary of State, there would have to be a special election in Massachusetts to replace him. And the person most likely to win that special election is Republican Scott Brown. I don't think the president (or any other Democrats) want to give up a senate seat to the Republicans.

Some have mentioned Hillary's second in command at State, William Burns, as a possibility. Burns is a career diplomat and probably wouldn't be a controversial choice -- but the possibility exists that he could also be blocked by Graham in his attempt to politicize the Libyan tragedy.

Some sources at the White House are now floating a new name -- former Republican governor of Utah Jon Huntsman. Huntsman (pictured) is a moderate who served this administration well as ambassador to China, and I doubt he would get much opposition from members of either party in the Senate, including Graham. Personally I like this idea a lot. I don't know if he would accept the job, but I hope he would. He is a reasonable person, a competent official, and has the diplomatic skills necessary for the job. And it would show that the president is still willing to reach across the aisle and work with reasonable Republicans.

An Unnecessary Death

The man pictured above is Adnan Farham Abdul Latif. He is a Yemeni citizen, and had been held in the prison at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. He was being held in isolation because his jailers said he was a "disciplinary problem" -- having been on a hunger strike (that he ended in June) and having thrown a "cocktail" of food and bodily fluids at guards. On Saturday, he was found dead in his cell.

He had threatened to commit suicide, and may have done so -- the results of an autopsy have not been released. And the NCIS is investigating his death. But whatever the actual cause of his death, it was an unnecessary death that should not have happened -- at least not at Gitmo.

Three years ago, an administrative panel had cleared Latif for release -- a decision that could not have been reached without the agreement of all of the intelligence services (who evidently did not consider him to be a danger to this country). He had also been cleared by a United States judge, who said accusations that he was connected to al-Queda were "unconvincing". Latif had also never been charged with any crime.

This all brings up a good question -- Why was he still in custody at Gitmo THREE YEARS LATER? The only excuse the government has come up with is that the Obama administration had appealed his release because they didn't want to send him back to the "unsettled" country of Yemen. That's simply not good enough. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, and we should not be holding people in prison without charges, especially after they are cleared for release, just because of the unsettled political situation in another country.

This was a death that need not have happened. And it is a death that must be laid at the feet of the Obama administration. He should have been released three years ago. But he is not the only one that is still being held without charges or proof that they pose any kind of danger to this country. It is time (actually way past the time) for the United States to finally live up to its reputation as a nation of laws -- and release those prisoners it has no intention of charging or trying in a court of law.

Hurricane Poses Problems For The GOP

It now looks like the Republicans have dodged a bullet. Hurricane Isaac will not directly hit the part of Florida where they are holding their convention (Tampa). There will still be some bad weather, and the delegates will probably be getting wet, but now that the hurricane has shifted its course to the west the Republicans will be able to get on with their convention. For a while, there was speculation that the convention might have to be called off, but that won't happen now.

But while the GOP has dodged one bullet, there are a couple more that could also cause them serious damage. One is that the convention will not be able to completely hog the news as was hoped by the Republican Party. In a normal election year, the week of a party convention (by either political party) is dominated in the news by what is happening at the convention. And Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) really needed that to happen this year. He is not liked by most Americans (even some of his supporters), and he needed the opportunity at the convention to redefine himself and try to make himself more likable.

But this year that's going to be harder to do, because the convention will be happening at the same time that Hurricane Isaac in making landfall. And much of the news-time that would have been spent covering the convention will now go to hurricane coverage -- both the storm and its aftermath. The Republicans will be lucky to get half the coverage they would have gotten if Hurricane Isaac did not exist (or did not threaten the United States).

The second is that Hurricane Isaac is now headed for the worst possible landfall location for the Republican Party -- the New Orleans area. It has only been seven years since Hurricane Katrina hit that area with devastating consequences, and the images of Katrina have not faded from the American consciousness. And another thing that is vividly remembered (to the embarrassment of Republicans) is the totally incompetent way the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was handled by the Bush administration -- with many storm survivors having to wait for days to get any help at all.

Right now, it doesn't look like Hurricane Isaac will cause the same devastation that Hurricane Katrina did (although that could change). But even so, the American people will be watching to see how the government reacts this time -- and comparisons of that reaction to the Bush failure of Katrina are inevitable. If President Obama is smart (and I believe he is), then he already has FEMA, the Coast Guard, and others ready to spring into action as soon as they know where they are needed. And any competence the Obama administration shows will make the Republican Party look bad by comparison.

The Republican Party certainly did not need this hurricane to happen at this time. It bears nothing for them but an ill wind.

Bush Still To Blame For Massive Deficit

The Republicans have been very vocal in trying to place the blame for this nation's current deficit completely on the shoulders of President Obama. This is more than a little disingenuous. They ignore the fact that President Clinton left the country with a nice surplus, and it was President Bush that ran up a huge deficit -- a deficit that was dumped on President Obama in the middle of a serious recession (caused by Republican trickle-down economic policies).

And the legacy of the Bush administration is still the major factor that is ballooning the current deficit. Note the chart above. If the two wars had not happened and the Bush tax cuts not enacted, by next year the deficit would less than half of what it is projected to be (around $400 billion instead of more than $1 trillion) -- and the cause of that remaining deficit would be the recession, not Obama's efforts to stimulate the economy. And personally, I believe if a more substantial stimulus and jobs plan could have been passed even that part of the deficit could have been much lower.

Here's how Paul N. Van de Water, Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, puts it:

President Bush’s tax cuts, and the legacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan explain virtually the entire federal budget deficit projected for the rest of this decade (that is, through 2019).  That is, there would be practically no deficits over that period if the tax cuts, the wars, and the downturn had not occurred and other policies remained the same. . .

For the years ahead, CBPP found that the tax cuts (if policymakers extend them in full) and the wars, plus the lingering effects of the recent downturn, essentially account for the entire deficit between now and 2019.  Indeed, the tax cuts and the wars alone account for nearly half of the public debt by 2019.

Bush Still Blamed Most For Bad Economy

(Caricature above is by the talented DonkeyHotey.)

The Republicans had tried their best in the last three years to shift the blame for the recession and loss of millions of jobs on to President Obama, and away from George W. Bush. That's because they were complicit in whatever Bush did. They happily went along with his deregulation of Wall Street, his tax cuts for the rich, and his unnecessary wars (all of which combined to help kick off the recession).

But their attempt to shift the blame has only had a partial success. People are very unhappy with the government's failure to fix the economy (or really do much of anything to try and fix it in the last few years). And they give President Obama part of the blame -- not for causing it, but for not doing enough to fix it. But the people still know who caused the mess we're in, and they give George W. Bush much more credit for the current bad economy than President Obama. Even 49% of Republicans say Bush has a great deal or a moderate amount of blame for the current economic mess.

The most recent Gallup Poll asking people to assess blame for the current bad economy was done June 7th through 10th. They surveyed 1,004 random national adults (and the survey had a 4 point margin of error). Here are the results of that survey:

HOW MUCH DO YOU BLAME GEORGE BUSH/BARACK OBAMA FOR THE CURRENT ECONOMY?

General Public
Bush...............68%
Obama...............52%

Independents
Bush...............67%
Obama...............51%

Republicans
Bush...............49%
Obama...............83%

Democrats
Bush...............90%
Obama...............19%

Figures like these should make Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) very nervous. While many people don't think President Obama has done enough to fix the economy (much of which is due to GOP obstructionism), they still blame Bush for starting the whole mess. And what is Romney offering? Nothing but a return to the old failed Bush policies -- deregulation of Wall Street, massive tax cuts for the rich (and corporations), and more spending on the military (including an extension of the Afghan War, and very possibly a new war with Iran).

Haven't we had enough of the Reagan/Bush policies? Would they work any better with Romney in the White House? Of course not! It's time to return to sane economic policies -- and the only way to do that is to vote the Republicans out of power.