Republicans self-destructing

Republicans self-destructing

US Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke (center) being flanked by Republican lawmakers (Reuters)

Republicans self-destructing 

By BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUÑA CAUSING

I believe the GOP leaders formulated the letter to US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke with their best try to make it appear they have no intention to strengthen the chance of unseating Obama. And the intention was actually to debase the US President down to a level comfortable for the Republicans to win the 2012 presidential elections.

The facts

For non-Americans to understand what I mean, let me brief you that the top four Republican leaders (Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. John Boehner, Sen. Jon Kyl, Rep. Eric Cantor) wrote Bernanke a letter expressing their dissent to Bernanke’s announced plan to add stimulus money to fight the sagging US economy. 

The exact plan is for the Fed to purchase by the end of June 2012 $400 billion of Treasury securities that were yet to mature in six to 30 years and to sell an equal amount of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of three years or less. 

This big movement of money will surely make the holders of yet-to-mature securities happy because they can now turn their investments into cash and that big movement will trigger like a domino for other economic activities to start moving. 

The Republicans do not want this to happen arguing that it is not sound and it will not help the economy any better than the current financial state. To boost their arguments, they cited that since Obama infused $600 billion in June 2010, the economic growth for the first half of the year was only 0.7% and for the whole year there was job growth but too weak to be existent.

Many independents and Democratic-leaning pundits look at this opposition of the GOP (Grand Old Party, as the Republicans are known) as an act to sabotage the economy in the hope of diminishing the confidence level in President Barrack Obama so that he will not get reelected in the 2012 presidential election.

At the time of this writing (Sept. 25, 2011 in the USA), Obama is shown to be struggling in Rasmussen survey reports.  He was struggling at -23 approval index, where only 20% strongly approve him as against 43% strongly disapproving him, along with 44% of “total approve” and 54% of “total disapprove.”

This -23 index is the third worst for Obama in the history of his presidency, with -25 as the worst and -24 as the worse, which occurred on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1, respectively.  He managed to go up and reached -16 only on Sept. 23 when it suddenly moved down to -21 the next day.

While these have been happening, Obama has just announced a jobs bill worth $447 billion and he has been asking from the House of Representatives and the Senate to approve it. To boost the chance, Barrack also campaigned to the people, state by state, to call their congressmen and senators to approve the proposal.

The GOP stalwarts have also expressed opposition to the jobs bill because it will mean higher taxes from the wealthy to fund the jobs being planned.

Of course, the Democrats say there is nothing wrong with increasing taxes on the rich Americans that have been protected by Bush.  In fact, the Dems have been insisting to kill the law enacted during George’s time and this tax-on-the-rich issue has been at the core of the controversy.

The issues

As presented, the issue is whether the GOP leaders wanted only to bolster the plan to unseat Obama for the 2012 presidential election when they sent that letter expressing their dissent to Bernanke on the stimulus plan or it was a statement of valid concerns for the US economy.

If it is so, is it self-destruction to the Republicans?

The discussion

I have been following the governance of Barrack from Day 1.  I have analyzed all the events that happened and these tend to show more of the premeditated agenda to cut the Skinny Boy With a Funny Name to one term only.

Up to this length, it is very clear that the policies and actions done on how to confront the issues around the Globe have been far better than during the Bush era. 

All my judgments on what were done are pointing to a conclusion that Obama studied well all the repercussions before giving his decision.

First, we do not need to debate whether the extremely-high-risk decision of intruding into Pakistan was an intelligent formulation.

Second, we do not need to debate whether it was correct for Obama to decide to limit USA's participation to air strikes and drone attacks to enforce the NATO resolution on Libya. 

Third, that success of the NATO has been credited largely to the USA by the Libyan rebels.  The credit has been seen to be larger than what they see in the France and the UK.  This somehow reinforced that belief that the US was a reasonable world power in the face of doubts stirred by intrigues caused by North Korea and China.

Fourth, the bonus here is that the reputation of the US government before the Libyans have gone high not only to the aspect of respect, but more so in the love for the Americans that developed in the hearts of the rebels who were harboring an opposite thought about Americans prior to the Arab Spring that beckoned in their horizon.

These three items salvaged the fauxpas done in the past when the CIAs collaborated with Gaddafi in the pursuance of the strongman's strong-arm rule to protect his kingship.

If it were during the era of Dubya he could have decided to compromise lives of American soldiers like what he did in deciding to send in hundreds of thousands to stop Saddam Hussein from annihilating the world with the much-talked-about "weapons of mass destruction" justification, only to end up finding Saddam's "dud weapon."  

It is obvious that the substantial financial and human costs in Iraq and Afghanistan are too high in comparison to the statistics cited by Mr. Daniel Indiviglio.

To the contrary, these Iraq-Afghanistan facts (not statistics) clearly reveal that the decision to send in personnel and APCs and other warfare equipment compelled the US to bleed so much for a cause of other peoples and other countries.  These added substantial part to the trillion-dollars debts of what should be the mightiest country in the world.  

If only Bush limited the action to air assaults and aids to internally-embedded rebels as what Clinton did for the then Yugoslavia, the US could have been in a fairer financial status at the end of 2008. 

Fifth, the decision to draw down troops from Iraq is proving to be a correct decision. No one can argue against facts.

Sixth, the change of strategies in Afghanistan resulted in the biggest success in the history of war against terrorism: the unbelievable success in getting Osama Bin Laden and lately the killing of his deputy.

 Again, no one can argue against facts.

Going to the domestic concerns, I believe that Obama has been correct in the proposals he presented and implemented just to fight off the brink of irreversible bankruptcy caused by the cheating in speculations that got exposed in what could be the world's biggest financial explosion.

We must remember that when this meltdown occurred, it was preceded by the exports of local jobs to China where the labor is so cheap compared to paying more-skilled Americans doing the same jobs.  So that when people were out of job, they failed to pay off their loans.

Much earlier, these Americans who lost employments were swayed into unrestrained housing loans despite the lack of capacity to pay.  The mortgage papers from them were then sold like "empty checks" and sold repeatedly thereafter like negotiable instruments.  When the due date came for these house-loan mortgagors, they failed to pay for the obligations.  Thus, the securities derived from these mortgage papers through Freddiemac, Fanniemae and Ginnemae went "boom!"  As in a check, it bounced off for lack of deposit.

Again, no one can argue what happened at the time of Bush.

Let me ask: What do you think could have happened with the statistics if Obama did not implement those actions and he followed the oppositions of the GOP leaders?

In opposing the jobs bill, it is like withholding the grass while the horse is dying.

For sure, that positive statistcs, no matter how little, or the fact that the growth is zero, is an indication that the performance is not negative.

With all these records for all of us to see, what untested arguments or opinions the Republicans could present as a better alternative to hold the jobs bill hostage?

Unless they can accept that Obama is too difficult to defeat in a level playing field and unless they cooperate with the jobs plan and give the political agenda a boost by tools or weapons other than jobs bill or Bernanke's stimulus plan he calls "Operation Twist", there is no hope for Republicans in 2012.

With all these achievements done in the administration of Obama, the President is still enjoying a strong support of 44% of the electorate. At the same time, it does not necessarily mean that the 54% who disapprove his performance will vote any Republican candidate.  Moreover, surveys conducted to know the chances of matchups against Obama with any Republican contender showed Obama ahead.

These are not good indicators for Republicans. These facts, the surveys and the achievements done, the GOP leaders are actually in panic trying to figure out how they can diminish further the 44% support base of Obama if only to ensure a Republic candidate wins in 2012.

But what is not stated in the discussion, and what is the genuine reason the Republicans are dying to “kill” Obama so to speak, is the fact that they are not yet ready to accept that a Black man is the president and the same Black man would win anew in 2012.

So that it more appears that all those objections stated by Republicans and their Tea Party allies are more of a political statement and a muffled voice of reality that Blacks are not yet totally accepted in the place where discrimination was once the worst in the world.

The Conclusion

In all likelihood, the objection to Bernanke’s stimulus plan is nothing but an empty political statement. 

As argued above, the act of opposing the Bernanke stimulus plan is more of an act of withholding the grass from the dying horse.

If this is so, the voters who would be educated will look bad at GOP and this is no doubt a justification to say that the act of dissenting to the stimulus proposal is no less than a self-destruction for the Republicans.  It will tend to reduce their support rather than debase Obama.

There is still time.  My father's sisters and my brother-in-law are all rooting for Republicans.

Republicans must not fear that in cooperating with Obama they will not win the Presidency.

In fact, much better that they can argue their cause why Obama should not be reelected that the achievements did not go as expected despite the full cooperation given from them.

Crack the whip, Mr. Bill O'Reily! You said it once, say it again. Save the Grand Old Party.