Obama's Priorities for the Second Term

After the American Century                                                                                                                                                         

On the night he was re-elected, President Obama said that he had four priorities for his second term. These were deficit reduction, tax reform, a new immigration law, and reducing dependence on foreign oil.  

Since then gun control has been forced onto the national agenda, and Obama has announced that he would like to impose more controls on the sale of automatic weapons. The Constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms, written quite clearly into the Bill of Rights, will not easily be overthrown, however. Any major change will ultimately require the assent of 75% of the states. There are quite a few rural states where any such Constitutional amendment will be hard to push through. Remember the failure to pass the Equal Rights Amendment for women? I am sure Obama does, and he will not want to waste too much political capital on lost causes.

Let us look, instead, at the four announced goals, each in turn.

Deficit reduction. This problem did not exist in 2000, but was created by the un-financed Bush tax cuts and the un-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Now that the war in Iraq is over, and that in Afghanistan is winding down, one consequence ought to be some savings in military spending.  In general, however, it will be hard to reduce the deficit by cutting programs.  The only intelligent way to do this is to increase taxes back to the level of the Clinton years. This leads to the second goal:

Tax reform.  During the campaign Obama spoke of reducing taxes, making this possible by closing loopholes. I have heard this idea since I was old enough to understand what politicians were saying, but either clever accountants and lawyers keep finding new loopholes or this is just rhetoric, or maybe some of both. Meaningful tax reform would seem to require the progressive taxation that existed for decades before the Republicans began to slash away at it, from the Reagan years onwards. Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest men in the US, has said that it is ridiculous that his tax rate is lower than his secretary's. He and a group of other super-rich Americans have called for higher rates on themselves. One hopes that a few Republicans in the House will heed this call for a responsible tax policy. One way or another, revenues must be higher and spending held in check, so that the national debt once again can begin to be paid off. Curiously, the most successful debt reduction since 1970 came during Clinton's presidency. Had Bush left his tax system alone, the US would not be in the fiscal mess it is in now. I expect some changes to be made, but given the Republican dominated House, I do not expect to see real "reform." I would love to be mistaken.

Immigration Reform. An estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now live in the United States. Given the presumed importance of secure borders and Homeland security, this is anomalous, to put it mildly. The majority of these immigrants are of Hispanic origin, and Obama has promised to provide them a road to legal status and ultimately citizenship. Since more than 70% of Hispanic votes went to Obama, he has every interest in delivering on this pledge. If the Republicans vigorously oppose him, they will drive the Hispanics even more firmly into the Democratic camp. This would seem to be an issue on which the Democrats cannot really lose, even if in the short term they lose in Congress. In the longer term, these 11 million or more people have to be dealt with fairly. Moreover, Hispanics are the largest minority, far more numerous than African-Americans. The good news is that the Republicans and Democrats seem to be negotiating with some success on this issue, and a new law might be passed. It appears that it will not deliver simple amnesty, but require payment of back taxes and the like before an illegal immigrant can get on the road to citizenship.

Reducing Dependence on Foreign Oil. US oil production has been rising since 2009, based on changes made during the Bush years, which allowed oil companies to use high pressure water and chemicals to force oil and gas out of the ground - so-called fracking. The environmentalists do not like this practice, which endangers the water supply, and for that reason the Obama team is making all the right noises about being responsible. But at a time when jobs are scarce and energy expensive, the Democrats are allowing this new form of oil and gas development. But the reality is that growing US oil and gas production encourages Americans to keep on consuming at a high level. True, Obama did get through Congress much higher minimum mpg limits for new cars, and American drivers will become more fuel efficient every year for a decade as a result. But alternative energies will have a harder time in a marketplace awash with new oil and gas, and otherwise hard-hit states like Pennsylvania that are getting jobs and growth from fracking are not likely to rush to adopt solar or wind power. Obama is a pragmatist, seeking short term "energy security" in oil and gas supplies, while still pushing alternatives in the longer run, Meanwhile, he has also been pushing for more energy conservation, where there is still plenty of opportunity for improvements.

If we take this as the Obama project for the second term, it seems likely he will succeed in his energy program and that he has a good chance with immigration reform- However, he will have a harder time with the deficit and tax reform, though in each case some progress might be made.

The legacy Obama will leave behind, undoubtedly, will be his transformation of the medical system. If its implementation is successful, "Obamacare" will become as integral to the American way of life as Social Security or Medicare.

Finally, there is the economy, which Obama, or any president, actually has less control over than most people think. I will return to this subject in a later blog.

Historical Document: Fredrika Bremer on Industrial Work and Slavery in 1851

After the American Century

New England Mill, c. 1850

Historical Document

The Swedish novelist and champion of women’s rights Fredrika Bremer visited the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century, a decade before the Civil War. She traveled widely and made many interesting observations of the places and people she saw. In this connection, she is known for the book she published on these travels, under the title Hemmen i den nya världen,  Stockholm, 1853, and immediately translated into English as The Homes of the New World: Impressions of America, vol. I-III. London, 1853.  

The selections below concern the industrial mills in Lowell, Massachusetts and the institution of slavery. They come from her letters, which were only published in 1924 under the title America of the fifties: letters of Fredrika Bremer, edited by Adolph B. Benson. New York, The American-Scandinavian foundation, 1924.   

On the Mills at Lowell

I visited the celebrated manufactories of Lowell. I would willingly have declined the journey, because it was so cold, but they had invited strangers to meet me, got up an entertainment, and therefore I was obliged to go. And I did not regret it. I had a glorious view from the top of Dewcroft Hill, in that cold, starlight winter evening, of the manufactories of Lowell, lying below in a half-circle, glittering with a thousand lights like a magic castle on the snow-covered ground. And then to think and to know that these lights were not ignes fatui, not merely pomp and show, but that they were actually symbols of a healthful and hopeful life in the persons whose labor they lighted; to know that within every heart in this palace of labor burned a bright little light, illumining a future of comfort and prosperity which every day and every turn of the wheel only brought the nearer. In truth there was a deep purpose in these brilliant lights, and I beheld this illumination with a joy that made the winter's night feel warm to me.

The following morning I visited the manufactories and saw the young ladies at their work and at dinner; saw their boarding-houses, sleeping-rooms, etc. All was nice and comfortable, as we had heard it described. Only I noticed that some of the "young ladies" were about fifty, and some of them not so very well clad, while others again were too fine. I was struck by the relationship between the human being and the machinery. Thus, for example, I saw the girls standing, each one between four busily-working spinning-jennies: they walked among them, looked at them, watched over and guarded them much as a mother would watch over and tend her children. Machines are becoming more and more obedient under the maternal eye of intelligence. The procession of the operatives, two and two, in shawls, bonnets, and green veils, as they went to their dinner, produced a respectable, imposing effect. And the dinners which I saw at a couple of tables (they take their meals at small tables, five or six together) appeared to be good and bountiful also. I observed that, besides meat and potatoes, there were fruit tarts.

The industrious and skillful can earn from six to eight dollars per week, never less than three, and so much is requisite for their board each week, as I was told. The greater number lay by money and in a few years are able to leave the manufactory and undertake less laborious work.

On slavery

You may believe that there are many discussions here about slavery. I do not originate them, but when they come, which they frequently do, I express my sentiments candidly, though as inoffensively as possible. One thing, however, which astonishes and annoys me here, and which I did not expect to find, is that I hardly ever meet a man, or woman either, who can openly and honestly look the thing in the face. They wind and turn about in all sorts of ways, making use of every argument, sometimes the most contradictory, to convince me that the slaves are the happiest people in the world and do not wish to have their condition altered or to be placed in any other relationship to their masters than the present one. In many cases and under certain circumstances this is true; and it occurs more frequently than the Northerners believe. But there is such an abundance of unfortunate examples, and always must be in this system, that the idea is detestable.

In general the house slaves here seem to be well treated; and I have been in houses where their rooms and furnishings (for every servant, male or female, has his own pleasant room) are much better than those provided for the free servants of our country. The relationship between the servant and the employer seems also, for the most part, to be good and genuine; the older servants especially seem to stand in that affectionate relationship to the family which characterizes a patriarchal condition, and which it is so beautiful to witness in our good families between servant and employer; but with this important difference, that with us the relationship is the free-will attachment of one rational being to another. Here, also, may often occur this free-will attachment, but it is then a conquest over slavery and that slavish relationship, and I fancy that here nobody knows exactly what it is. In the meantime, it is true that the negro race has a strong instinct of devotion and veneration, and this may be seen in the people's eyes; they have a peculiar, kind, faithful, and affectionate expression which I like, and which reminds me of the expression in the eye of a dog. Also, they have a natural tendency to subordination to the white race and to obey the higher intelligence; and white mothers and black nurses prove continually the exclusive love of the latter for the child of the white. No better foster-mother, no better nurse, can any one have for her children than a black woman; and in general no better sick nurses than the blacks, either male or female. They are naturally good-tempered and devoted; and if the white "Massa" and "Missis," as the negroes call their owners, are kind on their part, the relationship between them and "Daddy" and "Mammy," as the black servants are called, especially if they are well on in years, is actually good and tender. 

But neither are circumstances of quite the opposite wanting. The tribunals of Carolina and its better class communities have yet fresh in their memories deeds of cruelty done to house-slaves which rival the worst abominations of heathen times. Some of the very blackest of these deeds have been perpetrated by women; by women in the higher class of Charleston society! Only lately a rich planter has been condemned to two years' imprisonment in the House of Correction for barbarous treatment of a slave. And then it must be borne in mind that the public tribunal does not take cognizance of any cruelties except those that are too horrible to be passed over. When I bring forward these universally known circumstances in my arguments with the patrons and patronesses of slavery, they reply, "Even in your country, and in all countries, there are masters and mistresses who are sometimes severe to their servants." To which I reply, "But then they can leave them!" To this they have nothing to say, and look displeased.

Ah! the curse of slavery, as the common phrase goes, has fallen not merely on the black, but perhaps at this moment still more upon the white, because it has warped his sense of truth and has degraded his moral nature. The position and the treatment of the blacks, however, really improve from year to year; while the whites do not seem to advance in enlightenment. Yet I must see and hear more before I condemn them. 

From  America of the fifties: letters of Fredrika Bremer, edited by Adolph B. Benson. New York, The American-Scandinavian foundation, 1924, 79-81, 99-103.

Clinton Level of Taxes a Good thing - The "Fiscal Cliff" is Nonsense as a Metaphor

After the American Century                                                                                                                                                         

We hear every day about the "fiscal cliff" but this metaphor is all wrong. US government finances will not suddenly decline if Congress does nothing. Rather, they will increase, as the tax rate returns to what it was before Bush pushed through tax cuts that undermined the budget. People seem to have forgotten that in the Clinton years, when taxes were a bit higher, the economy did extremely well. The US at that tax level still had lower taxes than almost anywhere else in the industrialized world.

In short, it is a good thing to go back to the tax system before Bush. The government needs to pay off its debts. The wealthy need to pay their share, again, as they did before. Americans have lost touch with fiscal reality, if they think that taxes can stay as low as they have been.

I realize many people fear that rising taxes will hurt the economy, but one has to remember the harm done by taxes so low that the government just keeps borrowing money. The interest rates are low  now, so the dangers are not as obvious as they will be when interest rates rise, as they always do.

The Bush tax cuts were not good for the American economy, and there is no reason to keep them. Short term, this may cause a slight dip in the economy, but long term, living within your means is always a good idea. The Clinton tax rates were much more realistic, and the economy then was far more sound. 

Who Reads This Blog?

After the American Century                                                                                                                                                        

On this Thanksgiving weekend, I want to say "Thank You" to all the readers who come here regularly, and to welcome those who may be here for the first time. This is a non-commercial site, with no advertising, and all the content is prepared entirely by myself

Who reads After the American Century?  This is an appropriate moment to ask this question, as in October, for the first time, more than 21,000 readers clicked there way here. That is about twice the average monthly rate, no doubt spurred by the American presidential election. About 67% of all readers come from the United States.

Google supplies some basic information about you, but quite properly does not tell me precisely what cities you live in, what books you have been buying, or other personal information, Most of you come from ten nations, listed here in rank order.

United States
Denmark
Canada
United Kingdom
Germany
Russia
France
Australia
India
Spain

Three of the ten most popular blog postings for the last year were about the election, but I am pleased that the majority of what you read deals with on other topics. After all, elections only come once every four years, and I would like to have you come by in other years, too. Here were the top ten.

Election 2012: Why Ohio is the Key Swing State Mar 6, 2012
PISA test results Dec 8, 2010
Election 2012: Four Republican Vice-Presidential P... Mar 29, 2012
Election 2012: Bland Candidates but Vital Issues Aug 30, 2012
Moon Landing Anniversary and the Decline of Wonder... Jul 20, 2011
Duane Michals, photographer May 10, 2010
2000-2010: The Flat Decade Dec 29, 2009
McBush and Appeasement May 17, 2008
100 Danish Poems, From the Medieval Period to the ... Oct 27, 2011
A Visit to BMW Welt, Munich Mar 9, 2012

On any given day, most of the traffic on this site explores the backlist. That fact encourages me to  continue writing as much as I can on topics of lasting interest rather than focus overmuch on news ephemera.  

Thank you again!

"Obamaka'er" - Traditional Danish Cake for Obama

After the American Century                                                                                                                   

To celebrate Obama's victory, I had the local Danish bakery bake this cake. It is a specialty on the island of Funen where I live, and tastes best with coffee. It is stickey sweet, because that brown layer on top is not frosting but melted brown sugar.

The bakery assistant asked if I wanted any text on it, and I said "Obama," and gave no more details. Possibly they thought it was boy's birthday cake, which might account for the charming drawing they did in white icing.

This cake was about six square feet (3 x 2) and demanded a hungry crowd. I started with a choir of 30 adults, who ate half of it last night. This morning my class nearly finished the job. There is a little left, but I am on a diet. An "Obamaka'er" is not a low calorie option. If I eat it to excess I will need Obamacare.

Why Romney Lost: 8 Reasons

After the American Century                                                                                                                           

President Obama has been re-elected, winning the popular vote, the electoral vote, and a majority of the states. Obama ran a strong campaign, but he also benefited from his opponent's mistakes. Here are eight reasons why Mitt Romney lost.

(1) Romney's VP choice. Romney mistakenly selected Paul Ryan as his running mate. Ryan did not help Romney win a single swing state, not even his home state of Wisconsin. Ryan also lost Romney votes among seniors, because he wants to downsize or privatize social security, medicare, and other social programs. Finally, Ryan hurt Romney with women voters, where the Republicans were already weak. Ryan has a harsh and uncompromising position on abortion, which he is on record as saying never can be justified. He tried to soften this position a little during the campaign, but women's groups reminded voters that he had stated, often, that abortion was not justified even in cases of incest and rape. Romney would have been far better off with a more moderate running mate like Ohio Senator Portman. He probably could have delivered the crucial 18 electoral votes of Ohio, which Obama won by a small margin.

(2) Bad luck? Hurricane Sandy pushed Romney off the front page a week before the election, and also reminded voters that he and Ryan both want to cut funding to FEMA and to disassemble the agency as much as possible, asking the States instead to assume responsibility. This idea is just silly. Disasters seldom strike within a single state jurisdiction. Central planning and coordination are essential, as well as access to the vast resources of the federal government. Moreover, the sheer size and power of Sandy was a powerful reminder that global warming is real. Yet Romney, like Bush before him, makes no policy adjustments that admit this. Even so, Storm Sandy could have been a bit of good luck for Romney if Obama had handled it poorly. Instead, he did a good job, forcefully reminding the public of his managerial qualities. In the aftermath, the President got an endorsement from the leading moderate Republican, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, and a glowing commendation from Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.

(3) Over-reliance on rich donors. Romney needed to battle the perception that he was the rich man's candidate, but instead he relied heavily on extremely wealthy donors, many of whom donated $1 million or more, in contrast to Obama's ability to attract literally millions of small donors. In the end, Romney did out raise the President, but there is only so much leverage you can buy in an election.

(4) Weak connection to the Bush dynasty. Romney never found a way to link up with the powerful Bush clan. As a result the only two living Presidents on the Republican side never campaigned for him. The Bushes disappeared completely from the Convention, as though they had never existed. In contrast, Obama had the excellent services of Bill Clinton who talked himself hoarse day after day, to large crowds. Romney had no such surrogate. He was one challenger boxing with two champions.

(5) Romney made unfortunate remarks. Who can forget his offer to bet Rick Perry $10,000? Almost everyone has forgotten what that bet might have been about, but not the amount. Likewise, Romney declared that he "liked to fire people." In London, he managed to insult the British. There are other examples, but three is enough to make the point. By comparison, I cannot recall any obvious mistake of this kind from Obama. As a final example, remember the little speech Romney made to donors, complaining about the 47% of Americans whom he viewed as parasites?  People such as veterans and retired people. A terrible mistake.

(6) Romney never released most of his tax returns.  When a candidate's worth is reportedly over $250 million, and he has funds in the Cayman Islands and in Swiss Banks, he needs to make an extra effort to make his financial affairs transparent. George Romney, the candidate's father, clearly agreed, for he was the candidate who began the practice of publishing his tax returns. That was in the 1960s, and the practice spread to virtually all other candidates since that time. For Mitt Romney to ignore his father's good example strongly suggests that he has something to hide. President Obama and all of Romney's challengers in the Republican primary released many years of tax information.  Romney stood out on this issue in the worst possible way. The young and the poor voted against him. They felt no kinship with a secretive, wealthy person.

(7) Immigration. Romney adopted an immigration program that alienated Hispanic voters. More than 70% of them voted for Obama. This position alone probably cost him Colorado and Florida, where the Cubans are no longer quite as unified or as dominant a pro-Republican force as they were during the height of the Cold War.

(8) Opposing the Automobile Industry Bailout.  Romney foolishly went on record four years ago, in a published newspaper article, where he said the Federal government should not bail out GM and Chrysler. As anyone can see in retrospect, this blunder was unpopular and just plain wrong, because the bailout worked, and both companies returned to profitability. In the closing days of the campaign, Romney made this mistake worse in an advertisement that spread false rumors about plant closings and sending US jobs to China.  This ad made the original mistake worse. The whole fiasco was avoidable. Romney did not need to write that article, and he certainly did not benefit from that stupid (the only word for it, "stupid") advertisement.  This mistake alone probably cost him Michigan and hurt him in Ohio, which has almost 1 million jobs related to the auto industry.

The election was close, and there were other factors to consider, such as Michelle Obama's great popularity or Joe Biden's ability to connect with blue-collar white men. But these eight things each made a difference, and Romney could have changed all of them except the hurricane. Even there he would have been far better off if he had not (earlier) advocated downsizing FEMA and refused to deal with global warming.

On the Democratic side, President Obama also made mistakes, but they were not as numerous or as memorable, except for the worst one: he should have prepared for that first presidential debate. Obama also prevailed in the end because Romney had flip-flopped so much on the issues over his seven years of running for the Presidency. He had advocated so many contradictory positions that he seemed to have no choice but to be vague about his program. In contrast, the President could point to solid achievements and an economy that clearly was improving due to the stimulus plans that he pushed through, despite Republican foot-dragging and opposition.

Yet whatever happened to the soaring rhetoric that Obama commanded in his first run for the White House? In 2008 he was charismatic and inspired. In 2012 he proved more pedestrian, apparently tethered to the earth by the practical demands of his office and the need to defend his record. In his victory speech some of that old magic returned, echoing the 2004 Democratic National Convention speech that first propelled him into the limelight. Now that he never will run for office again, perhaps he will unleash his rhetorical powers.

Technology: Blackout Behavior and Hurricane Sandy

New York, 1965 Blackout

After the American Century 

The blackouts that came in the wake of tropical storm Sandy left millions of people without electricity. These blackouts reminded Americans once again about how dependent they are on the current that runs silently into their homes, offices, and factories. As recently as 1965, when a major blackout shrouded the entire Northeastern United States in darkness, it was easier to cope with the crisis. Many typewriters were still manual, and the New York Times still had enough of them to write up the news and get it out the next day in a special edition that was printed in New Jersey, where the power remained on.  Back in 1965 important information was not stored on hard disks, and computers still had magnetic tapes. Then, the effects were most dire for travelers caught in airports, in subway tunnels, or on the high floors of buildings.

In 2012 computers are embedded in billions of devices, all of which require electricity. Even those that run on batteries need to be recharged after a short time. Some New Yorkers who have electricity proved willing to share it with complete strangers, letting them charge their cell phones, computers, and other devices, often for free. This generosity was not an isolated phenomenon, but is characteristic of what happens in a blackout. Generosity and helpfulness seem to break out on all sides. Unfortunately, journalists often miss htis side of blackouts, because they are looking for danger, death and destruction.

Widespread power failures only became possible after the development of regional grids of electrical service in the late 1930s and 1940s. As society increased its dependence on electricity, blackouts presented ever-greater problems, especially in hospitals, like that at NYU in 2012, when backup generators failed, and all the patients had to be moved elsewhere through the flooded streets of New York. Doctors and nurses gave selflessly to help their patients, for example by operating equipment manually, when this was possible, until it could be plugged in again. In the streets themselves many restaurants grilled neat and gave it away to passersby, most of whom could not cook in their dark apartments, rather than let the meat rot in rapidly thawing freezers.

As in 1965 and almost every other blackout, people talked to neighbors they hardly knew and helped total strangers. Blackout are a break in time, a semi-magical moment when the clocks literally stop and ordinary life cannot go on, when people discover a common humanity too often obscured by the demanding pace of contemporary life. When the Lights Went Out (MIT, 2010) explores the experience of blackouts, beginning with their World War II military necessity, including a wide range of reactions, ranging from exuberance and playfulness to riot, arson, and looting.

Yet most commonly, Americans have responded to blackouts by reaching out and helping one another. When thrust outside their cocoon of electrical conveniences and communications, they discover how much they share. In 1965, a woman returned home to her apartment near Union Square and found all the neighbors gathering in the only flat with a gas stove. Neighbors who had seldom spoken brought to one another out choice items from their suddenly dead refrigerators for an impromptu party and established friendships that persisted for decades. 

To its surprise, the Office of Civil Defense found that fear was not a widespread reaction to the 1965 blackout and that when fear was the first response it did not prove contagious. The investigators were surprised, because "projection of one's own fear on others is a fairly well-known phenomenon which has been experimentally induced." Instead, it found a "contagion of joy."

What has Obama Done? Achievements Since Taking Office

After the American Century

President Obama has achieved more than some people realize. Here is a list of some of this major accomplishments. It is an impressive list, considering the economic shambles and expensive foreign wars he inherited from George W. Bush. (The Republicans never mention Bush now. In 2001 he inherited a healthy economy and ruined it. He inherited a shrinking deficit, and expanded it. He inherited a nation at peace, and started two expensive wars that were still going on when he left office.)

The accomplishments of the Obama administration can be divided into four categories: Economy and Tax Reform, Equality and Welfare, Energy and Environment, and Foreign Policy. In addition, I note below some of the cases where Republicans opposed or did not support these achievements.

Economy and Tax Reform

He rescued the auto industry, and now GM and Chrysler are prospering again. The American auto industry has added nearly a quarter of a million jobs since June 2009.  

In contrast, Romney published an op-ed piece saying that the Federal government should not help GM and Chrysler, and that bankruptcy was the best option.

His Recovery Act helped to stave off a second Great Depression.  

Many of the Republicans in Congress opposed this Act.

He pushed through middle-class tax cuts that saved the typical family $3,600 over the last four years.

He has signed 18 tax cuts for small businesses in his first term.

There were 5.2 million new private-sector jobs during his first term, and the unemployment level has continued to fall, despite the fact that many corporations are replacing workers with robots.

He ordered the overhaul of federal regulations to make them more practical and  efficient. In the next five years this will save businesses $10 billion.

He created a landmark Wall Street reform that reins in abuses that led to the financial crisis and ends the era of taxpayer bailouts and "too big to fail."  

Republicans de-regulated the financial industry and during the GW Bush years they neglected their duty to keep an eye on it.

Wall Street reform created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the nation's first federal agency focused solely on consumer financial protection. The Bureau protects families from unfair and abusive financial practices from Wall Street and the financial industry.  

Republicans fought the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and when it was passed into law, they delayed the appointment of administrators to run it. 

Equality and Welfare

The first bill President Obama signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help women get equal pay for equal work.  

A majority of Republicans voted against this bill.

He doubled funding for Pell Grants, to make college affordable for 10 million families.

His student loan reform ended billions in bank subsidies cutting them out as middlemen and reinvesting those savings directly in students.  

A majority of Republicans voted against this bill.

He established the American Opportunity Tax Credit, worth up to $10,000 over four years of college.

Health care reform provides affordable  coverage to every American and will lower premiums by an average of $2,000 per family by 2019. Obamacare also expanded access to lifesaving preventive care such as cancer screenings and immunizations with no out-of-pocket costs for 54 million Americans. Obamacare ends insurance discrimination against 129 million Americans with pre-existing conditions. Because of Obamacare 3 million more young adults have health insurance.  

Almost all Republicans voted against Obamacare. Romney championed similar legislation in Massachusetts but later opposed it.

Obama repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, allowing gay and lesbian members of the military to serve openly for the first time. He directed the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA in federal courts, and took the practical and compassionate step of extending hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners.

A majority of Republicans voted against this bill.

When Congress failed to reform the immigration system, he streamlined the legal immigration process and adopted a policy that lifts the shadow of deportation from immigrants brought to the US as children.

Romney, Ryan, and the Republicans have called for immigrant "self-deportation" and take a harsh line against these children. 70% pf Latinos voted for Obama.

Energy and Environment

His investments in clean energy have helped more than double the electricity obtained from wind and solar sources and helped increase biofuel production to its highest level in American history.  

Republicans opposed these bills.

He has doubled automobile fuel efficiency standards, which will save drivers thousands of dollars at the gas pump, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and reduce the impact of automobiles on the environment. He has helped cut US dependence on foreign oil to its lowest level in 20 years, and the US appears to be headed toward near self-sufficiency in oil and gas production. From an environmental perspective, however, this increase is based in good part on fracking, which pumps water and chemicals underground at high pressure, which can vitiate the local water supply.
Republicans opposed raining mileage stanards, but they legalized fracking during the last years of the Bush presidency.

He signed one of the largest expansions of protected wilderness in a generation and established standards to reduce toxic air pollution.  

Romney would have "relaxed" air pollution standards for coal-fired utilities.

Foreign Policy

President Obama ended the war in Iraq.

He sent the largest security assistance package to Israel in history and funded the Iron Dome system, protecting Israeli homes and schools from rocket attacks.

He expanded and improved health care and job training for returning veterans.

He negotiated the New START Treaty with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons in both countries.

He eliminated Osama Bin Laden and decimated al-Qaeda's leadership.

Obama has accomplished a great deal. The American people deserve a more constructive Congress to help solve their problems.

With state's rights come state responsibilities. But Red States live on Federal Welfare and drive up the deficit

After the American Century

It is time for states to be treated equally, and it is time to stop wasteful federal spending. I therefore propose that no state be permitted to receive more than it pays in Federal taxes. If a state has been living on federal welfare in the past, it will have to stand on its own two feet and stop living off others. Individualism and self-reliance are virtues for states as well as individuals.

For example, for the last two decades the State of Alaska has received more than it has paid in. In fact, it has received $1.84 for every dollar it sent to Washington. This is obscene. Alaska has no state income tax, due to all its oil revenue. Indeed, residents of Alaska get a check every year, because the oil revenues are so large that there is always a surplus. Why should people in New York or California cut services in order to pay for Alaska, when it is rolling in money?

Now it happens that, as in this example, the states receiving the most federal funds are also those with strong Tea Party movements and vocal opponents of welfare, Obamacare, and most other forms of federal funding. We should keep faith with these voters and make sure that they get what they are demanding: less from Washington.

Here are  the ten states whose welfare payments are way out of line. The figure after it indicates how much each of them received for every dollar it paid in. States in (the) Red consistently have voted for the Republicans and embraced the rhetoric of a smaller federal presence in their lives. It is time for them to live up to their self-reliant ideals.

New Mexico  $2.03 (a swing state)

Mississippi $2.02

Alaska  $1.84

Louisiana $1.78

West Virginia  $1.76

North Dakota $1.68

Alabama $1.66

South Dakota $1.53

Virginia $1.51  (a swing state)

Kentucky $1.51

I can see why the voters of Mississippi and Louisiana and Alabama are angry at Washington. How dare the Federal Government pump billions of dollars into their states, weakening their self-reliance and turning them into welfare queens?

Meanwhile, other states ought to getting money back. They have been over-paying for decades. Here are the ten states that have been supporting those hypocritical "individualistic" Tea Party types. California and New York have cut their world leading universities and school systems to support welfare in states that say they do not want the money. New Jersey has been losing 39 cents on every dollar it invested in the Federal government.

New Jersey $.61

Nevada   $.65  (swing state)

Connecticut $.69

New Hampshire $.71  (swing state)

Minnesota $.72

Illinois $.75

Delaware $.77

California $.78

New York  $.79

Colorado $.81  (swing state)

What should we conclude? Clearly the Federal deficit has been created largely by Red states, and they not only should be cut off from this kind of welfare, but also they should pay back what they have borrowed, with interest. Why should New York or California, which have been cheated all these years, also pay back on that part of the deficit created by the RED states?

With state's rights come state's responsibilities. Time for the Red States to begin paying for the deficit they have created.

For more information, click here.