Campaign

A much maligned American labor movement had lost much of its appeal to today’s workers, but all that is changing, thanks to some over-reaching Republican governors led by Wisconsin’s Scott Walker.  In their clumsy efforts to take away worker collective bargaining rights, these Ronald Reagan wannabees are revitalizing union support all across America.

For years, hostile employers and right-wing think tanks have told workers that in this enlightened age unions are not relevant to their needs, that unions only wanted their dues dollars and they’d get nothing in return.

As government forces intensify their assault on cities across eastern and western Libya, the putative head of the Libya’s caretaker opposition government in Benghazi, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, continues to plead for international assistance:  “It is our desire that friendly nations and nations that have the power to decide should come forward and assist us…I also appeal to the international community to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya…” The Obama Administration should move quickly to respond to this request and support those seeking to drive Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi from power – with or without UN Security Council authorization.

When tens of thousands of Libyans took to the streets just three weeks ago, bravely denouncing Gadhafi's 41-year rule, momentum appeared to be on their side. Their neighbors on both sides – in Tunisia and Egypt – had just succeeded in ousting their leaders through peaceful protests. Eastern Libya quickly fell to the opposition, and it seemed it would be just a matter of days before Gadhafi would be forced to flee. But the tide has since turned. Gadhafi's brutal and bloody crackdown has succeeded in suppressing the popular uprising in Tripoli. With government forces now bombarding cities across eastern Libya, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the opposition will be able to force Gadhafi from power by themselves. Opposition leaders have now made clear their desire for outside military intervention. 

If one is forced to describe Obama’s foreign policy approach with one simple word, ‘cautious’ would be the best choice. Caution – in the Administration’s own statements – has helped define every response by President Obama to any sudden political development around the world, from the Korean Peninsula to North Africa.

The president has been cautious in responding to security challenges with respect to Taiwan-China relations and North Korea’s military threats toward South Korea. He reacted with great caution in his response to the mass protests in Iran last year and last month. And he has been very cautious concerning the unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya and beyond.

Substantively, and arguably rightly so, his pragmatic policies have been met with some success and mostly bipartisan support in Congress.  

Cautious pragmatism, in fact, would certainly fit as a more appropriate and sophisticated depiction of the president’s approach.

Depending upon your view of the First Amendment, the impact of Citizens United on the 2010 election either brought great satisfaction or deep regret. Regardless of your position, there is no doubt that Citizens United permitted an abundance of funds to flow from corporate coffers into the political process.

While many decry the outcome, it is unlikely that the right of a corporation to engage in political speech will be curtailed by judicial or legislative action. That should not mean the issue is settled. Congress should require the disclosure of individuals and entities that fund the political activities of tax exempt entities such as 501(c)(4) and (c)(6) organizations. 

Uncle Sam is spending you into the poorhouse. Taxes, inflation, unemployment, interest rates – all could skyrocket if Washington keeps spending trillions of dollars it doesn't have. Unless we begin to cut spending now (a lot of spending) these four horsemen of debt will ride roughshod over families and businesses already struggling to get by. Fortunately, we still have a chance to kick the spending addiction and keep the American Dream alive.

What Can't Go on Forever, Won't

Between 2007 and today, total federal spending rose by almost 36 percent. Meanwhile, taxpayers' personal budgets have headed in the opposite direction. From 2007 to 2009 (the latest data available), median family income actually fell by 4.2 percent. 

For an Administration concerned about fiscal discipline and spending cuts, a $3.73 trillion budget seems to be a contradiction. Obama’s budget for 2012 increases the deficit to $1.6 trillion. It also creates over $1.6 trillion in new taxes. 

Though Obama pledges $1.1 trillion in deficit savings, one should be quick to realize those savings are only after the deficit is increased to an all-time high of $1.6 trillion. The math does not seem to add up. At the end of 2012, the U.S. deficit will set a devastating record for the highest dollar amount in history and will also represent 10.8 percent of the total economy. This is the highest level since World War II.

A single word, phrase or image can define a company, for good or ill: Think Different, the “Swoosh,” Got Milk?.

Political parties are no different. With the largest conservative gathering taking place this week – CPAC – the GOP needs to do some serious soul searching about its brand.

The 2008 election and the rise of grassroots celebrity Sarah Palin brought the GOP’s branding problem into sharp relief. Finding the right message has become more difficult following the midterm elections, the success of the tea party movement, and the crescendo of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).

The election results of November 2 signaled… well, no one is really sure.

Resurgent Republicans returned to power in Congress on a wave of voter anger, capitalizing on double-digit underemployment rather than a specific policy agenda.

Disillusioned Democrats failed to defend the legislative record of President Obama’s first two years, including the economic stimulus and universal healthcare. 

The Presidential Election Campaign Fund is the very definition of frivolous Washington spending. We're not talking about investing in our infrastructure or spending money to improve the lives of average Americans-- this program pays for political party conventions and to prop up the candidacies of presidential hopefuls.

The idea that Americans need this program in order to support candidates is absurd.  It's not 1971 anymore. With online communications, it's never been easier to participate in elections. President Obama himself raised a record $745 million without accepting a dime of federal assistance, and I don't believe he would say that makes his administration beholden to special interests or that his administration is hopelessly corrupt as a result of forgoing public financing.

I have one question for President George W. Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress. Where are the jobs?