Posted on

Obama’s economy: The fierce debate

101229_obama_golfing_ap_328

By Peter Schroeder and Jordan Fabian – 02/10/16 06:00 AM EST

Seven years after President Obama’s inauguration, the debate about whether he saved the economy or held back its recovery is in full swing.

Obama has been taking a final-year victory lap, touting a national unemployment rate that has fallen to 4.9 percent as the latest sign of success for his economic stewardship.

Yet critics in Obama’s orbit, including Democratic congressmen and a former member of his Cabinet, suggest more could have been done if Obama had worked harder with lawmakers and members of his administration.

Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.) — one of two Democrats still in office out of the 11 who voted against the stimulus
legislation — said the White House made zero effort to bring him, or other centrist Democrats, on board in the fight over the stimulus.

“They just wrote us off, I think,” he said. “I can’t even tell you who in the administration is supposed to be lobbying me.”

It’s a criticism of Obama that has remained steady for his entire presidency: He doesn’t work well with others, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, who disagree with him.

“This is very much a my-way-or-the-highway White House, and this is a president who would rather win the argument than get something done,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, head of the American Action Forum and the top economic adviser to Obama’s Republican opponent in 2008, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

Obama allies say such criticism is unfair and blame Republicans for failing to work with Obama since day one.

“There’s no question that had Congress enacted the president’s economic proposals, the economy would be in a stronger position today,” said Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist who was a top economic adviser to Obama.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/economy/268856-obamas-economy-the-fierce-debate

Posted on

REMEMBERING COMMUNISM CORRECTLY: NOT A “BEAUTIFUL IDEA”

Communism

BY JÁNOS MARTONYI
JUNE 15, 2015

What is communism? Is it a beautiful idea, a utopian dream of bright future? Is it a coherent ideology of “historic materialism,” one that will abolish exploitation, eradicate inequality and injustice, abuses, estrangement, alienation, or Entfremdung, as it was called in the mid-nineteenth century by a young German philosopher, Karl Marx?

Or is it something else?

Is it a mother who enters the room of a twelve-year-old kid, wakes him up in the morning at 3 AM, and tells his son: “My son, you have to get up, the Soviet Army is attacking Budapest again”? Or is it the same mother, who, a couple of months later, wakes up his son again at 4 AM: “My son, you have to get up, your father has been taken away by the political police?”

We have to give a clear answer to people who are still saying that communism or Marxism-Leninism was a great idea, a beautiful idea — only the implementation was wrong. This is utterly and fatally wrong. It is not true.

It is not true because this was an idea, which was aggressive and violent, right in its inception, right from the beginning. The language was violent, the substance was violent, and of course everything, which has happened since, has been enormously violent.

That is why somebody said, that “revolutions are like trees: you can tell them by their fruits.” Communism had a logical outcome. Because if you want to destroy the existing political, economic and social order, and you want to put a new one in its place, it is a logical consequence that while destroying the existing structures, you sooner or later start destroying the basic human rights, the basic liberties, human dignity and yes, you start destroying thousands, millions, tens of millions of human lives.

That is the true face of communism.

Winston Churchill said right at the beginning, don’t think it is a peaceful utopian idea, because sooner or later it will be converted into external aggression, external expansion, because that is the nature of the ideology.

It is not by chance that in most countries, the communist dictatorship was established by sheer military force, in most cases coming from the outside. Certainly, it was the case in my country and all countries of the region.

The support of the communists in these countries was significantly less than in many Western European countries that never turned communist. Why? Because there was no presence of the Red Army in those countries.

Inevitably, dictatorships have to erect walls, barbed wires, iron curtains. But these are not external walls or barbed wires. The free minds were captured from within – as it was said by Czesław Miłosz.

A famous Hungarian poet, Gyula Illyés, wrote a fantastic poem about tyranny in which he says, “where there is tyranny, there is tyranny everywhere”. It is not just in the concentration camps, it is not just in the prisons, it is in the smile of the children, it is in your laugh, it is in your daily life.

As Havel said, the basic problem here was a morally contaminated environment: moral relativism, and moral corruption. That is to my mind the most important toxic legacy of communism.

Yet, there is an innate desire and aspiration for freedom in every human being, in every community or nation. That is why so many uprisings, revolutions, freedom fights and wars of independence took place. And finally, yes, in the ‘Year of Miracles,’ Central and Eastern Europe was liberated.

At the same time, we should never forget and we have to remember that this was only possible because there was a great nation that sacrificed more human lives to roll back and defeat communism around the world than any other nation. And this nation was and is the United States of America.

This is the reason why the stakes of moral clarity about the crimes of communist regimes in the past as well as the present are particularly high for America. This is why we hope that the mission of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation will be part of a genuine national consensus, a non-negotiable minimum of bipartisan nature.

https://blog.victimsofcommunism.org/remarks-of-janos-martonyi/

Posted on

Readers Opine on Daniel Patrick Moynihan

o-DANIEL-PATRICK-MOYNIHAN-facebook

Moynihan was an interesting character. He grew up in East Harlem and Hell’s Kitchen and worked as a longshoreman before becoming a Harvard intellectual and liberal icon. The Moynihan Report made him a pariah to the liberal Democrats and should have ended his career, The report was too honest and undermined the liberal agenda of the day. He found an odd bedfellow in Richard Nixon who recruited him to his White House staff in 1968. Another Republican, Gerry Ford, made him Ambassador to the UN. After restoring credibility on the international stage, the Democrats accepted him back and he had a successful run as a Senator from NY–still a liberal but also still an independent thinker. He often took stances at odds with the liberal agenda, such as his opposition to Hillary’s original health care scheme.

Moynihan was one of the last of a dying breed…a real New York character… he ascended from a tough start in life and became an icon as well as a forward thinker…and he loved his little drink now and then… I would see him hoist a few at Langans on occasion and he was funny as hell… my 3 favorite quotes from him were 1) when a reporter asked him if he had a drinking problem, he responded “Madame, I do not have a problem drinking” , 2) as UN ambassador, when the UN passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism, in front of the whole assembly, put his arm around the Israeli ambassador and loudly said to him “F_ck them!”… and 3) when he referred to hillarycare as “boob bait for bubbas”…