A bolder Obama can belong to Ages
A bolder Obama can belong to Ages
by: Dave & Nita Anand
Sometimes around 350 BC, Aristotle observed thus: "He who has not learned to obey cannot be a good commander."
By that token, re-elected President Barack Obama can only be a half good commander since he pushes for the causes of 50 percent of Americans and disobeys the other half. But all this can change with a stroke of boldness. The country is too divided and for it to continue like this bodes disaster from here on unless something is done quite bold. Since Obama does not have to be re-elected, he can be real bold.
Now is the time for Obama to show that same flexibility he promised to Russians (overheard in an open microphone) to work with Republicans at the cost of his liberal wing and bring this great country together by finding solutions to the critical domestic issues of the looming fiscal cliff, a budget deal to address taxes/debt/deficit/entitlements, and a substantial improvement to the jobs and economic situation.
Solutions to Iran, Afghanistan and Syria and Palestinian issues will be crucial for claiming success in the foreign policy arena.
Obama must not waste this second term opportunity in petty bargaining and rather achieve something extraordinary before he leaves the political scene. The country faces a very tricky situation ahead, not just the four years ahead, but much beyond that requires a courageous leader to take actions now to save it and its 300-million people from going through hard times like those during the Great Depression.
The "Can Do President" has to transform into the "Must Do President" and could use some help from Romney-Ryan in the process. In this, Obama will have to put some distance between himself and the Democratic Party – not a divorce or a separation, but some space that will allow him to reach agreements with Republicans on those extremely difficult issues.
As Obama gets ready to embark on his second term, he must recall the stubborn refusal of both parties at every step of the way to solve the monumental problems our country faces. That state of mind of both parties needs to change if this close election is any indication: Americans want their political leaders to work together and show expediency in getting the results before it is too late.
Dreaming big is one of the important characteristics of Obama’s personality. He should dream even bigger and needs to think he belongs to the Ages. So along with Obamacare -should he succeed in putting behind most of the critical issues by working with Republicans and upsetting a few Democrats – Obama will leave behind a great legacy that will put him in the company of Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson, and such political giants.
Obama must dream of being greater than the position of President and this second term provides him that opportunity; he can be the “Savior” of the country and its 300million people if he acts boldly. He must be ready to act and let Congress be the do-nothing Congress that people can discern easily and then get rid of them in two years. But the real challenge lies in working with them than to get rid of them and achieve the results 100 percent Americans are looking for.
Crossing the center line and into Republican territory will be required of Obama on some issues and vice-versa for Republicans on the other issues. It should be easier to do this now when the burden of re-election is over. Obama must therefore concentrate on healing the country by taking into account the aspirations of all Americans as well as his legacy that he would like history to remember him for.
While the rewards are spectacular - there are hardly any risks by thinking big in the second term of a presidential term. Obama’s role model Abraham Lincoln once said: “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.” Well, Obama has 6 weeks to sharpen his axe and 4+ years to trim the tree a bit that is full of debt/deficit/entitlements.
By sharpening his axe, being bold and making a few courageous moves and concessions – Obama, acting as his own “Fiscal Surgeon General,” with an axe than a scalpel - should be able to leave behind a nonpareil legacy. The country will lose a lot should Obama fail to muster that boldness and courage; he will too.
Donald Lee
5:38 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
This post presumes that the spectrum of solutions is simply a continuum, and that any point on the scale is equivalent to others. The problem is strictly human - "political", as though our representatives have arrived at their positions solely through their skill in pandering to their various constituencies.
Unfortunately, this is not so. On some issues, "right" and "wrong" are appropriately applied. Compromise, and "crossing the aisle" when the other side of the aisle is "wrong" may not be the best, or even a useful path.
As an example, Iran appears to be working on nuclear weapons, and missiles to carry them. If this is true, and what they say about us being the "great satan" their leaders mean sincerely, allowing them to acquire functional nuclear weapons is a mortal threat to the current international order. Splitting the difference between "they do" and "they don't" makes no sense. Allowing this issue to go the "wrong way" could be much more than an existential threat to Israel.
Men and women of integrity, principle, and character tell us how they think, and give us confidence in their judgement and honesty. They are expected to stick to principle, not pander to every stakeholder, including their opponents. Some of us call indescriminate compromise "corruption".
Dave & Nita Anand
7:48 pm on Tuesday, December 4, 2012
No one commented for this long, do I started to wonder if I was "too right."
Your example of nuclear weapons is not a good example, since most people believe it is wrong. Take the tax rate as an example: Democrats feel 39.6% from Clinton era is right, while Republicans like 35% to be the right tax rate - here one can cross the rubicon from either side and settle at say 37% along with elimination of loopholes to raise the required revenue. If you listen to liberal economist Paul Krugman, one will have no compromise or solution; I prefer Robert Samuelson's views on economic matters.
Same can be said of spending cuts by including both defense cuts and entitlement cuts; the devil is in the details and I am good at details, and that requires a huge essay.
Donald Lee
1:08 am on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Can you clarify? What is "wrong"?
"Your example of nuclear weapons is not a good example, since most people believe it is wrong."
Compromise on tax rates may well be worthwhile, but my point is that there are cases where compromise is not wise. The consequences of nuclear war seem to me to fall into this category. The Iranians may *not* actually build, and if built, may not use nuclear weapons, but there is a risk, and getting it right is vital.
"Compromise" makes no sense.
Dave & Nita Anand
6:58 am on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
99.9% of the World believes it is WRONG for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, but Iran does not. One cannot have a compromise in such a clear situation and understandably NO COMPROMISE SHOULD BE OFFERED AND IS NOT WISE AS YOU SAID.
However, there are political pundits who believe and have written for Iran to exercise its right and create a MAD situation in Middle East in the pattern of Cold War as a deterrent - NOT WISE EITHER as MAD means nothing to people who are suicidal and willing to take everyone to heaven for those virgins awaiting them - up there!
Gramps Pupany
5:36 pm on Thursday, December 6, 2012
Thank God for folks like Obama. The GOP still wants us poor and middle class folks (making less than $250,000/year) to pay the income taxes of those making $250,001 and more.
When did we ever vote to get SCREWED into paying the taxes of millionaires??? When you go out to dinner, do you pay half the dinner bill of the guy sitting next to you just because he's rich??? Hell no!
But that's what Boehner and McConnell want us "poor suckers" to do...pay half the taxes of their millionaire friends. Oh, you say you don't know who their rich friends are??? Just look at who gave them the most money in the last election. That's who the GOP represents, my friends...not the working man.
Screwed once, shame on me! Not next time. I'll pay my way...you pay yours. I can't afford to vote for one of these "generous" Republicans again. How 'bout you?
Dave & Nita Anand
6:29 pm on Thursday, December 6, 2012
FACTS: Top 10% of Earners paid 71% of Federal Income Taxes in 2010. The bottom 50% paid Very Little or No Taxes. Looks like the top 50% are buying the burgers for the guy next door on food stamps!
Compromise and compromise alone is what is needed for both rates and cuts or we should all be ready to take a plunge over the cliff. Politicians from both parties play games - they will take you to the edge and then put a brake and into reverse gear.
Try electing an Independent next time like Bloomberg.
Donald Lee
12:58 pm on Friday, December 7, 2012
Phrases like "fair share" mean different things to different people. To the left, I think it just means "more". The "FACTS" above deserve a good long look. See: http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners
The "cliff" is a case where compromise is not appropriate, because there are important principles involved. Poor articulation of principle by Republicans does not detract from the importance of principle.
The main principle is that in a free society, we have a right to enjoy the legally acquired fruits of our efforts. At core, what the left is saying with its "rich should pay their fair share" rhetoric is: "You have more, so we have a right to take it from you". Taxation, like law, should apply to everyone equally. We cannot single out a group - any group - and dump the taxes on "them". The left pits the successful against the unsuccessful, and says the losers have a right to live at the expense of the winners. As charity, or as a "safety net", this may be defensible, but as a simple money grab, and when the money is going to free cell phones, and bailouts for mega banks it clearly cannot be tolerated.
From the time that the progressive income tax was implemented in 1913 until the 1950s, this conflict between "progressive taxation" and the right to keep what you earn was understood. No more. It is time to stand firm.
Karl Marx had his run in the 20th century. We know how that movie ends. Let's not re-play it.
Dave & Nita Anand
2:40 pm on Friday, December 7, 2012
Fair Taxation is a tough philosophical issue. Money collection by Govt. is needed for core infrastructure and services since what everyone earns is based somewhat on that one factor, in addition to several other factors of skills, attitude, personality, luck, etc. Now some would like us to believe that our success is because of that ONE factor - "Govt. Taxation" that provides the necessary infrastructure & services for us to be successful, which is ridiculous!
You cannot have a single tax rate for everyone unless it is as sales tax(use based to make it fair) and you cannot keep on taking from richer folks more and more for passing on to the lower stratum, who were dealt a losing hand by The Almighty or Providence. How much compassion and charity can keep fulfilling the needs of the needy (their needs seem to grow faster than available compassion, at least in these times of HUGE DEFICITS)?
The rich must do more and many do inspired by Providence, but it should not be mandated via higher and higher tax rates - where is the limit!!! Much as we would like prosperity/charity/compassion win this battle of taking care of the needy(foodstamps, medicare, social security etc), it won't work in difficult periods as we face now, unless the needy put effort in bootstrapping themselves and standing up(the problem is: once one is used to freebees, he/she loses the energy to fight).
Donald Lee
10:53 pm on Friday, December 7, 2012
Much worse than providing freebees is the idea that people have a right to live at the expense of others. "Bootstrapping" is only done when people have motivation to improve their condition, but a constant drumbeat of "claim your rights - you're a victim!" is very destructive. Those who are independent, hard-working, and self-reliant become the fools, and those who game the system and milk out the freebees become the "winners" in the eyes of those around them.
Charity and kindness are necessary, but providing it through government turns it into something else. We cannot pay others to be compassionate for us, especially when we force others to do the paying, as we do through government programs.
I recommend the book - "Losing Ground" The author is Charles Murray.
http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-Social-1950-1980/dp/0465042325/ref=sr_1_2
Barb O'Donnell
9:40 pm on Friday, December 7, 2012
Obama will do such thing. His concern is pushing his agenda through. He has no desire to bring this Country together.
michael mirra
12:13 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
How can anyone bring this country together? ANY President would alignate half the people no matter what official act he does. The country is divided in a cold war Civil War. Each side is compleatly opposed to what the other stands for. Obama is in the middle, which is the only place he can be without taking sides. The right calls him a socialist & the left thinks he's a conservative masquarading as a liberal. He still has us at war, he hasn't outlawed guns, he agreed to cut benifits, he hasn't legalized pot, or gay marriage. He's too conservative for a man that promised real change.
Dave & Nita Anand
9:43 am on Saturday, December 8, 2012
Freebess are really not free; they are free for the receipient but are paid by others like you and million others. The problem is there are two kinds of charity channels - direct and indirect.
The direct ones are the more appropriate as they are through individuals and private entities. The second is the more bothersome that of Govt. programs in the form of - Foodstamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc that requires this forcing of others like you and million others to pay more and more (or be more compassionate/charitable) for the more unfortunate.
While we need to help the needy, it is just going out of hand, and extreme socialism does not work just as EXTREME fascism/nationalism/capitalism do not. A Balancing act is necessary in all nature things since nature itself is manifestation of that phenomenon that then brings us to the need for COMPROMISE in the current intractable Fiscal Cliff debate.
Dave & Nita Anand
5:00 pm on Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Obama is doing the right by positioning himself in the middle and reaching out in both directions to embrace the greatest number of moderate people like you, me and others such minded folks by twisting and turning his policies to cut that big swath. Call him anything - he is championing liberal and conservative causes at the same time - an extremely difficult balancing act. Nature itself is a balancing act and one who does that successfully is in synch with nature; lets hope Obama achieves that as his success with fiscal cliff and the oncoming avalanche of debt ceiling will depend on it.
Regarding guns, I believe VP Biden is putting together new legislation document, while Senator Feinstein will revive her assault weapons ban. Please read my essay on "The Madness of Gun Ownership" by clicking on the URL below.
http://greateralexandria.patch.com/blog_posts/the-madness-of-gun-ownership-597bf20b