While the debate over whether America should bomb Syria is taking up a HUGE amount of media space, millions of Americans have at least one other major subject on the list of topics at the top of their minds: Jobs & the economy.
Since this is the first week of September, news of jobs and economic data will be dribbling out until the full official BLS report is released this Friday. Already, economics reporters like Lucia Mutikani of Reuters believe the number of jobs created in August will increase over July's numbers. While initially that seems like great news, as Neil Irwin of Wongblog points out, America's growing success at creating jobs could cause all kinds of other economic worries and unintended consequences, especially on Capitol Hill.
In other words, just as the choice over what to do - if anything - in Syria won't be a simple direct action followed by success, neither is deciding how to speed up America's economic and jobs recovery. Americans are frankly skeptical that their politicians today can solve complex problems like Syria or the economy - and with good reason.
In the case of at least one supposed "job creation" project, Americans - in this case, Nebraskans - are still waiting for the positive outcome that was supposed to come their way, years after the "simple" direct solution was implemented.
The "solution" we're referring to is the first Keystone pipeline, a fact pointed out by multiple newspapers in Nebraska this week. The pipeline company Transcanada sold the Keystone 1 pipeline as a simple, direct solution to the job woes hitting the nation after the economy blew up in 2008. As Nebraska Department of Revenue figures show, that promise of a simple, direct solution never panned out. Those living along the new proposed Keystone XL pipeline route don't expect this round promises of jobs and an improving economy by politicians siding with Transcanada to be any more honest than their earlier promises were.
With a failure like that, of what was supposed to be a simple, direct solution to an economic problem, it's easy to see why Americans in overwhelming numbers are skeptical about the complicated issue of intervening in Syria.
If the Pew Research Center Poll numbers don't convince you that Americans want nothing to do with military action in Syria, the ABC News-Washington Post poll that says 60% of Americans oppose a U.S.-only strike should. For those politicians that need a picture, Steve Benen even drew a handy graph that makes clear: No matter what someone's political affiliation is, most Americans are not interested in getting our nation involved in yet another overseas conflict.
While many in the political media continue to try to count heads for the upcoming votes in both houses of Congress, as stories from both Greg Sargent and Byron York make clear, many members of Congress on either side of the aisle have their own severe skepticism of any plans for American-led military action in Syria. After all, Americans have already waited a dozen years for our service members in Afghanistan to come home, after what was supposed to be a simple, direct, relatively quick military incursion with a relatively minor number of casualties.
The American military won't be out of Afghanistan until at least 2014. 2,266 deaths and 19,200 wounded Americans have now resulted from a simple, direct military action that will end up costing $4-$6 trillion dollars.
With examples like these, any politician or pundit pushing for rapid action on either Keystone or Syria might want to wake up. The reasons for American skepticism are the empty promises right in front of their faces.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
No Time For Childish Ways
While there may have been more napping by our staff members over the Labor Day weekend than most adults normally do, we certainly were awake on Saturday afternoon. That's when President Obama, in what may be a precedent-setting action, announced he was passing the decision to Congress on whether the U.S. should take military action in Syria.
That Congress didn't immediately rush back to Washington to debate the issue, didn't surprise us at all - especially given that President Obama stated any punitive action against Syria's current government wasn't time sensitive.
Still, Senate committees will already be meeting this week on the issue, some possibly as early as today, while the Republican-led House won't begin debating any potential military action until next Monday at the earliest. That Speaker Boehner can't even face the difficult decision to act like an adult and bring the House back into session early doesn't bode well for any of the difficult decisions facing Congress this month.
That President Obama did act as the Constitution declares Presidents should - and exactly in line with his past actions and statements, including his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech - didn't entirely surprise most of our staff.
It did surprise many, as Wonkblog's Neil Irwin pointed out over the weekend.
President Obama has never favored going to war as a first option. As we noted as recently as last Thursday and as far back as two-and-a-half years ago, President Obama has a long track record of trying to pull America back from its role as supercop to the world. It's clear that not all of his advisors feel the same as he does.
As MSNBC's Chuck Todd confirmed Sunday, the President had been lobbied heavily by his National Security advisors last week that he should forgo getting Congressional approval on a military strike in Syria. At the last moment, however, Obama ignored his National Security advisors and appeared to take his own council, based in part on the the lively rejection vote in the British House of Commons last week, and also on the will of the American people.
Our primary advice to anyone trying to read the tea leaves on this is simple: Don't think Congress will break down along traditional partisan lines on the decision to use force in Syria.
As Ed O'Keefe laid out in the Washington Post on Sunday, there are at least five groups of opinions right now across both houses of Congress, and across party lines. The left is mostly split between those wanting to help the Syrian people and those wanting to avoid war, as Alex Seitz-Walz outlines at Greg Sargent's Plum Line blog. Some, like Rep. Pelosi are also somewhat bound by their positions to advocate in certain ways.
On the right, the divisions are not so easy to see. The neocon chickenhawks in Congress are furious that President Obama is making them take a stand on the record about their perpetual warmongering. The libertarians find themselves siding with the anti-war left. Potential 2016 GOP presidential contenders are worried in both directions, not wanting to seem weak on defense, but also not wanting to seem like another round of George W. Bush.
Meanwhile, as Rick Ungar of Forbes points out, certain corporate media interests are also spitting mad at President Obama for styming their plans to cash in on the latest made for TV war.
Simply put, no matter what Congress decides, the decision that President Obama has tasked them with isn't going to be easy.
Then again, we didn't send those men and women in Congress to Washington just to play footsie with the lobbyists in the kiddie pool.
That Congress didn't immediately rush back to Washington to debate the issue, didn't surprise us at all - especially given that President Obama stated any punitive action against Syria's current government wasn't time sensitive.
Still, Senate committees will already be meeting this week on the issue, some possibly as early as today, while the Republican-led House won't begin debating any potential military action until next Monday at the earliest. That Speaker Boehner can't even face the difficult decision to act like an adult and bring the House back into session early doesn't bode well for any of the difficult decisions facing Congress this month.
That President Obama did act as the Constitution declares Presidents should - and exactly in line with his past actions and statements, including his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech - didn't entirely surprise most of our staff.
It did surprise many, as Wonkblog's Neil Irwin pointed out over the weekend.
President Obama has never favored going to war as a first option. As we noted as recently as last Thursday and as far back as two-and-a-half years ago, President Obama has a long track record of trying to pull America back from its role as supercop to the world. It's clear that not all of his advisors feel the same as he does.
As MSNBC's Chuck Todd confirmed Sunday, the President had been lobbied heavily by his National Security advisors last week that he should forgo getting Congressional approval on a military strike in Syria. At the last moment, however, Obama ignored his National Security advisors and appeared to take his own council, based in part on the the lively rejection vote in the British House of Commons last week, and also on the will of the American people.
Our primary advice to anyone trying to read the tea leaves on this is simple: Don't think Congress will break down along traditional partisan lines on the decision to use force in Syria.
As Ed O'Keefe laid out in the Washington Post on Sunday, there are at least five groups of opinions right now across both houses of Congress, and across party lines. The left is mostly split between those wanting to help the Syrian people and those wanting to avoid war, as Alex Seitz-Walz outlines at Greg Sargent's Plum Line blog. Some, like Rep. Pelosi are also somewhat bound by their positions to advocate in certain ways.
On the right, the divisions are not so easy to see. The neocon chickenhawks in Congress are furious that President Obama is making them take a stand on the record about their perpetual warmongering. The libertarians find themselves siding with the anti-war left. Potential 2016 GOP presidential contenders are worried in both directions, not wanting to seem weak on defense, but also not wanting to seem like another round of George W. Bush.
Meanwhile, as Rick Ungar of Forbes points out, certain corporate media interests are also spitting mad at President Obama for styming their plans to cash in on the latest made for TV war.
Simply put, no matter what Congress decides, the decision that President Obama has tasked them with isn't going to be easy.
Then again, we didn't send those men and women in Congress to Washington just to play footsie with the lobbyists in the kiddie pool.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Pointed Examples of Forward Motion
After an unexpectedly busy August filled with news, we're excited today. A full three-day weekend away from the drawing board and keyboards is staring us in the face, with time for our families, friends, and the opening weekend of college football.
We plan on celebrating the true meaning of Labor Day too, a time to remember the struggles and sacrifices of past working class Americans, who fought - and sometimes even died - so Americans today can have things like a 40 hour work week and safe working conditions. Some workers, like those who went on strike across the country on Thursday, need no reminder of what it means to fight for fair wages.
That fight against injustice has sometimes seemed pointless in the face of policies like the newly rigged voting laws in Texas, North Carolina, and elsewhere. After yesterday, though, we're a bit more hopeful that almost anything is possible, if we just prepare and keep hacking away at the problem.
We stress 'almost anything', though. After all, we're not in charge of finding Democratic candidates to run for Congress in Nebraska in the 2014 election.
Still, there was slew of good news yesterday afternoon, even in the midst of all the rumors surrounding Syria.
The U.S. Treasury Department announced Thursday that they will now begin recognizing all same-sex couples' marriages for tax purposes, even if the couple lives in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage. That news came on the heels of the announcement that the Justice Department will no longer sue to block laws legalizing marijuana in 20 states and DC.
Both of those pieces of news fell in line with the news from the White House that - as promised - President Obama is going ahead with Executive Branch changes to federal gun laws, closing two loopholes that allowed corporations to register highly restricted guns that people might not otherwise be able to register and own themselves.
Add to those pieces of news another story from Barton Gellman & Greg Miller, based on the leaked NSA information that finally lets Americans know how much money we're spending on our security state ($52.6 billion), and who actually spends the most "secret" government money (That's the CIA, followed by the NSA). Even more good news came when the British Parliament voted down military action in Syria, and the Swiss & U.S. agreed to finally go after the tax cheating banks on Wall Street.
It wasn't all good news yesterday. As we noted on Thursday, many pundits and some at the highest levels of the U.S. government are still pushing to get America involved in Syria's civil war.
Frankly, the story that many on the rabid anti-war left have jumped on is a single report from The New York Times, unsubstantiated by separate sources elsewhere. That story insists President Obama is "willing to pursue solo Syria strikes" - a claim we have difficulty believing for multiple reasons, including the past history of the New York Times publishing misleading lies in the run up to an unnecessary and unwanted war.
Still, overall, it's been a much better August than we'd anticipated it to be.
Time for a well-earned three-day weekend.
We plan on celebrating the true meaning of Labor Day too, a time to remember the struggles and sacrifices of past working class Americans, who fought - and sometimes even died - so Americans today can have things like a 40 hour work week and safe working conditions. Some workers, like those who went on strike across the country on Thursday, need no reminder of what it means to fight for fair wages.
That fight against injustice has sometimes seemed pointless in the face of policies like the newly rigged voting laws in Texas, North Carolina, and elsewhere. After yesterday, though, we're a bit more hopeful that almost anything is possible, if we just prepare and keep hacking away at the problem.
We stress 'almost anything', though. After all, we're not in charge of finding Democratic candidates to run for Congress in Nebraska in the 2014 election.
Still, there was slew of good news yesterday afternoon, even in the midst of all the rumors surrounding Syria.
The U.S. Treasury Department announced Thursday that they will now begin recognizing all same-sex couples' marriages for tax purposes, even if the couple lives in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage. That news came on the heels of the announcement that the Justice Department will no longer sue to block laws legalizing marijuana in 20 states and DC.
Both of those pieces of news fell in line with the news from the White House that - as promised - President Obama is going ahead with Executive Branch changes to federal gun laws, closing two loopholes that allowed corporations to register highly restricted guns that people might not otherwise be able to register and own themselves.
Add to those pieces of news another story from Barton Gellman & Greg Miller, based on the leaked NSA information that finally lets Americans know how much money we're spending on our security state ($52.6 billion), and who actually spends the most "secret" government money (That's the CIA, followed by the NSA). Even more good news came when the British Parliament voted down military action in Syria, and the Swiss & U.S. agreed to finally go after the tax cheating banks on Wall Street.
It wasn't all good news yesterday. As we noted on Thursday, many pundits and some at the highest levels of the U.S. government are still pushing to get America involved in Syria's civil war.
Frankly, the story that many on the rabid anti-war left have jumped on is a single report from The New York Times, unsubstantiated by separate sources elsewhere. That story insists President Obama is "willing to pursue solo Syria strikes" - a claim we have difficulty believing for multiple reasons, including the past history of the New York Times publishing misleading lies in the run up to an unnecessary and unwanted war.
Still, overall, it's been a much better August than we'd anticipated it to be.
Time for a well-earned three-day weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)