Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Success is a transitory idea
A book review: Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell
Success is generally calculated in three ways: achievements of social status (accumulation of capital, vertical growth in employment opportunity, acceptance in limited organization, etc.), achieving a prior established goal, or simply the opposite of failure. Malcom Gladwell in his work Outliers adds an interesting component to the success paradigm, the nature of your surroundings plays a large part in your ability to attain success.
Towards the end of Gladwell’s work, he cites an interesting study which calculated the abilities of four year old children from China and the United States. The researchers were determining how high each child could count. The results tallied the Chinese children averaging at the number 40, where their American counterparts were able to reach about 15. There are several historical trends brought into the statistic in order to shed some light on the gross inconsistency of performance. For one, the Chinese language utilizes simple words for its numerical system: one, two, three, four, five equated to yi, er, san, si, wu. The simple mechanics of the Chinese and surrounding Asiatic tongues, arguably, create a supple mind for mathematical computation. This is compounded by a vocabulary that allows for less memorization of added consonants and vowels. Much of the Children whom were studied in China, compared to their American counterparts, hailed from the Southern lands of China. The southeastern mainland of China is a vast, fertile delta where rice has been harvested for thousands of years. The necessary calculations and labor that go into the production and harvest of the aquatic based crop are extraordinary. The plant demands an intellect focused on the attention to detail and a will to patiently struggle with the crops fragile but laborious development.
Gladwell is not necessarily saying that because many Asian nations have a history of rice cultivation and a simple language structure that they are naturally superior to the rest of the world in mathematics. In fact he notes that many of the studies are biased towards China’s urban children who have a higher quality of living and affordable education. What he is attempting to assert is that cultural and environmental factors do play a small and important role in how, as individuals we succeed. The idea is that we tend to be bound to our genealogy through cultural trends and perhaps genetic traits we inherit.
Outlier is a mathematical term that Malcom Gladwell adapted to note the unique relationship between the Western world's perception of success, and how it really unfolds. Essentially, the outlier deviates from the norm of data sampled, for Gladwell the data sample is a qualitative analysis of success. An interesting cultural theory Gladwell touches on is accumulative advantage or what is referred to as “The Matthew Affect. The term was coined by Robert K. Merton in the 1960’s in his work "The Matthew Effect in Science", in which he hoped to analyze the systems of reward and communication within the field. Merton found that more often than not, a researcher who had greater notoriety within the academic discipline, would receive credit for a recent discovery over a lesser known counterpart regardless of who formulated what first. The Nobel peace prize is often cited as an area in which the Matthew Effect is heavily influential in the decision of the award recipient. Gladwell masterfully displays the Canadian Hockey league’s Matthew Effect in relation to its player’s birth dates and their respective youth leagues age cut off limit.
The CHL has an alarming incidence of individuals in its elite division born during the months of January, February, March and April. Gladwell cites the relation between the youth leagues cutoff dates for age level registration as the nature of this inequality. Most Western professional sports leagues follow the same pattern, sponsoring age restrictions for youth leagues in which the children born earlier in the year hold a developmental edge over the children born in August and September. This phenomenon is also observed in most public school systems. For example, two children born in 1986 wish to play youth Baseball and the birthday registration cutoff date for their relevant age level is August 25th. The first child is born January 15th, while the second is born August 14th. The first child, in the tradition of maintaining youth in groups based on yearly birthdays set by a deadline, would hold a substantial developmental edge over the relatively younger. In fact, between ten and thirteen years of age when most young men are reaching puberty, this difference can be an overwhelming obstacle for the August birth dates.
Gladwell notes that in the instance of the Canadian Hockey League or the Czech Republic national soccer team (he illustrates the same birth date to elite level performance trend), if the children were divided into three periods within their age range and allowed to physically and intellectually develop in like groups, an even greater degree of talent could be developed. Group A would consist of January through April, Group B from May to August and September to December for Group C; within this format each year will have three groups with education and instruction specifically tailored to their developmental stage in a given year. Most important, the respective nations could then field three times the quality of athletes, in a more egalitarian atmosphere.
Two more interesting social phenomena in regards to how we view success rest largely on our perception of genius. Gladwell cites a study in which the IQ’s of Nobel Prize recipients are tallied. The cold truth is that an individual with an IQ of around 120-130 is just as likely to win a Nobel prize as an individual with an IQ between 160-170. This fact takes a lot of wind out of the notion that intellect is inherent and held by a few, especially when one takes into account the “10,000 Hour Rule.” The preeminent Swedish psychologist K. Anders Ericsson first coined the phrase in his research on expert performance and excellence. The idea is that all one needs to do in order to succeed in a specific field is roughly 10,000 hours of dedicated study and practice. The catch is that one would need the necessary social and historical factors in order to support the endeavor. A child forced to work 40 hours a week and attend school part time until the eighth grade before he or she is forced to abandon their studies will never have the opportunity to implement this rule.
This rule parallels the idea of an embryonic stage in an intellects development in which a homeostasis is achieved between the desire to acquire the necessary knowledge and the practical environment in which the undertaking is enabled or denied. So, when Gladwell notes how when the The Beetles first began playing 12 hours sets for nearly a decade in Liverpool, England and Hamburg, Germany; you begin to understand the relevance of 10,000 dedicated hours. Or when he explains how an association of caring and involved parents in Seattle dedicated a substantial amount of funds towards state of the art computer technology. The neighborhood center in which the technology resided would be the embryonic stage of development necessary for Bill Gates and his fellow suburbanites to develop their programming genius over 10,000 hours of uninhibited programing.
This book offers some astounding insight into the nature of Western cultures perception of success. At the same time, there is little surprise for the student of Critical Pedagogy or Progressive Democratic theory. The idea that an individual needs a supportive environment in order to prosper is a driving notion behind all liberal theories of humanities. What Gladwell accomplishes in his work Outliers, is the creation of a blue print in analyzing our societies tragic behavior towards its own citizenry. In a society in which the gap of wealth and resource distribution continues to expand in favor of the 1%, it is refreshing to read a work of art that expose a tired system.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Insecurity Spawns the Conservatives Hatred
Conservative pundits in the press and government alike have always utilized pseudo-Marxist language in order to cast liberal minded individuals as the dreaded American political "Other": The Communist. The tactic of lumping all dissenters under general terms like communist, socialist, or referring to them as "Reds", dates back to the early 20th century. The Palmer Raids from 1919-1920 were a government led initiative to snuff out any attempt by the laboring masses to form collective bodies of self governance. Immigrants throughout the nation were labeled communist, treated as foreign antagonizers and deported by the thousands. American citizens were imprisoned for "subversion." A young Eugene McArthy would learn many of the tactics for harassing liberal minded Americans during this period under the tutelage of J. Edgar Hoover. Several decades later during the 1950's McArthy as a U.S. Senator, would lead what historians refer to as the "Red Scare", attempting to label hundreds of liberal Americans as Communist sympathizers and spies.
The idea of referring to dissenting, liberal minded American as "commie's" would only gain popularity during the 1960's and 1970's when every oppressed socio-economic group began to assert itself politically within the American social matrix. J. Edgar Hoover would counter this revolution with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's C.O.I.N.I.N.T.E.L. Program which was designed to infiltrate all "leftist" American organizations. Homosexuals, women, Hispanics, African-Americans, anti-war activists, really anyone who championed Civil Rights was immediately given a condescending label denoting liberal political activity. It was the status quo that was at the center of the government's desire to socially marginalize and economically ostracize liberal minorities during the 20th century. Popular culture supported by an educational system designed to promote a homogeneous W.A.S.P. perspective, created a social dynamic where only the white, upper class male, was able to take advantage of the economic structures of social mobility.
The 2008 Presidential cycle will stand as one of America's greatest moments. The election of an individual of African American descent was an unprecedented step, considering less than fifty years prior Jim Crowe legislation was still wreaking havoc on the American social fabric. Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a Kenyan national diplomat and an American military brat turned anthropologist from Kansas, would face a daunting backlash of racist hysteria in the wake of his ascension to Commander-in-Chief. Tragically, President Obama is serving in the opening stages of a post-politically correct society. The Conservative ideology of the 20th century in which simple mudslinging was all that was necessary in order to invalidate an opponent, has returned. As President Obama began his progression to the Supreme Office pundits, critics and racists alike took every opportunity to apply as many misnomers as possible. Conservatives referred to the President as a non-native, socialist, anti-Christian, anti-American, and even a fascist.
The polemics of "namery" rests in the ideal of social intolerance. The former status quo of White Anglo Saxon Protestant Americans, elected its last president in George W. Bush. The election of Barack Obama signifies a shifting status quo that represents a changing United States social demographic. Hispanics, African Americans, Jewish Americans, Homosexuals, and women as whole are all beginning to assert themselves as viable outlets for American electorate support.
In the post-politically correct World, we have already witnessed the rise of White supremacy in the form of fascist political ideology once more. The violent actions of Anders Brevik in Denmark, the English Defense League in England, even the actions in the United States of the Hutatree, the Tulsa Oklahoma Shooters and George Zimmeran highlight a society no longer willing to take a sensitive approach in developing social equality. President Obama’s administration represents a unique time in American history in which those who have championed Civil Rights since the Declaration of Independence, may raise their chins high when thinking of the American society. Unfortunately, a revolution of change is still a revolution. All progressive revolutions must face an equal or greater counter-revolution. In the United States, we begin to see the tide of counter-revolutionary discontent in the ignorant and racist “namery” used to invalidate the honor of our nation’s leader, President Barack Obama.
The idea of referring to dissenting, liberal minded American as "commie's" would only gain popularity during the 1960's and 1970's when every oppressed socio-economic group began to assert itself politically within the American social matrix. J. Edgar Hoover would counter this revolution with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's C.O.I.N.I.N.T.E.L. Program which was designed to infiltrate all "leftist" American organizations. Homosexuals, women, Hispanics, African-Americans, anti-war activists, really anyone who championed Civil Rights was immediately given a condescending label denoting liberal political activity. It was the status quo that was at the center of the government's desire to socially marginalize and economically ostracize liberal minorities during the 20th century. Popular culture supported by an educational system designed to promote a homogeneous W.A.S.P. perspective, created a social dynamic where only the white, upper class male, was able to take advantage of the economic structures of social mobility.
The 2008 Presidential cycle will stand as one of America's greatest moments. The election of an individual of African American descent was an unprecedented step, considering less than fifty years prior Jim Crowe legislation was still wreaking havoc on the American social fabric. Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a Kenyan national diplomat and an American military brat turned anthropologist from Kansas, would face a daunting backlash of racist hysteria in the wake of his ascension to Commander-in-Chief. Tragically, President Obama is serving in the opening stages of a post-politically correct society. The Conservative ideology of the 20th century in which simple mudslinging was all that was necessary in order to invalidate an opponent, has returned. As President Obama began his progression to the Supreme Office pundits, critics and racists alike took every opportunity to apply as many misnomers as possible. Conservatives referred to the President as a non-native, socialist, anti-Christian, anti-American, and even a fascist.
The polemics of "namery" rests in the ideal of social intolerance. The former status quo of White Anglo Saxon Protestant Americans, elected its last president in George W. Bush. The election of Barack Obama signifies a shifting status quo that represents a changing United States social demographic. Hispanics, African Americans, Jewish Americans, Homosexuals, and women as whole are all beginning to assert themselves as viable outlets for American electorate support.
In the post-politically correct World, we have already witnessed the rise of White supremacy in the form of fascist political ideology once more. The violent actions of Anders Brevik in Denmark, the English Defense League in England, even the actions in the United States of the Hutatree, the Tulsa Oklahoma Shooters and George Zimmeran highlight a society no longer willing to take a sensitive approach in developing social equality. President Obama’s administration represents a unique time in American history in which those who have championed Civil Rights since the Declaration of Independence, may raise their chins high when thinking of the American society. Unfortunately, a revolution of change is still a revolution. All progressive revolutions must face an equal or greater counter-revolution. In the United States, we begin to see the tide of counter-revolutionary discontent in the ignorant and racist “namery” used to invalidate the honor of our nation’s leader, President Barack Obama.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Donald Trump has absconded with our Government!
The ratification of an Amendment to the United States Constitution, the paramount of democracy in this country, requires 34 of the 50 states to approve. The House and Senate must each approve the amendment by a two-thirds majority, 67 out of 100 Senators and 290 out of 435 Representatives. Given these facts it would be easy to assume that our elected representatives would understand the nature of a majority opinion. The political term for a majority of 2/3 proportion is referred to as a Supermajority. Within the last week, recent opinion polls have showed a near Supermajority in favor of President Obama's proposal, the Buffet Rule. Mr. President's idea would set a tax rate for the wealthy at roughly 30%.In 2011 President Obama paid a rate of 20% while the Republican posterboy / international billionaire paid a meager 13%. Certainly we can all nod at the show of humility on the part of our President.
Today a proposal by Senate Democrat's to open the debate in regards to a Buffet Rule was shot down by a 51-45 vote. The idea that the President's bold proposal, named after the world renowned billionaire who assisted in the development of the initiative, was not even given minutes for open debate is a startling revelation of our nation's Democracy. Especially when you take into account the fact that the average American household pays a 14% tax rate. The truth is now evident that much of the current body of the United States Senate, 67 persons to be exact, are more concerned with protecting the economic interests of the elite. The tired idea that capital is best served in the hands of the wealthy, so that they may "trickle down" the rewards for the rest of society, has once more engorged itself upon the naivete of the American voter.
Since the ascension of President Obama to The Throne, the Republican party and its various political/religious extensions, have done everything in their power to prevent the economic prosperity of this nation. Richard Land one of the top Republican religious conservatives of the Southern Baptist Convention has not ceased his assault upon the character of our nations President and in turn America itself. Land accused Democrats, African American community leaders, and the President of attempting to "gin up" the electorate. Land felt the Presidents open address in support of Trayvon Martin's grieving parents was a slight in the face of our nations "race relations." At around the same time, Republican Representative Allen West of South Florida declared roughly 80 members of congress to be Communists. West was alluding to the Progressive wing of the Democratic party, who wish to curtail the economic orgy that the wealthy of the world enjoy here in the states. Land and West's antiquated rhetoric is a simple reminder of a very powerful force within the American social fabric. They are the paramount of the Tea Party's alleged "populist wave" that has divided this nation in a manner on par with the Iran-Contra scandal, the Watergate crimes, and the Southern Secession from the Union prior to the Civil War.
Here is the Bernie Sanders Ten, top corporations who pay little or no taxes. Note how relevant the idea of Corporate Personhood is to the entire tax debate.
The Bernie Sanders Ten
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
Today a proposal by Senate Democrat's to open the debate in regards to a Buffet Rule was shot down by a 51-45 vote. The idea that the President's bold proposal, named after the world renowned billionaire who assisted in the development of the initiative, was not even given minutes for open debate is a startling revelation of our nation's Democracy. Especially when you take into account the fact that the average American household pays a 14% tax rate. The truth is now evident that much of the current body of the United States Senate, 67 persons to be exact, are more concerned with protecting the economic interests of the elite. The tired idea that capital is best served in the hands of the wealthy, so that they may "trickle down" the rewards for the rest of society, has once more engorged itself upon the naivete of the American voter.
Since the ascension of President Obama to The Throne, the Republican party and its various political/religious extensions, have done everything in their power to prevent the economic prosperity of this nation. Richard Land one of the top Republican religious conservatives of the Southern Baptist Convention has not ceased his assault upon the character of our nations President and in turn America itself. Land accused Democrats, African American community leaders, and the President of attempting to "gin up" the electorate. Land felt the Presidents open address in support of Trayvon Martin's grieving parents was a slight in the face of our nations "race relations." At around the same time, Republican Representative Allen West of South Florida declared roughly 80 members of congress to be Communists. West was alluding to the Progressive wing of the Democratic party, who wish to curtail the economic orgy that the wealthy of the world enjoy here in the states. Land and West's antiquated rhetoric is a simple reminder of a very powerful force within the American social fabric. They are the paramount of the Tea Party's alleged "populist wave" that has divided this nation in a manner on par with the Iran-Contra scandal, the Watergate crimes, and the Southern Secession from the Union prior to the Civil War.
Here is the Bernie Sanders Ten, top corporations who pay little or no taxes. Note how relevant the idea of Corporate Personhood is to the entire tax debate.
The Bernie Sanders Ten
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.
4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.
5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.
6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.
9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Recently "the Buffet Rule", inspired by progressive politics and one Warren Buffet, has come under heavy fire from conservative pundits. Many decry President Obama for what they believe to be a "war on the upper class." Former President George W. Bush recently continued the conservative diatribe of the "trickle down effect" and how taxing the rich only hinders those who create jobs. A glaring contradiction in this neo-liberal policy is the historical truth that former President and conservative American hero, Ronald Reagen spoke in support of such polemics.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Remarks by the President at Easter Prayer Breakfast
East Room
9:43 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. (Applause.) Please, have a seat. Have a seat. Well, welcome to the White House. It is a pleasure to be with all of you this morning.
In less than a week, this house will be overrun by thousands of kids at the Easter Egg Roll. (Laughter.) So I wanted to get together with you for a little prayer and reflection -- some calm before the storm. (Laughter.)
It is wonderful to see so many good friends here today. To all the faith leaders from all across the country -- from churches and congregations large and small; from different denominations and different backgrounds -- thank you for coming to our third annual Easter prayer breakfast. And I’m grateful that you’re here.
I’m even more grateful for the work that you do every day of the year -- the compassion and the kindness that so many of you express through your various ministries. I know that some of you have joined with our Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. I’ve seen firsthand some of the outstanding work that you are doing in your respective communities, and it’s an incredible expression of your faith. And I know that all of us who have an opportunity to work with you draw inspiration from the work that you do.
Finally, I want to just express appreciation for your prayers. Every time I travel around the country, somebody is going around saying, we’re praying for you. (Laughter.) We got a prayer circle going. Don’t worry, keep the faith. We’re praying. (Laughter.) Michelle gets the same stuff. And that means a lot to us. It especially means a lot to us when we hear from folks who we know probably didn’t vote for me -- (laughter) -- and yet, expressing extraordinary sincerity about their prayers. And it’s a reminder not only of what binds us together as a nation, but also what binds us together as children of God.
Now, I have to be careful, I am not going to stand up here and give a sermon. It’s always a bad idea to give a sermon in front of professionals. (Laughter.) But in a few short days, all of us will experience the wonder of Easter morning. And we will know, in the words of the Apostle Paul, “Christ Jesus...and Him crucified.”
It’s an opportunity for us to reflect on the triumph of the resurrection, and to give thanks for the all-important gift of grace. And for me, and I’m sure for some of you, it’s also a chance to remember the tremendous sacrifice that led up to that day, and all that Christ endured -- not just as a Son of God, but as a human being.
For like us, Jesus knew doubt. Like us, Jesus knew fear. In the garden of Gethsemane, with attackers closing in around him, Jesus told His disciples, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.” He fell to his knees, pleading with His Father, saying, “If it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” And yet, in the end, He confronted His fear with words of humble surrender, saying, “If it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”
So it is only because Jesus conquered His own anguish, conquered His fear, that we’re able to celebrate the resurrection. It’s only because He endured unimaginable pain that wracked His body and bore the sins of the world that He burdened -- that burdened His soul that we are able to proclaim, “He is Risen!”
So the struggle to fathom that unfathomable sacrifice makes Easter all the more meaningful to all of us. It helps us to provide an eternal perspective to whatever temporal challenges we face. It puts in perspective our small problems relative to the big problems He was dealing with. And it gives us courage and it gives us hope.
We all have experiences that shake our faith. There are times where we have questions for God’s plan relative to us -- (laughter) -- but that’s precisely when we should remember Christ’s own doubts and eventually his own triumph. Jesus told us as much in the book of John, when He said, “In this world you will have trouble.” I heard an amen. (Laughter.) Let me repeat. “In this world, you will have trouble.”
AUDIENCE: Amen!
THE PRESIDENT: “But take heart!” (Laughter.) “I have overcome the world.” (Applause.) We are here today to celebrate that glorious overcoming, the sacrifice of a risen savior who died so that we might live. And I hope that our time together this morning will strengthen us individually, as believers, and as a nation.
And with that, I’d like to invite my good friend, Dr. Cynthia Hale, to deliver our opening prayer. Dr. Hale. (Applause.)
END
9:50 A.M. EDT
East Room
9:43 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. (Applause.) Please, have a seat. Have a seat. Well, welcome to the White House. It is a pleasure to be with all of you this morning.
In less than a week, this house will be overrun by thousands of kids at the Easter Egg Roll. (Laughter.) So I wanted to get together with you for a little prayer and reflection -- some calm before the storm. (Laughter.)
It is wonderful to see so many good friends here today. To all the faith leaders from all across the country -- from churches and congregations large and small; from different denominations and different backgrounds -- thank you for coming to our third annual Easter prayer breakfast. And I’m grateful that you’re here.
I’m even more grateful for the work that you do every day of the year -- the compassion and the kindness that so many of you express through your various ministries. I know that some of you have joined with our Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. I’ve seen firsthand some of the outstanding work that you are doing in your respective communities, and it’s an incredible expression of your faith. And I know that all of us who have an opportunity to work with you draw inspiration from the work that you do.
Finally, I want to just express appreciation for your prayers. Every time I travel around the country, somebody is going around saying, we’re praying for you. (Laughter.) We got a prayer circle going. Don’t worry, keep the faith. We’re praying. (Laughter.) Michelle gets the same stuff. And that means a lot to us. It especially means a lot to us when we hear from folks who we know probably didn’t vote for me -- (laughter) -- and yet, expressing extraordinary sincerity about their prayers. And it’s a reminder not only of what binds us together as a nation, but also what binds us together as children of God.
Now, I have to be careful, I am not going to stand up here and give a sermon. It’s always a bad idea to give a sermon in front of professionals. (Laughter.) But in a few short days, all of us will experience the wonder of Easter morning. And we will know, in the words of the Apostle Paul, “Christ Jesus...and Him crucified.”
It’s an opportunity for us to reflect on the triumph of the resurrection, and to give thanks for the all-important gift of grace. And for me, and I’m sure for some of you, it’s also a chance to remember the tremendous sacrifice that led up to that day, and all that Christ endured -- not just as a Son of God, but as a human being.
For like us, Jesus knew doubt. Like us, Jesus knew fear. In the garden of Gethsemane, with attackers closing in around him, Jesus told His disciples, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.” He fell to his knees, pleading with His Father, saying, “If it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” And yet, in the end, He confronted His fear with words of humble surrender, saying, “If it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”
So it is only because Jesus conquered His own anguish, conquered His fear, that we’re able to celebrate the resurrection. It’s only because He endured unimaginable pain that wracked His body and bore the sins of the world that He burdened -- that burdened His soul that we are able to proclaim, “He is Risen!”
So the struggle to fathom that unfathomable sacrifice makes Easter all the more meaningful to all of us. It helps us to provide an eternal perspective to whatever temporal challenges we face. It puts in perspective our small problems relative to the big problems He was dealing with. And it gives us courage and it gives us hope.
We all have experiences that shake our faith. There are times where we have questions for God’s plan relative to us -- (laughter) -- but that’s precisely when we should remember Christ’s own doubts and eventually his own triumph. Jesus told us as much in the book of John, when He said, “In this world you will have trouble.” I heard an amen. (Laughter.) Let me repeat. “In this world, you will have trouble.”
AUDIENCE: Amen!
THE PRESIDENT: “But take heart!” (Laughter.) “I have overcome the world.” (Applause.) We are here today to celebrate that glorious overcoming, the sacrifice of a risen savior who died so that we might live. And I hope that our time together this morning will strengthen us individually, as believers, and as a nation.
And with that, I’d like to invite my good friend, Dr. Cynthia Hale, to deliver our opening prayer. Dr. Hale. (Applause.)
END
9:50 A.M. EDT
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
a transcript of President Obama's remarks Tuesday afternoon at an Associated Press luncheon framing the general election campaign, as released by the White House.
4:15 PM CDT, April 3, 2012
Obama: "Thank you very much. (Applause.) Please have a seat. Well, good afternoon, and thank you to Dean Singleton and the board of the Associated Press for inviting me here today. It is a pleasure to speak to all of you -- and to have a microphone that I can see. (Laughter.) Feel free to transmit any of this to Vladimir if you see him. (Laughter.)
"Clearly, we're already in the beginning months of another long, lively election year. There will be gaffes and minor controversies, be hot mics and Etch-a-Sketch moments. You will cover every word that we say, and we will complain vociferously about the unflattering words that you write -- unless, of course, you're writing about the other guy -- in which case, good job. (Laughter.)
"But there are also big, fundamental issues at stake right now -- issues that deserve serious debate among every candidate, and serious coverage among every reporter. Whoever he may be, the next President will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered, from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Too many Americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their bills or their mortgage. Too many citizens will still lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession hit. A debt that has grown over the last decade, primarily as a result of two wars, two massive tax cuts, and an unprecedented financial crisis, will have to be paid down.
"In the face of all these challenges, we're going to have to answer a central question as a nation: What, if anything, can we do to restore a sense of security for people who are willing to work hard and act responsibly in this country? Can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well, while a growing number struggle to get by? Or are we better off when everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules?
"This is not just another run-of-the-mill political debate. I've said it's the defining issue of our time, and I believe it. It's why I ran in 2008. It's what my presidency has been about. It's why I'm running again. I believe this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and I can't remember a time when the choice between competing visions of our future has been so unambiguously clear.
"Keep in mind, I have never been somebody who believes that government can or should try to solve every problem. Some of you know my first job in Chicago was working with a group of Catholic churches that often did more good for the people in their communities than any government program could. In those same communities I saw that no education policy, however well crafted, can take the place of a parent's love and attention.
"As President, I've eliminated dozens of programs that weren't working, and announced over 500 regulatory reforms that will save businesses and taxpayers billions, and put annual domestic spending on a path to become the smallest share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower held this office -- since before I was born. I know that the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector, not Washington, which is why I've cut taxes for small business owners 17 times over the last three years.
"So I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. My mother and the grandparents who raised me instilled the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility that remain the cornerstone of the American idea. But I also share the belief of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln -- a belief that, through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.
"That belief is the reason this country has been able to build a strong military to keep us safe, and public schools to educate our children. That belief is why we've been able to lay down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. That belief is why we've been able to support the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, and unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries.
"That belief is also why we've sought to ensure that every citizen can count on some basic measure of security. We do this because we recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any moment, might face hard times, might face bad luck, might face a crippling illness or a layoff. And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee health care and a source of income after a lifetime of hard work. We provide unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss and facilitates the labor mobility that makes our economy so dynamic. We provide for Medicaid, which makes sure that millions of seniors in nursing homes and children with disabilities are getting the care that they need.
"For generations, nearly all of these investments -- from transportation to education to retirement programs -- have been supported by people in both parties. As much as we might associate the G.I. Bill with Franklin Roosevelt, or Medicare with Lyndon Johnson, it was a Republican, Lincoln, who launched the Transcontinental Railroad, the National Academy of Sciences, land grant colleges. It was Eisenhower who launched the Interstate Highway System and new investment in scientific research. It was Richard Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan who worked with Democrats to save Social Security. It was George W. Bush who added prescription drug coverage to Medicare.
"What leaders in both parties have traditionally understood is that these investments aren't part of some scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another. They are expressions of the fact that we are one nation. These investments benefit us all. They contribute to genuine, durable economic growth.
"Show me a business leader who wouldn't profit if more Americans could afford to get the skills and education that today's jobs require. Ask any company where they'd rather locate and hire workers –- a country with crumbling roads and bridges, or one that's committed to high-speed Internet and high-speed railroads and high-tech research and development?
"It doesn't make us weaker when we guarantee basic security for the elderly or the sick or those who are actively looking for work. What makes us weaker is when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and services our businesses sell, or when entrepreneurs don't have the financial security to take a chance and start a new business. What drags down our entire economy is when there's an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else.
"In this country, broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class. That's how a generation who went to college on the G.I. Bill, including my grandfather, helped build the most prosperous economy the world has ever known. That's why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars that they made. That's why research has shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.
"And yet, for much of the last century, we have been having the same argument with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics. They keep telling us that if we'd convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. They keep telling us that if we'd just strip away more regulations, and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we'd all be better off. We're told that when the wealthy become even wealthier, and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it's good for America, and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else. That's the theory.
"Now, the problem for advocates of this theory is that we've tried their approach -- on a massive scale. The results of their experiment are there for all to see. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003. We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. The wealthy got wealthier -- we would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year. But prosperity sure didn't trickle down.
"Instead, during the last decade, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. And the typical American family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6 percent, even as the economy was growing.
"It was a period when insurance companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions didn't have to abide by strong enough regulations, or they found their ways around them. And what was the result? Profits for many of these companies soared. But so did people's health insurance premiums. Patients were routinely denied care, often when they needed it most. Families were enticed, and sometimes just plain tricked, into buying homes they couldn't afford. Huge, reckless bets were made with other people's money on the line. And our entire financial system was nearly destroyed.
"So we tried this theory out. And you would think that after the results of this experiment in trickle-down economics, after the results were made painfully clear, that the proponents of this theory might show some humility, might moderate their views a bit. You'd think they'd say, you know what, maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders. Maybe, just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest Americans another round of big tax cuts. Maybe when we know that most of today's middle-class jobs require more than a high school degree, we shouldn't gut education, or lay off thousands of teachers, or raise interest rates on college loans, or take away people's financial aid.
"But that's exactly the opposite of what they've done. Instead of moderating their views even slightly, the Republicans running Congress right now have doubled down, and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal. (Laughter.) In fact, that renowned liberal, Newt Gingrich, first called the original version of the budget 'radical' and said it would contribute to 'right-wing social engineering.' This is coming from Newt Gingrich.
"And yet, this isn't a budget supported by some small rump group in the Republican Party. This is now the party's governing platform. This is what they're running on. One of my potential opponents, Governor Romney, has said that he hoped a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced as a bill on day one of his presidency. He said that he's 'very supportive' of this new budget, and he even called it 'marvelous' -- which is a word you don't often hear when it comes to describing a budget. (Laughter.) It's a word you don't often hear generally. (Laughter.)
"So here's what this 'marvelous' budget does. Back in the summer, I came to an agreement with Republicans in Congress to cut roughly $1 trillion in annual spending. Some of these cuts were about getting rid of waste; others were about programs that we support but just can't afford given our deficits and our debt. And part of the agreement was a guarantee of another trillion in savings, for a total of about $2 trillion in deficit reduction.
"This new House Republican budget, however, breaks our bipartisan agreement and proposes massive new cuts in annual domestic spending –- exactly the area where we've already cut the most. And I want to actually go through what it would mean for our country if these cuts were to be spread out evenly. So bear with me. I want to go through this -- because I don't think people fully appreciate the nature of this budget.
"The year after next, nearly 10 million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. There would be 1,600 fewer medical grants, research grants for things like Alzheimer's and cancer and AIDS. There would be 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students, and teachers. Investments in clean energy technologies that are helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.
"If this budget becomes law and the cuts were applied evenly, starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the Head Start program. Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food. There would be 4,500 fewer federal grants at the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat violent crime, financial crime, and help secure our borders. Hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. We wouldn't have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat.
"Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays, and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn't be able to afford to launch new satellites. And that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane.
"That's just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget. Now, you can anticipate Republicans may say, well, we'll avoid some of these cuts -- since they don't specify exactly the cuts that they would make. But they can only avoid some of these cuts if they cut even deeper in other areas. This is math. If they want to make smaller cuts to medical research that means they've got to cut even deeper in funding for things like teaching and law enforcement. The converse is true as well. If they want to protect early childhood education, it will mean further reducing things like financial aid for young people trying to afford college.
"Perhaps they will never tell us where the knife will fall -- but you can be sure that with cuts this deep, there is no secret plan or formula that will be able to protect the investments we need to help our economy grow.
"This is not conjecture. I am not exaggerating. These are facts. And these are just the cuts that would happen the year after next.
"If this budget became law, by the middle of the century, funding for the kinds of things I just mentioned would have to be cut by about 95 percent. Let me repeat that. Those categories I just mentioned we would have to cut by 95 percent. As a practical matter, the federal budget would basically amount to whatever is left in entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the national debt -- period. Money for these investments that have traditionally been supported on a bipartisan basis would be practically eliminated.
"And the same is true for other priorities like transportation, and homeland security, and veterans programs for the men and women who have risked their lives for this country. This is not an exaggeration. Check it out yourself.
"And this is to say nothing about what the budget does to health care. We're told that Medicaid would simply be handed over to the states -- that's the pitch: Let's get it out of the central bureaucracy. The states can experiment. They'll be able to run the programs a lot better. But here's the deal the states would be getting. They would have to be running these programs in the face of the largest cut to Medicaid that has ever been proposed -- a cut that, according to one nonpartisan group, would take away health care for about 19 million Americans -- 19 million.
"Who are these Americans? Many are someone's grandparents who, without Medicaid, won't be able to afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down's Syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the people who count on Medicaid.
"Then there's Medicare. Because health care costs keep rising and the Baby Boom generation is retiring, Medicare, we all know, is one of the biggest drivers of our long-term deficit. That's a challenge we have to meet by bringing down the cost of health care overall so that seniors and taxpayers can share in the savings.
"But here's the solution proposed by the Republicans in Washington, and embraced by most of their candidates for president: Instead of being enrolled in Medicare when they turn 65, seniors who retire a decade from now would get a voucher that equals the cost of the second cheapest health care plan in their area. If Medicare is more expensive than that private plan, they'll have to pay more if they want to enroll in traditional Medicare. If health care costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher -- as, by the way, they've been doing for decades -- that's too bad. Seniors bear the risk. If the voucher isn't enough to buy a private plan with the specific doctors and care that you need, that's too bad.
"So most experts will tell you the way this voucher plan encourages savings is not through better care at cheaper cost. The way these private insurance companies save money is by designing and marketing plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors -- cherry-picking -- leaving the older and sicker seniors in traditional Medicare, where they have access to a wide range of doctors and guaranteed care. But that, of course, makes the traditional Medicare program even more expensive, and raise premiums even further.
"The net result is that our country will end up spending more on health care, and the only reason the government will save any money -- it won't be on our books -- is because we've shifted it to seniors. They'll bear more of the costs themselves. It's a bad idea, and it will ultimately end Medicare as we know it.
"Now, the proponents of this budget will tell us we have to make all these draconian cuts because our deficit is so large; this is an existential crisis, we have to think about future generations, so on and so on. And that argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates.
"We're told that these tax cuts will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful deductions. But the Republicans in Congress refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close. Not one. And by the way, there is no way to get even close to $4.6 trillion in savings without dramatically reducing all kinds of tax breaks that go to middle-class families -- tax breaks for health care, tax breaks for retirement, tax breaks for homeownership.
"Meanwhile, these proposed tax breaks would come on top of more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways for people making more than $250,000 a year. That's an average of at least $150,000 for every millionaire in this country -- $150,000.
"Let's just step back for a second and look at what $150,000 pays for: A year's worth of prescription drug coverage for a senior citizen. Plus a new school computer lab. Plus a year of medical care for a returning veteran. Plus a medical research grant for a chronic disease. Plus a year's salary for a firefighter or police officer. Plus a tax credit to make a year of college more affordable. Plus a year's worth of financial aid. One hundred fifty thousand dollars could pay for all of these things combined -- investments in education and research that are essential to economic growth that benefits all of us. For $150,000, that would be going to each millionaire and billionaire in this country. This budget says we'd be better off as a country if that's how we spend it.
This is supposed to be about paying down our deficit? It's laughable.
The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission that I created -- which the Republicans originally were for until I was for it -- that was about paying down the deficit. And I didn't agree with all the details. I proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion -- I'm sorry -- it proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and about $600 billion more in defense cuts than I proposed in my own budget. But Bowles-Simpson was a serious, honest, balanced effort between Democrats and Republicans to bring down the deficit. That's why, although it differs in some ways, my budget takes a similarly balanced approach: Cuts in discretionary spending, cuts in mandatory spending, increased revenue.
"This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who's willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn't trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that's built to last -- education and training, research and development, our infrastructure -- it is a prescription for decline.
"And everybody here should understand that because there's very few people here who haven't benefitted at some point from those investments that were made in the '50s and the '60s and the '70s and the '80s. That's part of how we got ahead. And now, we're going to be pulling up those ladders up for the next generation?
"So in the months ahead, I will be fighting as hard as I know how for this truer vision of what the United States of America is all about. Absolutely, we have to get serious about the deficit. And that will require tough choices and sacrifice. And I've already shown myself willing to make these tough choices when I signed into law the biggest spending cut of any President in recent memory. In fact, if you adjust for the economy, the Congressional Budget Office says the overall spending next year will be lower than any year under Ronald Reagan.
"And I'm willing to make more of those difficult spending decisions in the months ahead. But I've said it before and I'll say it again -- there has to be some balance. All of us have to do our fair share.
"I've also put forward a detailed plan that would reform and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid. By the beginning of the next decade, it achieves the same amount of annual health savings as the plan proposed by Simpson-Bowles -- the Simpson-Bowles commission, and it does so by making changes that people in my party haven't always been comfortable with. But instead of saving money by shifting costs to seniors, like the congressional Republican plan proposes, our approach would lower the cost of health care throughout the entire system. It goes after excessive subsidies to prescription drug companies. It gets more efficiency out of Medicaid without gutting the program. It asks the very wealthiest seniors to pay a little bit more. It changes the way we pay for health care -- not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to improve their results.
"And it slows the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission -- a commission not made up of bureaucrats from government or insurance companies, but doctors and nurses and medical experts and consumers, who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best way to reduce unnecessary health care spending while protecting access to the care that the seniors need.
"We also have a much different approach when it comes to taxes -- an approach that says if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't afford to spend trillions more on tax cuts for folks like me, for wealthy Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them, and that the country cannot afford. At a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1 percent of people in this country has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s, those same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. As both I and Warren Buffett have pointed out many times now, he's paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. That is not fair. It is not right.
"And the choice is really very simple. If you want to keep these tax rates and deductions in place -- or give even more tax breaks to the wealthy, as the Republicans in Congress propose -- then one of two things happen: Either it means higher deficits, or it means more sacrifice from the middle class. Seniors will have to pay more for Medicare. College students will lose some of their financial aid. Working families who are scraping by will have to do more because the richest Americans are doing less. I repeat what I've said before: That is not class warfare, that is not class envy, that is math.
"If that's the choice that members of Congress want to make, then we're going to make sure every American knows about it. In a few weeks, there will be a vote on what we've called the Buffett Rule. Simple concept: If you make more than a million dollars a year -- not that you have a million dollars -- if you make more than a million dollars annually, then you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year -- like 98 percent of American families do -- then your taxes shouldn't go up. That's the proposal.
"Now, you'll hear some people point out that the Buffett Rule alone won't raise enough revenue to solve our deficit problems. Maybe not, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. And I intend to keep fighting for this kind of balance and fairness until the other side starts listening, because I believe this is what the American people want. I believe this is the best way to pay for the investments we need to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. And by the way, I believe it's the right thing to do.
"This larger debate that we will be having and that you will be covering in the coming year about the size and role of government, this debate has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the ones that we're living through now, the debate gets sharper; it gets more vigorous. That's a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates that we can have.
"But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we have always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can't just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. We have to think about what's required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.
"And this sense of responsibility -- to each other and our country -- this isn't a partisan feeling. This isn't a Democratic or Republican idea. It's patriotism. And if we keep that in mind, and uphold our obligations to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, then I have no doubt that we will continue our long and prosperous journey as the greatest nation on Earth.
"Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America."
4:15 PM CDT, April 3, 2012
Obama: "Thank you very much. (Applause.) Please have a seat. Well, good afternoon, and thank you to Dean Singleton and the board of the Associated Press for inviting me here today. It is a pleasure to speak to all of you -- and to have a microphone that I can see. (Laughter.) Feel free to transmit any of this to Vladimir if you see him. (Laughter.)
"Clearly, we're already in the beginning months of another long, lively election year. There will be gaffes and minor controversies, be hot mics and Etch-a-Sketch moments. You will cover every word that we say, and we will complain vociferously about the unflattering words that you write -- unless, of course, you're writing about the other guy -- in which case, good job. (Laughter.)
"But there are also big, fundamental issues at stake right now -- issues that deserve serious debate among every candidate, and serious coverage among every reporter. Whoever he may be, the next President will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered, from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Too many Americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their bills or their mortgage. Too many citizens will still lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession hit. A debt that has grown over the last decade, primarily as a result of two wars, two massive tax cuts, and an unprecedented financial crisis, will have to be paid down.
"In the face of all these challenges, we're going to have to answer a central question as a nation: What, if anything, can we do to restore a sense of security for people who are willing to work hard and act responsibly in this country? Can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well, while a growing number struggle to get by? Or are we better off when everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules?
"This is not just another run-of-the-mill political debate. I've said it's the defining issue of our time, and I believe it. It's why I ran in 2008. It's what my presidency has been about. It's why I'm running again. I believe this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and I can't remember a time when the choice between competing visions of our future has been so unambiguously clear.
"Keep in mind, I have never been somebody who believes that government can or should try to solve every problem. Some of you know my first job in Chicago was working with a group of Catholic churches that often did more good for the people in their communities than any government program could. In those same communities I saw that no education policy, however well crafted, can take the place of a parent's love and attention.
"As President, I've eliminated dozens of programs that weren't working, and announced over 500 regulatory reforms that will save businesses and taxpayers billions, and put annual domestic spending on a path to become the smallest share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower held this office -- since before I was born. I know that the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector, not Washington, which is why I've cut taxes for small business owners 17 times over the last three years.
"So I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. My mother and the grandparents who raised me instilled the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility that remain the cornerstone of the American idea. But I also share the belief of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln -- a belief that, through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.
"That belief is the reason this country has been able to build a strong military to keep us safe, and public schools to educate our children. That belief is why we've been able to lay down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. That belief is why we've been able to support the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, and unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries.
"That belief is also why we've sought to ensure that every citizen can count on some basic measure of security. We do this because we recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any moment, might face hard times, might face bad luck, might face a crippling illness or a layoff. And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee health care and a source of income after a lifetime of hard work. We provide unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss and facilitates the labor mobility that makes our economy so dynamic. We provide for Medicaid, which makes sure that millions of seniors in nursing homes and children with disabilities are getting the care that they need.
"For generations, nearly all of these investments -- from transportation to education to retirement programs -- have been supported by people in both parties. As much as we might associate the G.I. Bill with Franklin Roosevelt, or Medicare with Lyndon Johnson, it was a Republican, Lincoln, who launched the Transcontinental Railroad, the National Academy of Sciences, land grant colleges. It was Eisenhower who launched the Interstate Highway System and new investment in scientific research. It was Richard Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan who worked with Democrats to save Social Security. It was George W. Bush who added prescription drug coverage to Medicare.
"What leaders in both parties have traditionally understood is that these investments aren't part of some scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another. They are expressions of the fact that we are one nation. These investments benefit us all. They contribute to genuine, durable economic growth.
"Show me a business leader who wouldn't profit if more Americans could afford to get the skills and education that today's jobs require. Ask any company where they'd rather locate and hire workers –- a country with crumbling roads and bridges, or one that's committed to high-speed Internet and high-speed railroads and high-tech research and development?
"It doesn't make us weaker when we guarantee basic security for the elderly or the sick or those who are actively looking for work. What makes us weaker is when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and services our businesses sell, or when entrepreneurs don't have the financial security to take a chance and start a new business. What drags down our entire economy is when there's an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else.
"In this country, broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class. That's how a generation who went to college on the G.I. Bill, including my grandfather, helped build the most prosperous economy the world has ever known. That's why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars that they made. That's why research has shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.
"And yet, for much of the last century, we have been having the same argument with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics. They keep telling us that if we'd convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. They keep telling us that if we'd just strip away more regulations, and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we'd all be better off. We're told that when the wealthy become even wealthier, and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it's good for America, and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else. That's the theory.
"Now, the problem for advocates of this theory is that we've tried their approach -- on a massive scale. The results of their experiment are there for all to see. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003. We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. The wealthy got wealthier -- we would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year. But prosperity sure didn't trickle down.
"Instead, during the last decade, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. And the typical American family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6 percent, even as the economy was growing.
"It was a period when insurance companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions didn't have to abide by strong enough regulations, or they found their ways around them. And what was the result? Profits for many of these companies soared. But so did people's health insurance premiums. Patients were routinely denied care, often when they needed it most. Families were enticed, and sometimes just plain tricked, into buying homes they couldn't afford. Huge, reckless bets were made with other people's money on the line. And our entire financial system was nearly destroyed.
"So we tried this theory out. And you would think that after the results of this experiment in trickle-down economics, after the results were made painfully clear, that the proponents of this theory might show some humility, might moderate their views a bit. You'd think they'd say, you know what, maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders. Maybe, just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest Americans another round of big tax cuts. Maybe when we know that most of today's middle-class jobs require more than a high school degree, we shouldn't gut education, or lay off thousands of teachers, or raise interest rates on college loans, or take away people's financial aid.
"But that's exactly the opposite of what they've done. Instead of moderating their views even slightly, the Republicans running Congress right now have doubled down, and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal. (Laughter.) In fact, that renowned liberal, Newt Gingrich, first called the original version of the budget 'radical' and said it would contribute to 'right-wing social engineering.' This is coming from Newt Gingrich.
"And yet, this isn't a budget supported by some small rump group in the Republican Party. This is now the party's governing platform. This is what they're running on. One of my potential opponents, Governor Romney, has said that he hoped a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced as a bill on day one of his presidency. He said that he's 'very supportive' of this new budget, and he even called it 'marvelous' -- which is a word you don't often hear when it comes to describing a budget. (Laughter.) It's a word you don't often hear generally. (Laughter.)
"So here's what this 'marvelous' budget does. Back in the summer, I came to an agreement with Republicans in Congress to cut roughly $1 trillion in annual spending. Some of these cuts were about getting rid of waste; others were about programs that we support but just can't afford given our deficits and our debt. And part of the agreement was a guarantee of another trillion in savings, for a total of about $2 trillion in deficit reduction.
"This new House Republican budget, however, breaks our bipartisan agreement and proposes massive new cuts in annual domestic spending –- exactly the area where we've already cut the most. And I want to actually go through what it would mean for our country if these cuts were to be spread out evenly. So bear with me. I want to go through this -- because I don't think people fully appreciate the nature of this budget.
"The year after next, nearly 10 million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. There would be 1,600 fewer medical grants, research grants for things like Alzheimer's and cancer and AIDS. There would be 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students, and teachers. Investments in clean energy technologies that are helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.
"If this budget becomes law and the cuts were applied evenly, starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the Head Start program. Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food. There would be 4,500 fewer federal grants at the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat violent crime, financial crime, and help secure our borders. Hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. We wouldn't have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat.
"Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays, and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn't be able to afford to launch new satellites. And that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane.
"That's just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget. Now, you can anticipate Republicans may say, well, we'll avoid some of these cuts -- since they don't specify exactly the cuts that they would make. But they can only avoid some of these cuts if they cut even deeper in other areas. This is math. If they want to make smaller cuts to medical research that means they've got to cut even deeper in funding for things like teaching and law enforcement. The converse is true as well. If they want to protect early childhood education, it will mean further reducing things like financial aid for young people trying to afford college.
"Perhaps they will never tell us where the knife will fall -- but you can be sure that with cuts this deep, there is no secret plan or formula that will be able to protect the investments we need to help our economy grow.
"This is not conjecture. I am not exaggerating. These are facts. And these are just the cuts that would happen the year after next.
"If this budget became law, by the middle of the century, funding for the kinds of things I just mentioned would have to be cut by about 95 percent. Let me repeat that. Those categories I just mentioned we would have to cut by 95 percent. As a practical matter, the federal budget would basically amount to whatever is left in entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the national debt -- period. Money for these investments that have traditionally been supported on a bipartisan basis would be practically eliminated.
"And the same is true for other priorities like transportation, and homeland security, and veterans programs for the men and women who have risked their lives for this country. This is not an exaggeration. Check it out yourself.
"And this is to say nothing about what the budget does to health care. We're told that Medicaid would simply be handed over to the states -- that's the pitch: Let's get it out of the central bureaucracy. The states can experiment. They'll be able to run the programs a lot better. But here's the deal the states would be getting. They would have to be running these programs in the face of the largest cut to Medicaid that has ever been proposed -- a cut that, according to one nonpartisan group, would take away health care for about 19 million Americans -- 19 million.
"Who are these Americans? Many are someone's grandparents who, without Medicaid, won't be able to afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down's Syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the people who count on Medicaid.
"Then there's Medicare. Because health care costs keep rising and the Baby Boom generation is retiring, Medicare, we all know, is one of the biggest drivers of our long-term deficit. That's a challenge we have to meet by bringing down the cost of health care overall so that seniors and taxpayers can share in the savings.
"But here's the solution proposed by the Republicans in Washington, and embraced by most of their candidates for president: Instead of being enrolled in Medicare when they turn 65, seniors who retire a decade from now would get a voucher that equals the cost of the second cheapest health care plan in their area. If Medicare is more expensive than that private plan, they'll have to pay more if they want to enroll in traditional Medicare. If health care costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher -- as, by the way, they've been doing for decades -- that's too bad. Seniors bear the risk. If the voucher isn't enough to buy a private plan with the specific doctors and care that you need, that's too bad.
"So most experts will tell you the way this voucher plan encourages savings is not through better care at cheaper cost. The way these private insurance companies save money is by designing and marketing plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors -- cherry-picking -- leaving the older and sicker seniors in traditional Medicare, where they have access to a wide range of doctors and guaranteed care. But that, of course, makes the traditional Medicare program even more expensive, and raise premiums even further.
"The net result is that our country will end up spending more on health care, and the only reason the government will save any money -- it won't be on our books -- is because we've shifted it to seniors. They'll bear more of the costs themselves. It's a bad idea, and it will ultimately end Medicare as we know it.
"Now, the proponents of this budget will tell us we have to make all these draconian cuts because our deficit is so large; this is an existential crisis, we have to think about future generations, so on and so on. And that argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates.
"We're told that these tax cuts will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful deductions. But the Republicans in Congress refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close. Not one. And by the way, there is no way to get even close to $4.6 trillion in savings without dramatically reducing all kinds of tax breaks that go to middle-class families -- tax breaks for health care, tax breaks for retirement, tax breaks for homeownership.
"Meanwhile, these proposed tax breaks would come on top of more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways for people making more than $250,000 a year. That's an average of at least $150,000 for every millionaire in this country -- $150,000.
"Let's just step back for a second and look at what $150,000 pays for: A year's worth of prescription drug coverage for a senior citizen. Plus a new school computer lab. Plus a year of medical care for a returning veteran. Plus a medical research grant for a chronic disease. Plus a year's salary for a firefighter or police officer. Plus a tax credit to make a year of college more affordable. Plus a year's worth of financial aid. One hundred fifty thousand dollars could pay for all of these things combined -- investments in education and research that are essential to economic growth that benefits all of us. For $150,000, that would be going to each millionaire and billionaire in this country. This budget says we'd be better off as a country if that's how we spend it.
This is supposed to be about paying down our deficit? It's laughable.
The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission that I created -- which the Republicans originally were for until I was for it -- that was about paying down the deficit. And I didn't agree with all the details. I proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion -- I'm sorry -- it proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and about $600 billion more in defense cuts than I proposed in my own budget. But Bowles-Simpson was a serious, honest, balanced effort between Democrats and Republicans to bring down the deficit. That's why, although it differs in some ways, my budget takes a similarly balanced approach: Cuts in discretionary spending, cuts in mandatory spending, increased revenue.
"This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who's willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn't trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that's built to last -- education and training, research and development, our infrastructure -- it is a prescription for decline.
"And everybody here should understand that because there's very few people here who haven't benefitted at some point from those investments that were made in the '50s and the '60s and the '70s and the '80s. That's part of how we got ahead. And now, we're going to be pulling up those ladders up for the next generation?
"So in the months ahead, I will be fighting as hard as I know how for this truer vision of what the United States of America is all about. Absolutely, we have to get serious about the deficit. And that will require tough choices and sacrifice. And I've already shown myself willing to make these tough choices when I signed into law the biggest spending cut of any President in recent memory. In fact, if you adjust for the economy, the Congressional Budget Office says the overall spending next year will be lower than any year under Ronald Reagan.
"And I'm willing to make more of those difficult spending decisions in the months ahead. But I've said it before and I'll say it again -- there has to be some balance. All of us have to do our fair share.
"I've also put forward a detailed plan that would reform and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid. By the beginning of the next decade, it achieves the same amount of annual health savings as the plan proposed by Simpson-Bowles -- the Simpson-Bowles commission, and it does so by making changes that people in my party haven't always been comfortable with. But instead of saving money by shifting costs to seniors, like the congressional Republican plan proposes, our approach would lower the cost of health care throughout the entire system. It goes after excessive subsidies to prescription drug companies. It gets more efficiency out of Medicaid without gutting the program. It asks the very wealthiest seniors to pay a little bit more. It changes the way we pay for health care -- not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to improve their results.
"And it slows the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission -- a commission not made up of bureaucrats from government or insurance companies, but doctors and nurses and medical experts and consumers, who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best way to reduce unnecessary health care spending while protecting access to the care that the seniors need.
"We also have a much different approach when it comes to taxes -- an approach that says if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't afford to spend trillions more on tax cuts for folks like me, for wealthy Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them, and that the country cannot afford. At a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1 percent of people in this country has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s, those same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. As both I and Warren Buffett have pointed out many times now, he's paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. That is not fair. It is not right.
"And the choice is really very simple. If you want to keep these tax rates and deductions in place -- or give even more tax breaks to the wealthy, as the Republicans in Congress propose -- then one of two things happen: Either it means higher deficits, or it means more sacrifice from the middle class. Seniors will have to pay more for Medicare. College students will lose some of their financial aid. Working families who are scraping by will have to do more because the richest Americans are doing less. I repeat what I've said before: That is not class warfare, that is not class envy, that is math.
"If that's the choice that members of Congress want to make, then we're going to make sure every American knows about it. In a few weeks, there will be a vote on what we've called the Buffett Rule. Simple concept: If you make more than a million dollars a year -- not that you have a million dollars -- if you make more than a million dollars annually, then you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year -- like 98 percent of American families do -- then your taxes shouldn't go up. That's the proposal.
"Now, you'll hear some people point out that the Buffett Rule alone won't raise enough revenue to solve our deficit problems. Maybe not, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. And I intend to keep fighting for this kind of balance and fairness until the other side starts listening, because I believe this is what the American people want. I believe this is the best way to pay for the investments we need to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. And by the way, I believe it's the right thing to do.
"This larger debate that we will be having and that you will be covering in the coming year about the size and role of government, this debate has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the ones that we're living through now, the debate gets sharper; it gets more vigorous. That's a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates that we can have.
"But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we have always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can't just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. We have to think about what's required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.
"And this sense of responsibility -- to each other and our country -- this isn't a partisan feeling. This isn't a Democratic or Republican idea. It's patriotism. And if we keep that in mind, and uphold our obligations to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, then I have no doubt that we will continue our long and prosperous journey as the greatest nation on Earth.
"Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)