I just wanted to flag the President’s speech today on the economy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. I think he makes a very strong critique of Republican failings as well as offering up his own philosophy about the role of government. Its good stuff and worth a read.
Hopefully these points will get the coverage they deserve. They set out nicely the contrast between backasswards Republicans stuck in the Goldwater-Gingrich era and the 21st century progressivism espoused by the President. Here is a snippet I particularly like:
A good deal of the other party’s opposition to our agenda has also been rooted in their sincere and fundamental belief about the role of government. It’s a belief that government has little or no role to play in helping this nation meet our collective challenges. It’s an agenda that basically offers two answers to every problem we face: more tax breaks for the wealthy and fewer rules for corporations.
And then replays the many examples where the modern Republican Party has been on the wrong side of history.
There have always been those who’ve said no to such protections; no to such investments. There were accusations that Social Security would lead to socialism, and that Medicare was a government takeover. There were bankers who claimed the creation of federal deposit insurance would destroy the industry. And there were automakers who argued that installing seatbelts was unnecessary and unaffordable. There were skeptics who thought that cleaning our water and our air would bankrupt our entire economy. And all of these claims proved false. All of these reforms led to greater security and greater prosperity for our people and our economy.
So what was true then is true today. As November approaches, leaders in the other party will campaign furiously on the same economic arguments they’ve been making for decades. Fortunately, we don’t have to look back too many years to see how their agenda turns out. For much of the last 10 years we’ve tried it their way. They gave us tax cuts that weren’t paid for to millionaires who didn’t need them. They gutted regulations and put industry insiders in charge of industry oversight. They shortchanged investments in clean energy and education, in research and technology. And despite all their current moralizing about the need to curb spending, this is the same crowd who took the record $237 billion surplus that President Clinton left them and turned it into a record $1.3 trillion deficit.
I think many of the points made are also relevant to the Governor’s race here. Is Charlie Baker offering anything but the same stale Republican ideas regurgitated from the Welducci years? Wasn’t the structural budget deficit Governor Patrick faced from day one, and which the Bush recession exacerbated, handed down from Governor Cellucci (of affordable tax rollback fame) to Swift to Mitt and then onwards? Was Massachusetts not itself victimized by years of underinvestment in infrastructure under a succession of Republican governors, two of whom Charlie Baker wrote budgets for? Just asking.
He’s had enough! I’ve had enough of Massachusetts Republicans, and for that matter the entire GOP, offering up the same economic policies year after year, regardless of the dynamic nature of our economy and the important role of public services and investment in sustaining it.
The battle lines have once again been drawn. We should feel confident about our record in the last few years and over time. Let’s take it to em.
I really like the way you took the speech about national issues and made it about local ones. While I agree with the President’s sentiments as well as your criticism of Baker I am hard pressed to find anyone echoing Obama’s philosophy in the Governor’s race with maybe the exception of Jill Stein.
<
p>Cahill and Baker are tripping over themselves to call for more tax cuts for the wealthy and spending cuts to social programs. Deval is stuck in the middle making many painful spending cuts as it is. The only candidate who favors reforming our tax code to make it progressive and pumping the new revenue to avoid spending cuts altogether is Jill Stein. She is the only fiscally progressive candidate and I would argue the only one that shares the President’s vision on government intervention in the economy during these tough times. While I am still undecided, I do have to say it is lamentable that the President’s good friend His Excellency the Governor is not taking a page from this playbook.
I was going to say that I agreed with your analysis, though your point about whether Baker is just offering “the same stale Republican ideas” from the Weld/Cellucci era made me wonder just what the heck Baker’s platform is exactly. Then I noticed Charley “I’m trying to figure exactly what the hell Baker’s case is” comment.
<
p>I think I’ll just second that, because it’s a great question.
“Im not Deval”, but the presence of Cahill threw a curveball (that was coming a mile away) that the Baker campaign wasn’t prepared for. Fortunately for Deval they have not adapted to Cahills presence by changing strategy, message, or anything in seven months. He also still comes across as a wooden guy who is really pissed off that he actually has to, you know, ask for your vote in order to get the job. I swear he IS the stereotypical rich elitist the right always paints liberals out to be, but you don’t see Howie or RMG attacking him for his effete mannerisms. I wonder how the blue collar crowd that voted for Senator Pickup-truck is reacting to Baker.
Have Brown and Baker take on Patrick and Murray in 2 on 2 basketball, and I’m guessing that at least some of the ‘EEI crowd returns to the R fold, in any event.
<
p>Might be their best chance.
Recent Republican administrations have totally screwed the pooch. Their blind adherence to pushing benefits for the rich and corporations, while completely ignoring the damage that was causing to the nation and to the non-rich, has created extremely difficult situations locally and nationally. No one should let them have the keys to the car until they sober up.