One Question, One Answer Revisited

One Question, One Answer

Will Bush Resign?

With John Michael Spinelli

Columbus, Ohio: On October 18, 2006 I wrote an article speculating on whether George W. Bush, the first president to use his self-defined status as a unitary executive with special powers that allowed him to violate the Constitution and international law with impunity, was really the first American tyrant to hold that high office.

My speculation on whether he and Vice President Dick Cheney would actually resign from office when the Constitution called for them to leave their executive branch positions, has been answered. Next Tuesday, a day that cannot come soon enough for some, will see President-elect Barack Obama, the first African-American candidate to be elected to gain residency to the White House, raise his right hand and take the oath of office for President of the United States. Like Bush did eight years ago, Obama will swear to abide by the provisions of the Constitution, uphold our laws and protect and defend our naton, which after eight years of Bush and company has been taken down not a few notches.

While President Bush said he will indeed exit the world stage and relinquish the once mighty role he used to unilateral scrub the world of tyranny and bring an undefined brand of freedom to everyone, even at the end of a gun, returning to Dallas to work on a book, his legacy and his library, there are many, like New York Times Paul Krugman, a long-time thorn in the side of Mr. Bush, who gives voice to a concern held by many that Mr. Obama should not forsake the past for the future. While Mr. Obama's extensive efforts to be seen as ecumenical at the start of what 53 percent of voters hope will be two terms is both laudable yet disconcerting to his Republican opponents, not looking back to the past, and Mr. Bush's many legal transgressions, because it would necessarily dredge up information some would just as well lie buried for future historians to dig up and analyze, is bad for a nation and a system of government that says no one is above the law.

"Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

"And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make." [Paul Krugman]

Retrieved, rewound and ready for a new read two years later, here's "One Answer, One Question."

In a world where President Bush's War in Iraq and the global War on Terror guarantee that scaremongering and military strife will dominate our lives now and into the foreseeable future, the America people deserve an answer from Mr. Bush before, not after the upcoming mid-term elections.

If the Commander-in-Chief hesitates in answering it or chooses to pull out of his bag of constitutional tricks yet another self-proclaimed, self-righteous interpretation of his presidential powers, his response will tip his hand about whether he intends to go peacefully into POTUS afterlife or become America's first tyrant.

What's the simple question Americans, democracy-fatigued at home and democracy disappointed abroad, fear to ask of Mr. Bush?

"Mr. President, you have taken a solemn oath to uphold the US Constitution. Will you step down at the end of your term?"

Tyrants and democracy, we should recall, first emerged in Ancient Greece. Leaders elected through popular support learned they could exploit public complacency and not step down from office when their terms expired.

Should a storm of such constitutional hubris be allowed to gather, then the Divided States of America will be in for the fight of its life if it is to stop Mr. Bush from converting the Office of President into a redoubt of secrets and tyranny, which he alone controls.

Recent books like Cobra II, The One Percent Doctrine, Fiasco and The Greatest Story Ever Sold, which reveal the why's and how's behind the Bush/Cheney rush to war, are starting to bubble up through the Republican Party political pack ice, which has kept America's media submerged below it since Mr. Bush first took control of the White House. The Fourth Estate's restraint in challenging Mr. Bush's pell-mell rush to war in 2002, which he repeatedly justified to prevent Saddam Hussein from bringing nuclear mushroom clouds to our shores, has now been shown by respected authors and former Bush administration officials to have emboldened Mr. Bush to demand political contrition from Republicans and Democrats alike for a war that is now careening out of control and spreading beyond Iraqi borders to countries like Lebanon.

The recent signing by Mr. Bush of a bill that gives him exclusive power to determine what is and isn't torture, thereby circumventing Geneva Conventions, and giving him and his professional torturers immunity from prosecution, is just the latet sign that Mr. Bush may pull an "October surprise," not this year but in 2008, when he tells the country that conditions are such that he cannot and will not allow a successor to undo everything he has done to make the world a more dangerous place.

Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking at a GOP congressional candidate's fundraiser, pointed to the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah as fresh evidence of the ongoing battle against terrorism and why "it is absolutely essential that we stay the course," the AP reported Cheney saying.

Bill Buckley, father of the American conservative movement, said in a CBS news article that Bush's Iraq War has failed and Bush no longer has the confidence of the nation, "If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign."

Buckley's prediction on how a parliamentary system would handle a stubborn leader like Bush whose war policies have disaffected a majority of the country, came true recently as a member of Tony Blair's Labour government told the prime minister what many Americans would like to tell their unitary executive. A junior British cabinet member wrote in a resignation letter that "your remaining in office is not in the interest of either the party or the country."

A bi-partisan panel of The American Bar Association sounded an alarm about the extent to which Bush and Cheney have sought to extend the power of their respective offices. The ABA report said that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills he signed.

One wayward Republican who sees the Constitutional rapids ahead is Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In an article posted at MyWay, Specter is clear in what he intends to do to rein in the imperial president. "We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional."

In an April 2006 Boston Globe article on Bush's single-minded power grab, the case was made for why Bush, being neither checked or balanced by either individuals or institutions, feels emboldened to rule from his Pennsylvania Avenue fortress. "Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government," the article stated. Bush has repeatedly declared he does not need to "execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional, a frightening thought by any standard of democracy.

Will George Bush use the White House as his federal fortress and not return quietly to his Crawford, Texas ranch on Judgment Day, when his term-limit rapture moment arrives? Who will ask this one question?

John Michael Spinelli is an economic development professional, business and travel writer and former Ohio Statehouse political reporter. He is also Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc. To send a tip or comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com

Blame Forward: Holding Republicans Accountable as Obstructionists to Revival

Blame Forward: Holding Republicans Accountable as Obstructionists to Revival

with John Michael Spinelli

Op-Editude

Columbus, Ohio: Having stymied important legislation from passing for two years by preventing Senators from reaching the magic number of 60 in the Senate, backing a reckless war launched by a reckless president that will end up costing us all trillions of dollars and loosing big time in two successive election cycles that show just how fed up Americans are with their brazen, party-first policies that have brought us to the brink of disaster, it seems appropriate that Republicans be blamed forward for what appears to be their strategy of opposing at all costs President-elect Barack Obama's spending plans to bring America back to life again after eight straight years of pet Republican policies that put the nation, and much of the world, on life support.

Republicans, from George W. Bush in the White House to their control of both chambers of Congress for four years starting in 2002 when the GOP regained control of the US Senate, can rightfully be adjudicated as the party who endorsed at best and sat by idly at worst as their leaders, who said government was the problem but who became intoxicated with its power, took us from Clinton budget surpluses to massive Bush budget deficits.

It would seem that people who constantly carp about government as the enemy, who don't know how to run it efficiently or effectively when put in charge of it yet feel as happy as a pig in mud when they have that responsibility and who say starving it so it can be drowned in a bathtub is good, shouldn't be allowed to have anything to do with it; but that would be un-American and un-Democratic, not matter how much sense it makes.

As compassionate as a fox in a hen house, Republicans have brought great harm and heartache to the nation. As the minority party, they now intend to thwart the first African American president and his agenda to revive an economy that's tanked, put to work millions of people who have lost their jobs and bring about the kind of change that garnered him eight million more votes than John McCain or Sarah Palin, showing just how tired and disgusted the nation is with them and their party's so-last-century social and fiscal models.

Woody Hayes, the now infamous football coach of Ohio State University who won several national titles but who will forever be known as the military-like curmudgeon coach who was fired because he slugged an opposing team's player in a bowl game as the tide turned against the Scarlett and Gray, used the phrase "paying forward" to teach the lesson that "paying back" is retrospective while doing good deeds along the way instead of at the end of your career is prospective. Doing so, Hayes believed, you'll have built up a line of credit in being humane that will make you and those you touch better off for it.

Republicans who ruled Washington and state capitals from the mid-1990s to the election cycle of 2006 and who ladled out opportunities for Democrats to me partners in policy formulation as sparingly as a jailer giving food to prisoners and who believed unbridled spending was good as long it was for the war in Iraq, are now whining that Obama needs to be mindful of spending so future generations won't be unduly burdened. Such overt, disingenuous hypocrisy is a wonder to behold. But Republicans have no shortage of brazen chutzpah when it comes to telling others to not do what they do.

Now the minority again after an electoral drubbing of staggering proportions that will be achieved again in 2010 because hopeful GOP leaders think that doubling down on their agenda of making the rich richer, the middle class poor and siphoning off tax dollars to pay their cronies is what you do when you get elected, Republicans are staging, and the media is swallowing it whole like they did the bogus reasons for going to war in Iraq, that too much spending to put people back to work and remedy a housing situation made possible by the greedy Wall Street crowd their economic policies were crafted to satisfy, an assault on Obama and a new, expanded Democratic congress voters installed last November for following through on the campaign promises they ran on and won on.

New York Times columnist and winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, Paul Krugman, sees the new-found caution on spending by Republicans as their way to water down Obama's spending plans to a point where they won't do the job, thereby giving them the chance to say his agenda doesn't work, and please elect us again.

Krugman displays his math skills, arguing that Obama's plan to spend about $775 billion over two years is a conservative amount to do what's needed to put people back to work. He says it "takes $300 billion to reduce the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point" and that spending less will do less, playing into Republican arguments they media is already regurgitating that tax cuts for the wealthy and business is what's needed.

"I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell [aka "Dr. No"] says “See, government spending doesn’t work.” [Paul Krugman ]

Job losses just in 2008 is about 2 million, and news from the Gallup polling group released Tuesday forcast that the unemployment rate is likely to surge on Friday, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics is expected to show that jobs lost at the end of the year will exceed the seasonally adjusted four-week average of 552,250. The Gallup poll also predicts that the unemployment rate is likely to "surge past 7%." And for those of us who believe the official unemployment rate is tamped down from what it shoud be, the real rate, made up of categories of workers not normally factored in to calculations, could be 4-5 percent higher.

While this debate is taking place, we learn that manufacturing activity fell to its lowest point in 28 years. We also hear that some state governors, especially five from the Midwest including Ohio, are asking the new president and congress to open the cash-flow sluice gates to prevent more cuts to education, social services and infrastructure.

For states like Ohio, where about 250 thousand jobs are directly or indirectly tied to the fortunes of Detroit's Big Three, news that Chrysler sales are off 54 percent, General Motors 31 percent and Ford over 32 percent is downright scary. Even without a collapse of car makers, Ohio and two other states, New York and North Carolina, had to shut down their electronic unemployment filing systems due to system stress and heavy volume.

The report by ABC News said about 4.5 million Americans are collecting jobless benefits, a 26-year high. Web sites and phone systems now commonly used to file for benefits, it said, are being tested like never before. That's not all, folks.

John Michael Spinelli is an economic development professional, business and travel writer and former Ohio Statehouse political reporter. He is also Director of Ohio Operations for Tubular Rail Inc. To send a tip or comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com

On Making Our Own Stuff Again

On Making Our Own Stuff Again
Import Substitution Factor in Economic Recovery Plan

Spending on Right Infrastructure Good First Step

with John Michael Spinelli

Columbus, Ohio: The foreign trade goal of third-world countries who want to graduate to emerging economies is to substitute imports with goods made at home instead of in foreign nations. American manufacturers, spurred on by tax policy that paid them to outsource millions of middle-class jobs over a decade and more, have turned the one-time butcher into the fatted calf that China and Pacific Rim nations, where labor is cheap, have been feeding on for quite some time.

Having lost millions of jobs due to policies like NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, that a political outlier like Ross Perot, running as a third party candidate in 1992 against then-president George H.W. Bush and a young, brash governor of Arkansas who would twice be elected president, said would produce a great "sucking sound" as jobs crossed the Rio Grand, was the tipping point of American manufacturers who used to make goods with American labor, making goods with low-cost foreign labor that were then imported to a hungry nation of consumeroids trained to buy not to save.

But America is now caught in a a fierce recession that could take it down like the La Brea Tar Pits did to once-mighty creatures who inadvertently got caught in and succumbed to its sticky ooze. To extricate ourselves from the fate that met Saber-toothed Cats and other creatures of prey whose bones are testament to their misguided misfortune, maybe its time America starts doing what emerging nations have done to keep their hopes alive, their money at home and their jobs from wandering abroad: start making our own stuff again.

It might not be the best for corporate bottom lines and the shareholders that enjoy them, but it sure would be good for the top lines of American families and the communities whose survival is dependent on their incomes. Would you rather pay a dollar less for something and create a job overseas or pay a dollar more and create a job for your neighbor? The answer to me is no contest.

The nation could loose 3.5 million jobs and unemployment could be 9 percent or higher, according to Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post. Speaking on the News Hour on PBS, she said 41 states face budget deficits now, among them Ohio, where a potential $7.3 billion gap is the largest in history. Montgomery said Obama's spending payout could last two years due to the fierce recession facing the nation. Montgomery said fixing rather than building would get more money more quickly percolating through the economy. For the construction trades, who she said have the highest rate of unemployment of any sector, over 10 percent, traditional infrastructure spending would be best. But she said a "green stimulus" may well be part of the estimated $775 billion Obama's economic team is talking about now. If the plan is good "economic medicine and not just a grab bag" for politicians, she said it would be viable.

Economist Robert Frank, also interviewed for a segment on infrastructure spending, said that if the "government doesn't spend, we're in for a terrible downturn." New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine rattled off projects like the Hoover Dam, the TVA, the Golden Gate Bridge, the George Washington Bridge and the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels as WPA projects that made a tremendous contribution to reducing employment in the 1930s and still serve the nation nearly 80 years later. He said such spending won't be a panacea, but it will contribute to putting idle hands to work.

The first thing we can start making is our infrastructure. Weeks ago I wrote "Pax Obama Stars in Rebirth of a Nation," my opinion about President-elect Barack Obama's need to fix, repair and build infrastructure systems like water, sewer, roads, bridges and rail that can put lots of people to work quickly. But he also needs a grander strategy for continued job creation. World War II saved the bacon of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose turn to conservatism in 1936-37 nearly quashed his mighty works programs like the WPA and CCC that created much-needed jobs for the nearly quarter of the workforce out of work. Obama and the new Democratic Congress must overcome the vortex of forces driving our current economic meltdown by playing their infrastructure trump cards early and smartly.

Newly minted Nobel Prize winner and New York Time's columnist Paul Krugman seems to echo my prognosis to prosperity in his Monday column. In it Mr. Krugman opines that more will be needed than the Obama's expected pursuit of $800 billion or more in deficit spending to turn the economy around.

In so many words, Krugman appeared to endorse the Spinelli plan of "lets make our own stuff again."

"A more plausible route to sustained recovery would be a drastic reduction in the U.S. trade deficit, which soared at the same time the housing bubble was inflating. By selling more to other countries and spending more of our own income on U.S.-produced goods, we could get to full employment without a boom in either consumption or investment spending...Despite rising trade in services, most world trade is still in goods, especially manufactured goods — and the U.S. manufacturing sector, after years of neglect in favor of real estate and the financial industry, has a lot of catching up to do." [Paul Krugman, New York Times]

A growing chorus of advocates who want to see more federal and state investments in infrastructure cautions that not all infrastructure is created equal. This piece posted on the progressive Web site Daily Kos said that investments in roads and bridges, while why might be "shovel ready" would only harden America's dependence on cars and become magnets for more public spending because they don't last that long.

"The last thing, the absolutely last thing, that America needs now is more miles of highway. Pave another half a million miles of road, and you end up repaving up to fifty thousand miles of that a year. And the costs of infrastructure goes up sharply when that new highway starts to attract housing development.

"A hundred billion dollars invested in new highways is no investment at all. It's a commitment to spend another ten billion a year. Forever. Recreating the employment and energy of the WPA is a great idea. Replicating the outcome is begging for a white elephant we can't afford." [Daily Kos ]

The growing interest in rail-oriented infrastructure, as attested to when the lion's share of public transportation projects on the November 4 ballot passed, shows that America is ready to consider and pay for alternatives to cars. This may not be good for Detroit's Big Three car manufacturers, but if they got behind the ball on this, as I said they should do in "Time Right to Shake Up Detroit," they too could benefit, as could their suppliers who are thirsty for new systems and the new components needed to build them.

Making our own stuff again starts with conventional infrastructure, including roads and bridges, but must expand to new public mass transit systems that can create a bounty of middle-class jobs, the lifeblood necessary to rebuild our urban cores.

John Michael Spinelli is an economic development professional and former Ohio Statehouse political reporter and business columnist. To send a tip of comment, email ohionewsbureau@gmail.com