creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer
16 Feb 2012
Apple's China Comes Home to Haunt Us

Four decades ago, Richard Nixon, a once famously hawkish Republican president, cut a deal with the Communist … Read More.

9 Feb 2012
Elections Are for Suckers

Elections are for suckers. Let's just dip our fingers in purple ink and pose for photos now that voting has … Read More.

2 Feb 2012
The Democrats Who Unleashed Wall Street and Got Away With It

That Lawrence Summers, a president emeritus of Harvard, is a consummate distorter of fact and logic is not a revelation.… Read More.

Dear Barack, Spare Me Your E-Mails

Share Comment

Barack Obama's faux populism is beginning to grate, and when yet another one of those "we the people" e-mails from the president landed on my screen as I was fishing around for a column subject, I came unglued. It is one thing to rob us blind by rewarding the power elite that created our problems but quite another to sugarcoat it in the rhetoric of a David taking on those Goliaths.

In each of the three most important areas of policy with which he has dealt, Obama speaks in the voice of the little people's champion, but his actions cater fully to the demands of the most powerful economic interests.

With his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, he has given the military-industrial complex an excuse for the United States to carry on in spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined, without a credible military adversary in sight. His response to the banking meltdown was to continue George W. Bush's massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars to Wall Street. And his health care reform has all the earmarks of a boondoggle for the medical industry profiteers.

Health reform was the subject of Obama's Tuesday e-mail, which proclaimed in its heading, "We will not back down." Addressing me by my first name, which I assume is in acknowledgment that I, like the millions of other suckers with whom he so intimately corresponds, had contributed to his campaign, he began with a clarion call for yet another contribution, this time to donate.barackobama.com/FinalStretch.

"As we head into the final stretch of health reform, big insurance company lobbyists and their partisan allies hope that their relentless attacks and millions of dollars can intimidate us into accepting the status quo. So I have a message for them, from all of us: Not this time. We have come too far. We will not turn back. We will not back down."

But we, following him, have already backed down. Does the president not recall that he began his health care reform effort by ingratiating himself with the insurance lobbyists in taking "single payer" off the table on day one? The insurers are not really upset with what may survive as a minuscule public option, for they have won the big prize: Everyone must buy insurance from them under penalty of law, and there will be no built-in requirement for cost control. Their so-called opposition to the current plans has to do with fine-tuning the president's guarantee of their future profits.

The same contradiction between progressive rhetoric and big-business giveaways was on display, also on Tuesday, when Obama addressed the economic crisis.

Speaking at the Brookings Institution, an Establishment think tank that helped craft the radical financial deregulation of the Bill Clinton years, Obama blamed Republicans for the mess. He thundered against "an opposition party, which unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it over to others to solve."

Rubbish. It was Clinton — in his trademark triangulation of progressive rhetoric with the big-business agenda — who presided over the passage of banking deregulation that led to the mess. Obama knows that full well because he laid out that sordid record in a major speech on economics during the primary campaign, in March 2008 at Manhattan's Cooper Union:

"Under Republican and Democratic administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices." He specifically cited the New Deal protections of the Glass-Steagall Act and other legislation that Clinton's radical deregulation legislation had swept away.

Inexplicably as a matter of logic, or all too predictably given the political power of Wall Street, Obama as president turned to the same pro-deregulation Clintonistas to run his economic "reform," led by Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.

As for "solving" the banking problem, Obama simply followed the lead of his Republican predecessor. The throw-money-at-Wall-Street solution for which Obama takes credit is the one crafted by Bush's treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, and it was fully endorsed by then-New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner, whom Obama named to replace Paulson. The buying off of the financial hustlers was blessed by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who has been renominated to that position by Obama.

The solution that Obama boasts of has left us with trillions more in debt, one out of four children poor enough to qualify for food stamps and, as Obama conceded in his Tuesday speech, "more than 7 million fewer Americans with jobs today than when this recession began."

I do agree with one line in Obama's e-mail to those of us who hoped for the best from his presidency: "the opponents of reform will not rest." But I didn't expect him to be one of them.

Robert Scheer is editor of truthdig.com, where this column originally appeared. E-mail Robert Scheer at rscheer@truthdig.com. To find out more about Robert Scheer, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Webpage at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
I, too, had hoped that Barak would be able to change the system. My feeling is that the system doesn't work anymore--it all rests on money and power. He can't change that, but has to work within the "fixed" system. He may be a one term president and people will put their hopes in another, but when they find that person can't change things either, we will tend not to vote. What's the point? The system is rigged and voting won't be necessary anymore.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Nancy Jo Whittington
Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:36 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Robert Scheer
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012

17 Jan 2007 Chuck Hagel for President!

29 Jul 2009 Chinese Masters Preach Discipline

8 Jul 2009 McNamara's Evil Lives On