See the updates below.
I wrote a letter to the editor that ran in today’s Moscow-Pullman Daily News.
As a political independent who didn’t vote for either Clinton or Trump, I’ve been amused as local partisan opinion writers for the Daily News attempt to justify their positions. In a Dec. 1 Her View column, Lenna Harding argues in favor of a recount “in certain states where the outcome was questionable.” Notice how she doesn’t apply the same standard to Minnesota or New Hampshire where Clinton won by a small margin. Are the outcomes in those states less questionable? Or just more desirable?
Nick Gier displays the same partisanship, arguing elsewhere Sept. 3 the national debt is the fault of the GOP. He argues Democratic presidents have reduced the debt the most; and as proof, the Obama administration has reduced the deficit from 11.1 percent to 2.7 percent. Either the philosophy professor doesn’t know the difference between debt and deficit or he’s being duplicitous, which is tragic for an ethics professor. The national debt went from $10.6 trillion the day President Obama took office to $20 trillion today. You can argue that constitutionally it’s Congress’ fault, but don’t lie that the debt is less under Obama.
Another example: Sen. Hillary Clinton sponsored the 2005 Flag Protection Act that is identical to what Trump recently suggested. Yet Trump is (rightly) vilified by the Democrats for taking that position while Hillary Clinton is championed. Same for Democrats objecting to George Bush’s unjust war against Iraq but being silent about Obama’s murderous interventions in Libya and in Syria, both undertaken without congressional authorization.
And Republicans are no better, condemning Bill Clinton’s adulteries while excusing Trump’s.
Democrats and Republicans: do not politicize your conscience. Be intellectually honest and hold your party to the same standard that you hold the other party to. Independent voters determine the outcome of elections, and we’re watching you.
Dale Courtney
Moscow
Update #1
Unless you subscribe to the online version of the Daily News, you won’t be able to see these comments:
The problem with your letter is that you overlook a stark and obvious truth: Clinton one (sic) the election hands down. The Electoral College was designed to prevent irrational humans from becoming president, not to ensure that they do. [via patriot]
Note the politicized bias. The assumption is that the Electoral College failed because his gal lost. The Republicans say that the Electoral College did it’s job, keeping Hillary out of the White House.
Update #2
Clinton’s lead in the popular vote has swelled to about 2% – and getting close to 3 million votes! If it weren’t for a certain FBI director that could have easily been 5% and surely enough to swing the Electoral College in her direction. This archaic system has to be obliterated in favor of choosing our president with the popular vote! [via dave38]
Again, note the Democrat bias. The assumption is that the FBI director wanted to shipwreck her campaign. The Republicans say that if he had really wanted to do that, he would have recommended that she be charged with mishandling classified information (which there was enough evidence of).
Also, notice that no one is replying to the things that I actually wrote, but everything I didn’t write. Brilliant.
Update #3
Yes, the national debt has doubled under Obama, but the important question is: who is responsible for this continuing red ink?
So, finally a point of honesty? In his original Letter to the Editor of the LMT, he displays his hyper-partisanship by trying to obfuscate the fact that the debt has doubled under Obama.
The Obama administration has brought down the annual deficit from 11.1 percent to 3.2 percent (it’s gone up a bit since Courtney quoted me. That means that less was added to the national debt over six years.
See the word games he’s playing? Instead of adding $12 trillion to the debt, Obama only added $10 trillion to the debt. That’s good deficit reduction in Gier’s mind. Geesh!
Courtney claims that I confuse deficits and debt, but he is the one that is confused. If my monthly budget runs a deficit, I will go into debt, and I might borrow some money to get by, but my debt is still there plus interest. It is no different with the government. The Obama administration has brought down the annual deficit from 11.1 percent to 3.2 percent (it’s gone up a bit since Courtney quoted me. That means that less was added to the national debt over six years.
Debt and deficit are related, but they are not the same. The country’s annual deficit is the difference between what the government collects in revenues and spends in one year. The national debt, which exceeds $18 trillion, is the net of annual deficits minus any annual surpluses.
So, Professor, riddle me this: is the CBO’s 2016 forecast for the debt and deficit Trump’s fault? Or the Republicans’?
Dale has conveniently left out the rest of my comments on Vision2020:
Yes, the national debt has doubled under Obama, but the important question is: who is responsible for this continuing red ink?The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has calculated the long-term effects of various elements of the national debt, assuming that the Bush tax cuts are still in place. (Trump’s tax cuts will increased the debt even more.) By 2019 those cuts will amount to $600 billion of the debt burden as opposed to $75 billion for Obama’s stimulus. We will still be paying $320 billion for the Great Recession (primarily caused by the financial sector) and $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I like to say: Bush borrowed money to wage two wars, but Obama borrowed money at much lower interest rates and saved the economy.
Yes, the national debt contains much more than the annual deficits under any particular president. For example, the Clinton administration was still paying off the huge debt left by Ronald Reagan, which tripled during his administration, primarily due to unnecessary defense expenditures. (We upped the ante against the Soviets with every new weapons system. We ran them into the ground but at a great cost of debt financed at very high interest rates.) Obama was saddled with Bush’s war debt, his irresponsible tax cuts, and the loss of revenue due to the Great Recession. The smallest part of our current debt is on Obama’s shoulders.
As is typical for a partisan Democratic: it’s all Bush’s fault.
At what point will the Democrats take responsibility for all 8 years of Obama’s term in office? And what of the CBO’s long-term budget outlook? Under Obama’s spending, the deficit swells and the debt swells. Or will you blame that on Trump? Or Bush? Or reach back to Reagan?
The Lewiston Tribune editors rightly titled your Letter to the Editor as “It’s the GOPs debt”. They knew exactly what you were saying: Democrats are not responsible.
My hope is that at some point, both Republicans and Democrats will stop drinking the Kool-Aid and hold both party’s feet to the fire.
Dale:
You left out one more paragraph in my Vision2020 post. (And you talk about dishonesty!) Here it is:
Nowhere I have ever written that the GOP is solely responsible for the national debt. That’s of course absurd. What I have repeated is the well known truth–backed up by non-partisan data–that Democratic administrations have run up less debt, have had higher economic growth, and have had lower unemployment rates.
As you well know, Congress is in charge of spending and they also joined Obama in the raising of the upper bracket to 39.6 percent. Obama’s stimulus is only $75 billion to the continuing debt at 2019, while Bush’s tax cuts are $600 billion. Yes, it is primarily Bush’s fault. Totally irresponsible of him to put the two wars off budget. The LMT would have been more accurate to say: “It’s Bush’s Fault.”
I left out a bunch of paragraphs. The link above is to your original post. If people want to read all of it, they can.
Dale, do you have a silly photo of yourself that I can post everywhere. What a juvenile you are!
I thought you were proud of that photo of you? Didn’t you originally post that yourself? How can I be acting juvenile when I repost a picture you yourself posted?
I just received a uncomplimentary photo of you from a Vision2020 subscriber. I took me only a few seconds to decide that to engage you at this level is uncivil. I will not post it and I would encourage you to post a real picture of me rather than one of my Guru.
One more thing: I dare you to post this entire thread on Vision2020 so that the readers there can see how you operate–picking and choosing and using ad hominem to boot. Years ago you and your ilk fled the scrutiny of Vision readers because you simply could not stand the heat.
Nick,
What you are asking is akin to telling an African-American to join a white supremacism discussion board and try to talk them out of their racism. When we were on V2020, the intolerance of the intoleristas was nauseating.
You couldn’t entice me or “dare” me to go back to the intellectual cesspool of V2020 that you call your home.
Happy swimming there with your intellectual counterparts.