Tonight incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama will take to the stage at the Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, North Carolina to accept his party’s nomination for president. No doubt President Obama will attempt to dazzle us all with lofty rhetoric about his accomplishments over the past 3+ years, and I have absolutely no doubt he’ll make more than a few promises about what he’ll accomplish during a second term in the White House.
While you’re listening to President Obama’s speech, keep in mind these promises made by then-candidate Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, promises which President Barack Obama has broken.
- During the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, Senator Barack Obama pledged that as President he “would immediately call the president of Mexico and the president of Canada to try to amend NAFTA” because of his belief that such trade agreements “should not just be good for Wall Street; it should be good for main street.” Watch for yourself:
Keep in mind that not only has President Obama not called for a renegotiation of NAFTA, but his administration is negotiating in secret the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that could have a deleterious impact on intellectual property rights and could lead to the continued offshoring of American jobs (think NAFTA on steroids).
- Then-candidate Obama promised in 2008 that as president he’d not only raise the Federal minimum wage, but also index it to inflation. However, since his inauguration, President Obama has not made any meaningful effort to raise the Federal minimum wage, which was last raised in 2009 as part of a three-part increase passed into law in 2007.
- In 2008 candidate Obama said he’d sign the Employee Free Choice Act into law as president.
Not only has President Obama not signed the Employee Free Choice Act into law, but his actions as president have me questioning his commitment to the labor movement in this country. After all, the 2012 Democratic National Convention is being held in Charlotte, North Carolina, and it just so happens North Carolina is an anti-union “right to work” state, not to mention one of the least unionized states in our nation. Apparently political considerations in an election year (North Carolina is a “swing” state) outweighed President Obama’s “commitment” to organized labor.
- And speaking of organized labor, how can anyone here in Wisconsin forget candidate Obama’s promise to “put on a comfortable pair of shoes” and “walk on that picket line” with workers who were being denied their right to organize or collectively bargain? In the aftermath of Republican Gov. Scott Walker “dropping the bomb” that was his anti-union Act 10, President Obama made absolutely no efforts to stand with Wisconsin’s public employees as they fought to preserve their collective bargaining rights, and when workers at Manitowoc Crane went on strike, President Obama was nowhere to be found, settling the question of whether he was abandoning labor in general or just public sector unions.
What’s most galling to me about President Obama’s decision not to live up to his promise to stand with workers who were being denied their right to organize or collectively bargain is the fact that it’s one of the few promises President Obama made as a candidate that Republicans in Congress absolutely could not obstruct. At any time during the protests/recalls here in Wisconsin, President Obama could have boarded Air Force One, flown to Wisconsin, and announced his unambiguous support for organized labor, but he chose not to, and in doing so he made it clear where he really stands when it comes to organized labor.
- In 2008, candidate Obama said if he were elected, Americans would be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and “wiretaps without warrants,” but President Obama’s administration has argued to keep the same powers the Bush administration had when it comes to warrantless wiretapping.
- On August 2, 2007, candidate Obama promised that “As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.” However, here we are 3+ years into President Obama’s first term in the White House and Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility is still open.
- Candidate Obama promised that by the end of his first term in office, his health care reform plan wold bring down health insurance premiums by $2,500 for the typical family. However, in 2011 health insurance premiums actually rose by 9%.
How does the world look without rose-colored glasses?
Nice list. I’d add a promise to lower the deficit or not run for a second term. 😉
I’ve never worn rose colored glasses Cindy; I’ve always understood that some promises made on the campaign trail are bound to be broken.
I’m simply highlighting those broken promises that I feel merit discussion.
I don’t know about the glasses, but I hear that with two oars, you’ll be less dizzy because the boat stops spinning.
Cindy, we’ve been lowering MARGINAL tax rates on 1% since the Eisenhower administrations. Top Marginal Tax rates 1916 – 2011
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2012/03/08/marginal-tax-rates/
When does the “trickle-down,” start?
The deficit that matters is the TRADE deficit. It’s EXPORTING wealth. If you were remotely conservative you’d understand that. Even the idiot Rick Santorum talked about “Make it in America.”
“Buffett’s Import Certificates Plan Could Pilot the Economy to a Safe Landing”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/115278-buffett-s-import-certificates-plan-could-pilot-the-economy-to-a-safe-landing
Great post, Zach. Thanks.
Democrats controlled all three branches of government from 2008 – 2010. There’s no excuse for these failures.
Zach, would it be fair to characterize your political view as, “I want it all” or in a more charitable wording, as a purist?
I answered your #4 elsewhere on this blog agreeing with you for the most part on Obama’s MIA on the Walker recall.
I’ve got a few years on you, maybe not politically, to realize the imperfection of homo sapiens, especially politicians. I was thrown out of a Catholic discussion group on another site a few years ago because I expressed my view that people not of my belief have a right to follow their conscience on the abortion issue.
I’m not informed enough on the other points you make to agree or disagree, but I’m willing to listen and learn.
No, it wouldn’t be fair to characterize my political views as those of a purist. I don’t expect purity; I simply expect honesty and leadership.
Points #1, #5, and #6 are also fully within the President’s purview, so he could have accomplished them.
Duane, capitalism is the Laws of Supply and DEMAND. When the 1% own half the country, DEMAND collapses.
Billionaire Nick Hanauer: “Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: “……When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around.
It is unquestionably true that without entrepreneurs and investors, you can’t have a dynamic and growing capitalist economy. But it’s equally true that without consumers, you can’t have entrepreneurs and investors. And the more we have happy customers with lots of disposable income, the better our businesses will do.
That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When the American middle class defends a tax system in which the lion’s share of benefits accrues to the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.
And that’s what has been happening in the U.S. for the last 30 years. ….”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-reward-job-creators-commentary-by-nick-hanauer.html
In 1999 led by the GOP, both parties repealed Glass-Steagall (The Banking Act of 1933). Russ Feingold was one of the few with courage to vote against it. Glass Steagall prevented Wall Street from “socializing” their risk and their losses on bank deposits, which are insured by the taxpayers. It allowed Wall Street to gamble with our money. When their bets paid off, they kept the profits (via criminally low capital gains rate, 15%). When their bets didn’t pay off, they simply shifted the burden onto the taxpayers.
This happened in 2011 and it’s the latest iteration of Wall Street “socializing” risk onto the taxpayers.
“Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/301260-bank-of-america-dumps-75-trillion-in-derivatives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approval
To put $75 trillion into perspective, US GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in 2010 was around $14.5 trillion. $75 trillion is just a fraction of Wall Street’s total derivative exposure.
No one has even been indicted for crashing the economy in 2008. The 1% have used their taxbreaks to buy both parties and the media. With impunity, they steal on an almost unimaginable scale.
I’m with you.
I’ve been a fan of capitalism experiencing it as CFO of small manufacturing company, a manufacturing cost manager and running a credit union. I even taught “Cost Accounting” at MTC as a substitute one semester. Indeed, the laborer is due his worth with just compensation as investors should expect a fair return on their investment.
The world has changed since my working days as part of the middle class. Now my family, friends, neighbors, the masses are suffering economically from the dramatic rise of greed and an inhuman ideology of the few enabled by our representatives. We are returning to the era of 20th century robber barons (now called the 1% and Wall Street) or, if it continues, to the serfdom of the 19th century.
President Obama may not please all of us all the time, but I maintain he is our best, if not only, bet for restoration of the middle class.
Thanks Duane, completely agree with everything you wrote. Your characterization of them as “robber barons,” is spot on. The problem with large-scale socialism/communism, nation states, imho is that in practice, despite the best intentions, the power is centralized in too few hands. They control the media, the military, industry, the Judicial branch, the legislative branch……. According to the link, the communists running the “People’s Republic of China,” have more than a million people with a net worth over a million http://blog.christiandaviesantiques.co.uk/rich-chinese-reclaiming-antique-cabinets-of-their-homeland-2439.html
Socialism imho works fine in families and groups of like minded folks, religious orders….
The 1% also have captured the engine of US meritocracy, the Patent office. They can either stall or steal any patent they want. ICYMI, the JS’ Patents Pending series imho was excellent. http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/113830084.html
And we’ve got scripture on our side: Luke 12:48 “…..For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”
If Dems are fortunate enough to win in November, I think the real campaigning starts. Demonstrations, protests…..
Here’s an article which explains the perils of political purity:
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/jun/18/curse-political-purity/
Lisa, is not “Politics” defined as the art of compromise? If so, then political parties can be divided into, “Never,” “Sometimes,” and “Always.” Obama is in the “Sometimes” category it seems backing off some of his promises.
BTW, the author in your link made one mistake claiming that Texas has no Democrats. He forgot about the Mayor of San Antonio who addressed a recent Dem convention.
With the kind of power invested in Obama’s opposition, plus the widespread resentment of much of America and government bureaucrats to the Obama family’s ethnicity, is it any wonder that the President stepped back, choosing battles he felt he had some chance to win? IMHO we are extremely fortunate to have had a man with Obama’s intellect, ability and character in a time when so many Democrats have acquiesed to Republican’s hypocritical bullying. I fault Labor as a media professional for not meeting the devastating Right-To-Work attacks and work outsourcing initiatives that have sullied labor’s great benefits to this nation. NAFTA was a Clinton backed program, but labor allowed the rules to overrun them. It’s difficult for any observer to know what is envolved in any political agreement, no matter how attentive he/she is to the published details. I’m sticking to President Obama and praying he gets enough real support to do more of the things he’s promised.
How can you talk about acquiescing to Republican bullying and not put Obama in that camp? Every time he comes to table on an issue he starts further Right than any Republican of the 70s or 80s because he is afraid to stand up and confront anything. His absolute lack of courage is what makes it difficult to even consider voting for the man
John,
A supermajority is 60 votes. Democrats had it only briefly and intermittently. Not trying to be snarky, but:
January 2009: 56 Senate Democrats+2 Dem-caucasing Independents = 58. Reality in the chamber: Ted Kennedy was ill and absent from the floor. Making for 57 in the Democratic caucus.
April 2009: Arlen Spectator left the party, making for 59. Kennedy was still too ill to participate on the floor. Democratic caucus at 58 votes.
May 2009: Robert Byrd hospitalized. Democratic Caucus = 57
July 2009: Add Al Franken. 60 votes but Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were ill and absent, meaning the number of Dems in chamber was 58.
August 2009: Ted Kennedy died. Democratic caucus is at 59.
September 2009: Add Paul Kirk, but Robert Byrd still ill. Caucus is at 60 but with one member not participating fully.
January 2010: Subtract Kirk, add Republican Scott Brown, Dems are back to 59.
June 2010: Robert Byrd died. 58 votes in the Democratic caucus.
July 2010: Carte Goodwin appointed to replace Byrd. 59 Democrats. And that’s where it stayed until the midterms.
I didn’t look for all the legislation voted upon, but as I recall, Democrats were not uniform or united in their votes whereas the GOP voted consistently as a bloc, more or less.
There’s a lesson here, I think. I remember how agonizing it was to be so close to supermajority but never really having it. No matter what one’s opinion of Obama, Dems need to retake the house and pick up some seats in the Senate.
Also, thanks for the reminder Luke 12:48. Need I say that this was Adam Smith’s position, and Jefferson’s and Madison’s and Paine’s — as much as our rhetoric of “fair share” in “shared sacrifice” and “taxes” sounds reasonable and is an easier pill to swallow, I’d prefer straightforward rhetoric: of “more” not “fair” – the more you receive the more you are expected to give. Franklin must have a little maxim on that… I’m going to look for one. 🙂
Probably the best rebuttal to a comment I have seen on this site yet. And don’t forget the block of “blue dog” democrats in the house that stymied Speaker Pelosi for a good chunk of that Congress. It took close to two years of horse trading just to get ACA. Card check never had a chance.
As for GTMO. I fully believe that it was President Obama’s full intent to close GTMO as quickly as possible. Until the briefing. Picture yourself in the briefing room with Obama and Holder when they were briefed on the detainees at GTMO. Picture the look of horror on their faces when they realize that the evidence against those detainees was gained illegally and that it would be impossible to gain convictions in a United States court room. The only other recourse would be to return them to their home countries, a politically disastrous option. So guess what, folks. We’re stuck with GTMO, probably until the last detainee dies.
Rich, in a search, I found several sources which seem to confirm your explanation why GITMO has not been closed and would answer #6 “broken” promise.
Regarding #7, I found this explanation regarding the $2500 reduction which satisfies me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-whopper-claim-on-an-obama-health-care-pledge/2012/07/03/gJQAVhk3IW_blog.html
Note the four “long nose” award to Romney (not Zach) for omitting the fact that Obama has until 2019 to keep his promise.
I just hope that those who are disillusioned with President Obama still get out and vote on election day. If progressives sit this one out, other candidates (like Tammy Baldwin, Tanya Lohr, Scott Michalak, Jim Ward…)pay the price.
I’ve never said I planned on sitting out, because even though I’m not completely happy, I recognize progress has been made (DADT repeal, Lily Ledbetter Act, etc.) and I don’t want to see Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan win.
I simply think it’s healthy and appropriate to question/criticize our elected leaders (even if they’re from our own party) and to hold them accountable for promises they’ve made.
I’m all for holding elected officials accountable, regardless of party affiliation, and I know this is meant to be a thought-provoking post/discussion.
I’m just concerned that if Democrats are less enthusiastic, it will cost us votes…
God, hearing right-wing tropes is bad enough, but hearing them on a site called ‘Blogging Blue’ is really frustrating. Democrats did not, I repeat, did not have unfettered control of three branches of government for two years. This is an oft-repeated and easily dismantled Republican lie.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-16/news/ct-oped-0617-zorn-md-20120616_1_minnesota-democrat-al-franken-filibuster-proof-majority-barack-obama
In this era of information overload there is no excuse for being misinformed, accidentally or on purpose.
Yeah, you’re absolutely right; I’m terribly misinformed. Having said that, I can’t wait until we can elect enough Democrats in Congress to pass health care reform, a fair pay act for women, and a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Oh wait…
Angela, please review PJ’s comment at 1:28. It’s a key tool in how the legislative branch maintains the “incumbency protection rackets.” It also makes it a lot less expensive for the 1% to control government. They only have to buy 40 Senators. It’s easy when media rates in small states like Idaho, Montana, North/South Dakota, are so low.
Both sides tell their base the same thing, “we just didn’t have the votes.” The cloture votes, on debate, are key to understanding the “incumbency protection rackets.”
I’ll vote for Baldwin but she’s symptomatic of the problem. Madison is one of the 20 safest Congressional districts for Dems, heavy D+. When those super safe districts cave to the WH, like Tammy did on the Public Option, it reveals how completely the 1% have gamed the system. Obamacare forces the middle class to pay for LOUSY coverage. All that stuff you hear about no more pre-existing conditions, it’s a lie. All the health insurance oligopoly has to do, to declare a pre-existing condition, is pay a small fine. Bart Stupak (Forced Child-birth Dem from Michigan) used the close vote on Health Care Reform to make it a lot tougher for poor women to get abortions. Obama had no problem signing that Executive Order. http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/21/stupak-agrees-to-executive-order-language-7-more-to-vote-yes/
If Romney wins, voting rights are history. The GOP will find more and better ways to keep the 99% from voting.
When he gets elected, in the lame duck session, Obama will bring home the “Grand Bargain.” http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/09/07/obama-second-term-grand-bargain/ In return for a miniscule raise in taxes on the 1%, (we’ve been lowering their MARGINAL tax rate since after the Eisenhower administrations. Still waiting for something to “trickle down), he’ll “chain the CPI (Consumer Price Index). That means Social Security will no longer rise with inflation. Then as food and commodity prices soar, the 1% will own even more of the U.S. and the 99% will be even poorer. And there will be all the Dimmocrats crying about how they just didn’t have the votes. The more money the 1% have, the easier it is for them to buy the little remaining sections of government they don’t already own.