The Illusion of Progress Part II

July 20, 2004, 2:13 p.m.
Who’s Paying for the War?



"For all that the critics rail against the war in Iraq, surprisingly little time is given to decrying the sheer cost of it." Back in 2004 when, may he rest in peace, longtime commentator and conservative leader, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote that statement, that sheer cost was 87 billion dollars. Today the debt is 4 trillion but who's counting?

Back in 2004 the Democratic candidate at that time was John Kerry, who it just so happens, ran on exactly the very same campaign promise platform Barack Obama is running on today - raise taxes to invest in healthcare, education, job creation and to rebuild America's infrastructure.

The Democrats, along with this country, cannot afford to lose another presidency election. Never before has the presidency been more accessible or handedly available to the Democrats. This time more than ever it is truly their's for the taking, but using the same political language such as (raise taxes) again, when it did not help the Democrat cause in the past, is a sure shot to alienate a cynical yet crucial segment of voters who have only agenda which is to reduce spending, period.

The most effective way to offset the base fears of those wealthy undecided voters who consistently shy away from any candidate who talks of tax and spend policies would be to reframe the conversation about raising taxes within the context of the cost of the war. The administration has never made available a public accounting of the cost of the war framed in this language.

In his campaign speeches Obama has sought to reorient the whole question of how he means to fund his dynamic agenda by telling us what we have forfeited on account of the war — more health care, education, job creation, and America-building.

But he can't affect the kinds of changes he wishes to, or redirect where our dollars are going without first doing away with the war in Iraq and its attendant implications. To talk about raising taxes on the wealthy may be powerful bait for everyone except the wealthy, but it leaves unanswered the larger question of how he expects to pay for all his elective social programs.

At this critical time in the election cycle Obama needs to dig deeper into the cerebral pockets of the rich. But not with campaign rhetoric that only works to push them further over to the other side. And not with factionary tactics that perpetually invoke Republican fears of losing personal financial gain.

In order for the wealthy to get their hands out of their pockets and into Obama's comfort zone he needs to lay out constructive, fiscally responsible measures to inform and flesh out exactly how he intends to underwrite his vision for positive change, while also maintaining our military might through military spending.

The Illusion of Progress Part I

In his latest stump speeches Obama states that under his administration we will have an open government. He claims under his tutorage partisan politics will end and both parties will be more open to the suggestion to cross over party lines in order to get their job done. In accordance with his campaign slogan ‘change is a coming,’ both parties he says will be more inclined to work together to ensure necessary ‘change’ legislation will get passed in a timely and efficient fashion.

He vows his term in office will mark the end of politics as we know it. Voting strictly along party lines will no longer be tolerated. He is confident his fraternizing skills will prompt members of both parties to accept the end justifies the means, thereby removing the unworkmanlike stigma of a do nothing congress.

Of course, hidden from plain sight is the senate race next year and the obvious predictions that electing a Democratic president will help usher in sufficient Democrats after January to ensure this promise is met.

The message of change then that Obama is sending out is really pretty much dependent on certain changes having to occur in congress.

Otherwise, we can pretty much figure it will be business as usual under the Obama connection to change.