Barack Obama's darkest hour
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Fazal M. Kamal
THE United States Supreme Court judgment that overturned a century-old ruling on election campaign financing is being viewed by many in this country as a pernicious step backward. President Barack Obama himself has called it "devastating" and as a verdict that "strikes at our democracy itself." He added that this decision gives special interest lobbyists "new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way -- or to punish those who don't."
The Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling was a conservative grasp of the US Constitution's First Amendment and was primarily based on a reading of the law that says corporations share some of the same rights as individual citizens. The decision said, "The Court has recognised that the First Amendment applies to corporations…and extended this protection to the context of political speech."
This decision from the Supreme Court couldn't have come at a worse time for the Obama administration. Already things were seemingly unravelling for the President while the opposition Republican Party was not only being gleeful but was obstructing all the steps President Obama was taking -- from reforms to new legislation, to say nothing of what the rabid right was carrying out in the name of political propaganda. Mr. Barack Obama's plate was overflowing with setbacks, problems, discontent and attacks.
This ruling of the Supreme Court provides Big Money with the opportunity to brazenly influence not merely the victory or defeat of candidates but it also allows money to influence political decisions most likely, and naturally, at the expense of the interests of the average citizen. It's no surprise that an outcry has followed and the administration is breathlessly attempting to bring into force measures whereby the ramifications of this verdict can be muted in certain circumstances, particularly not permitting US subsidiaries of foreign companies from attempting to influence elections in the United States.
The Obama presidency was already confronting dark days following a number of events which have forced the administration leaders to try to convince the people that they are still completely in control, especially of their agenda, though that hasn't been quite as effective as they'd wish it to be. With the loss of the Senate seat in Massachusetts, with the healthcare reform bill now in hibernation, with the President's hope of closing down the prison at Guantanamo Bay postponed, with the decision to hold the trial of the alleged 9/11 plotters in New York City now becoming extremely uncertain, with Democrats fiercely distraught at the prospects of midterm elections this year, all this has made some ask the question if Barack Obama is "panicking."
Having asked that question, Salon went on to state, "President Obama…offered a set of proposals for helping America's troubled middle class. All are sensible and worthwhile. But none will bring jobs back. And Americans could be forgiven for wondering how the president plans to enact any of these ideas anyway, when he can no longer muster 60 votes in the Senate.
"The bigger news is Obama is planning a three-year budget freeze on a big chunk of discretionary spending. Wall Street is delighted. But it means Main Street is in worse trouble than ever. A spending freeze will make it even harder to get jobs back because government is the last spender around. Consumers have pulled back, investors won't do much until they know consumers are out there, and exports are minuscule."
However, in his State of the Union address Jan. 27 night the President tried to wrest the initiative back into his own hand, infuse some urgently-needed verve into his administration and set out an agenda mainly aimed to ease the worries of the middle class and assist small businesses, the millions of unemployed and states hardest hit by the recession. All this will of course increase the size of the deficit, a behemoth which the government is already trying to grapple with in vain.
Nevertheless, President Obama, in the speech, took the opportunity to send out the message that he wasn't about ready to run away from his commitments. That was possibly the chief thrust of his address and he exhorted members of Congress not to avoid doing what maybe difficult but is still necessary for the good of the nation. Certainly, urging others to do good isn't going to be enough for this administration if it seeks to keep even close to what was pledged when it came to office, especially when politicians and strategists are far more concerned with the elections later this year.
"For all the questions circulating in Democratic quarters," noted Jeff Zeleny in The New York Times, "as President Obama tries to weather the worst storm of his administration, perhaps none is as succinct as this: Are the missteps at the White House rooted in message or substance?" In this ongoing debate and soul-searching Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and someone close to Mr. Obama, said that the notion of the President accepting responsibility would probably be well received by the people but warned, "The American people want to see that you're going to make a change, but for the President it's important that he not shift radically because of one election (the lost Senate seat in Massachusetts)."
The Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee told Salon, "He (Obama) needs to raise in people's minds the question about whether or not they really want to turn back the clock and adopt the policies (of the Bush era) that got us into this mess in the first place…. This is not about pointing fingers, it's much more about letting people know what Republicans are likely to do if you hand the keys of the car back over to them ... This (midterm) election cannot just be a referendum on ourselves."
Immigrants in NYC
Even in the midst of economic turbulence the great American Dream is alive and doing well -- at least among the immigrants in New York City.
A report released recently highlights the role of immigrants in New York City's economy; it also underscores some statistics about the immigrants themselves. Releasing the report the New York State comptroller commented, "New York City was built by immigrants, and what we find in our report is that immigration continues to drive our economy…. That tradition of New York City being viewed as a place of opportunity and a place where immigrant stories become wonderful American success stories, that is still the case."
The report reveals that the population of immigrants in New York City doubled to three million between 1970 and 2008, while the native-born population decreased by one million. Immigrants make up 43 per cent of the city's workforce and they bring in nearly one-third of the gross city product. The State comptroller added that despite the economic downturn a steady flow of immigrants was still coming to the city.
The majority of immigrants -- who are mostly Mexicans and Chinese but also include Pakistanis, Indians, Koreans as well as Bangladeshis among others -- in New York City live in the borough of Queens, where they compose more than half of the workforce. In the Brooklyn area of the city immigrants form 48 per cent of the workforce and are the majority of workers in social services, health and leisure. However, many have started their own businesses and are mostly successful in their entrepreneurship.
Significantly, the household income for immigrants in New York City is increasing faster than inflation. According to the report, between 1990 and 2007 the median household income rose from $23,900 to $45,000 prompting the State comptroller to declare, "I think a report like this underscores the fact that newcomers to the city have had a very, very strong and positive impact on the city, certainly when measured in terms of economic activity and economic success."
The writer can be reached at
E-mail : fmk222@gmail.com
THE United States Supreme Court judgment that overturned a century-old ruling on election campaign financing is being viewed by many in this country as a pernicious step backward. President Barack Obama himself has called it "devastating" and as a verdict that "strikes at our democracy itself." He added that this decision gives special interest lobbyists "new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way -- or to punish those who don't."
The Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling was a conservative grasp of the US Constitution's First Amendment and was primarily based on a reading of the law that says corporations share some of the same rights as individual citizens. The decision said, "The Court has recognised that the First Amendment applies to corporations…and extended this protection to the context of political speech."
This decision from the Supreme Court couldn't have come at a worse time for the Obama administration. Already things were seemingly unravelling for the President while the opposition Republican Party was not only being gleeful but was obstructing all the steps President Obama was taking -- from reforms to new legislation, to say nothing of what the rabid right was carrying out in the name of political propaganda. Mr. Barack Obama's plate was overflowing with setbacks, problems, discontent and attacks.
This ruling of the Supreme Court provides Big Money with the opportunity to brazenly influence not merely the victory or defeat of candidates but it also allows money to influence political decisions most likely, and naturally, at the expense of the interests of the average citizen. It's no surprise that an outcry has followed and the administration is breathlessly attempting to bring into force measures whereby the ramifications of this verdict can be muted in certain circumstances, particularly not permitting US subsidiaries of foreign companies from attempting to influence elections in the United States.
The Obama presidency was already confronting dark days following a number of events which have forced the administration leaders to try to convince the people that they are still completely in control, especially of their agenda, though that hasn't been quite as effective as they'd wish it to be. With the loss of the Senate seat in Massachusetts, with the healthcare reform bill now in hibernation, with the President's hope of closing down the prison at Guantanamo Bay postponed, with the decision to hold the trial of the alleged 9/11 plotters in New York City now becoming extremely uncertain, with Democrats fiercely distraught at the prospects of midterm elections this year, all this has made some ask the question if Barack Obama is "panicking."
Having asked that question, Salon went on to state, "President Obama…offered a set of proposals for helping America's troubled middle class. All are sensible and worthwhile. But none will bring jobs back. And Americans could be forgiven for wondering how the president plans to enact any of these ideas anyway, when he can no longer muster 60 votes in the Senate.
"The bigger news is Obama is planning a three-year budget freeze on a big chunk of discretionary spending. Wall Street is delighted. But it means Main Street is in worse trouble than ever. A spending freeze will make it even harder to get jobs back because government is the last spender around. Consumers have pulled back, investors won't do much until they know consumers are out there, and exports are minuscule."
However, in his State of the Union address Jan. 27 night the President tried to wrest the initiative back into his own hand, infuse some urgently-needed verve into his administration and set out an agenda mainly aimed to ease the worries of the middle class and assist small businesses, the millions of unemployed and states hardest hit by the recession. All this will of course increase the size of the deficit, a behemoth which the government is already trying to grapple with in vain.
Nevertheless, President Obama, in the speech, took the opportunity to send out the message that he wasn't about ready to run away from his commitments. That was possibly the chief thrust of his address and he exhorted members of Congress not to avoid doing what maybe difficult but is still necessary for the good of the nation. Certainly, urging others to do good isn't going to be enough for this administration if it seeks to keep even close to what was pledged when it came to office, especially when politicians and strategists are far more concerned with the elections later this year.
"For all the questions circulating in Democratic quarters," noted Jeff Zeleny in The New York Times, "as President Obama tries to weather the worst storm of his administration, perhaps none is as succinct as this: Are the missteps at the White House rooted in message or substance?" In this ongoing debate and soul-searching Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and someone close to Mr. Obama, said that the notion of the President accepting responsibility would probably be well received by the people but warned, "The American people want to see that you're going to make a change, but for the President it's important that he not shift radically because of one election (the lost Senate seat in Massachusetts)."
The Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee told Salon, "He (Obama) needs to raise in people's minds the question about whether or not they really want to turn back the clock and adopt the policies (of the Bush era) that got us into this mess in the first place…. This is not about pointing fingers, it's much more about letting people know what Republicans are likely to do if you hand the keys of the car back over to them ... This (midterm) election cannot just be a referendum on ourselves."
Immigrants in NYC
Even in the midst of economic turbulence the great American Dream is alive and doing well -- at least among the immigrants in New York City.
A report released recently highlights the role of immigrants in New York City's economy; it also underscores some statistics about the immigrants themselves. Releasing the report the New York State comptroller commented, "New York City was built by immigrants, and what we find in our report is that immigration continues to drive our economy…. That tradition of New York City being viewed as a place of opportunity and a place where immigrant stories become wonderful American success stories, that is still the case."
The report reveals that the population of immigrants in New York City doubled to three million between 1970 and 2008, while the native-born population decreased by one million. Immigrants make up 43 per cent of the city's workforce and they bring in nearly one-third of the gross city product. The State comptroller added that despite the economic downturn a steady flow of immigrants was still coming to the city.
The majority of immigrants -- who are mostly Mexicans and Chinese but also include Pakistanis, Indians, Koreans as well as Bangladeshis among others -- in New York City live in the borough of Queens, where they compose more than half of the workforce. In the Brooklyn area of the city immigrants form 48 per cent of the workforce and are the majority of workers in social services, health and leisure. However, many have started their own businesses and are mostly successful in their entrepreneurship.
Significantly, the household income for immigrants in New York City is increasing faster than inflation. According to the report, between 1990 and 2007 the median household income rose from $23,900 to $45,000 prompting the State comptroller to declare, "I think a report like this underscores the fact that newcomers to the city have had a very, very strong and positive impact on the city, certainly when measured in terms of economic activity and economic success."
The writer can be reached at
E-mail : fmk222@gmail.com