How President Obama Can Fill the Empty Chair

              During the Republican National Convention every democrat, including myself, got an odd present in the moments before Mitt Romney introduced himself to the American Public. We watched an American icon loose it as he spoke to an empty chair on a national stage. The headlines in the paper the next day were more interested in Clint Eastwood’s monologue than Mitt Romney’s speech, and an internet sensation of people talking to empty chairs broke out. Little did any democrat know that on October 3, 2012 Clint Eastwood’s conversation with an empty chair would become a prophecy. As the New Yorker’s October 15, 2012 cover illustrates, Governor Romney was debating an empty chair.

              It is time for the president to fill the seat. In the last few months I have forgotten what the President stands for. I know I don’t want Mitt Romney in office. The Obama campaign has made his short comings very clear. I know I don’t want a Medicare system that defeats the purpose of Medicare. Medicare was created because private insurance companies did not want to cover the elderly because it was too expensive. A voucher system would make it impossible for middle class and lower class elderly people to afford health insurance. I know I don’t want tax cuts for the wealthy and I support increasing revenue in the tax code. In the 1990s the United States was on track to finally pay off its national debt, and with the Bush Tax Cuts and two wars we watched our hopes of paying off our debt vanish and instead of having reserve money to bust us out of this recession we had to continue deficit spending to prime the pump of the American economy. I know I don’t want Mitt Romney, but why should I want Barack Obama?

             We used to know what President Obama Stood for. When then Senator Barack Obama ran in 2008 we had a pretty good idea of what he was going to do as president. We knew he was going to pass a healthcare reform bill. We knew he was going to expand financial aid for students. We knew he was going to support green energy. We knew he wanted to close Guantanamo bay. We knew he wanted to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, especially to the children who came here out of no choice of their own and wanted to serve this country either by pursuing a higher education or serving in our military. But as was clearly evidenced in the first presidential debate, it does not seem that even the President knows what he wants to do on January 20th, 2013 should he win a second term.

             The President needs to show us what a second term would look like. And the best part is, he doesn’t have to come up with new ideas. It’s time he start reminding the American public of all his great ideas the tea party congress shot down in the last few years. In September of 2011 President Obama addressed congress in an urgent plea to pass the American Jobs Act. This act would provide massive tax cuts to the middle class and small businesses so they can start spending again and start hiring new people. It provided tax cuts for those who hired our heroes in the military, and provided states with funds to hire new teachers for the next generation of job creators. It would have provided a tax cut for businesses who hire the long term unemployed. It would have created an infrastructure bank that would focus on rebuilding our countries crumbling roads, bridges and electricity grid and help restore the middle class construction jobs that were lost in the recession. He wanted to retrofit our buildings to be more energy efficient and he wanted to invest in new technologies to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

            We need the President Obama of 2011 back. That president had ideas. That president had a plan to fix the American economy and reinvest in the future. I knew what that president could accomplish if we did not have a tea party congress holding this country hostage. It’s time for the president to stop running against Governor Romney and for him to start running for another four years in office. This president had a plan, and it’s time for him to start reminding us of what it was.

Obama Extends His Hand, Netanyahu Clenches His Fist

By David Sforza

President Obama has proven that he understands the Israeli-Palestinian conflict better than both Palestinian President Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. On May 19th President Obama laid out his policy regarding the region. His speech was remarkably Pro-Israel. Many in Israel have recognized this, but PM Netanyahu has met President Obama’s extended hand with a clenched fist, damaging his reputation and giving us reason to believe that he is not committed to a peace deal with the Palestinians.

President Obama’s speech has been mischaracterized by the media as being anti-Israel. Netanyahu’s reaction to it helped foster that idea. However, if you look at the President’s speech and compare it to Netanyahu’s now irrelevant Bar Ilan policy speech that he gave in 2009. In the Bar Ilan speech, Netanyahu laid out his goals for creating a Palestinian speech. In it he called for a negotiation without any preconditions. He wanted to create a peaceful Palestinian state that would be demilitarized. He rejected Hamas and there will to destroy Israel. Netanyahu proclaimed to his audience:

“Friends, with the advantages of peace so clear, so obvious, we must ask ourselves why is peace still so far from us, even though our hands are extended for peace?”

President Obama too recognized the benefits of peace. He too called for a demilitarized Palestinian state. He too recognized that Hamas must recognize Israel and reject violence. He too recognized that in order for a Palestinian state to be achieved, they must put aside their aspirations for Jerusalem as there capital to a later date. President Obama even took it a step further and called for the Palestinians to put aside the issue of refugees and the right to return, something Netanyahu did not call for in Bar Ilan.

So why has Netanyahu reacted so harshly to the President’s speech? The line getting the most attention was Obama’s call for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. This recognized what the Palestinians have been asking for all along. However, President Obama did not meet the Palestinians all the way. He also noted the Israeli stance that there must be land swaps. Netanyahu’s reaction ignored this part of the speech and has inflated the first part of the sentence. Why would he do this?

It appears that Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to play games within American politics. Right now President Obama’s approval rating for foreign policy is at an all-time high. Netanyahu, who has taken every chance he can to embarrass the president, appears to be doing so again. By making President Obama appear to be anti-Israel, he is hoping to reduce President Obama’s standing in the United States and hurt his image amongst U.S. Jews.

As an American Jew, I am not buying Netanyahu’s game. Neither is Israel nor other Pro-Israel American groups. Opposition Leader Livni has called for Netanyahu to resign for his comments attacking Obama’s speech because he is damaging Israel’s most important relationship. Ynet News, Israel’s most read online news source, is praising Obama as a Zionist. The Anti-Defamation League commended Obama for “his strong affirmation of the deep and "unshakeable" relationship between the United States and Israel.” Haaretz editorialist has stated Netanyahu’s response to Obama’s speech is making Israel a “pariah state.”

President Abbas has been silent on Obama’s speech, though it certainly has been a blow to his current efforts. In recent months, President Abbas has sought to delegitimize Israel by pressuring European countries to recognize Palestine as a state and threatening to go to the U.N. to get recognition of a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders. Obama has rejected Abbas’s efforts. In his speech, Obama stated that Palestinian

"efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist."

If that is not a Pro-Israel stance, then I do not know what is.

This week President Obama will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu in the White House. Netanyahu will be given the opportunity to outline his goal for peace on the floor of the United States House of Representatives in front of a joint session of congress. I hope that the Prime Minister takes this effort to outline his effort for peace and to walk back on his outrage to President Obama’s speech. This is the Prime Minister’s chance to act like an adult instead of a politician. If his recent behavior is indicative of what he may say next week, then I am afraid that Netanyahu will wind up on the wrong side of history and damage Israel’s chances of having peace with its neighbors. The advantages of peace are so clear, Mr. Prime Minister. Why have you given up on the peace you claimed to have believed in?

A DREAM for Smart Immigration Policy

By David Sforza

The immigration system in this country is broken. Millions come into this country illegally, making it nearly impossible for deportation to be the solution. We have prevented those ones that make a good life here and adopt the United States as their country from having a path to citizenship, and have force them to live in the shadows of this nation. We need an immigration policy that enforces our border, requires businesses to verify the authenticity of their workers documents, and provides a path to citizenship for those that have fallen in love with out great nation and can better contribute to it as citizens.

There is one issue on immigration policy, however, that stands out to me from the rest. It probably has to do with the fact that I went to high school and college with the sons and daughters of illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants, and many of them were my friends. Children who were brought to this country by their parents illegally should not pay for the crime their parents committed. We should reward those who seek to establish themselves in our communities by going to college or joining our military. If there is one immigration policy that just makes sense, it is the DREAM Act.

On December 8th, 2010 the House of Representatives in the dawn of night passed the DREAM Act. The vote was overwhelmingly lopsided, with virtually all the Democrats voting for with only eight Republicans joining them. But it was one of the speeches of the Republicans that most stood out to me. Rep. Lincoln Rafael Díaz-Balart (R-Fl-21), a Cuban American immigrant who has served in congress since 1993 and a co sponsor of the DREAM ACT had this to say:

“If there is anything that distinguishes the United States of America in an appropriate, admirable way, it’s that we are a meritocracy. You stand or you fall in the United States of America on the basis of your own decisions, not on the decisions of your parents…... We are dealing with… the kind of immigration we spend day in and day out trying to obtain in the United State: college educated people who have become so after extraordinary hard work. Secondly Mr. Speaker, after thinking what we are trying to do, it all boils down to decisions…What are the decisions that those students that we are dealing with in this legislation have made in their lives. They did not make the decision to come to the United States out of status. The only decisions that have made in their lives is to work hard, study hard and to make our communities proud. This legislation seeks to give them the opportunity to ….. contribute even more to the greatness of this nation.”

The overwhelming opposition to this bill made the argument that it was amnesty, that we would be making it harder for American workers to compete, and would inspire “chain migration.” The word “amnesty” has become a dirty word in American politics. Amnesty is defined as:

"An act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.”

It’s a shame that a word with such a beautiful definition has become so vilified. Putting that aside, is “amnesty” the right word to use here? What offenses have these children committed? They were brought here; they did not come here on their own. They want to go to college and serve in our armed forces. I do not view the DREAM Act as a policy of forgiveness, but rather an award for outstanding citizenship and patriotism to this country.

For those worried about the cost these children will put on our society, surely the cost of not giving them the opportunity to become legal residents is higher. We lose the opportunity of greater wealth college graduates have over high school graduates, not to mention those forced to be paid under the table. We lose a class of intellectuals and instead doom them to a life of poverty. We lose a group of people that want to fight for our freedom and our liberty, a group of people just as patriotic as those born in this country.

As for chain migration, the policy requires 10 years before any of these children get green cards, and an additional three before they can get citizenship. In addition to that, the law restricts and DREAM Act citizen to wait 12 years before they can sponsor anyone, and even then they are limited to siblings and their parents. It would be 25 years before they could sponsor anyone, and anyone they sponsor would have to leave the country first before they can sponsor them. So while chain migration is possible, it is a lengthy process with heavy restrictions.

Good policy is hard to come by in this partisan age of politics. The DREAM Act is good policy. The Republicans tell us that this policy is yet another “liberal policy being jammed down our throats at the last minute.” But as Republican Representative Rafael Díaz-Balart tells us, the bill was ten years in the making. This is not the first time it has been brought up, and if the bill fails in the Senate, it hopefully will not be the last.

Rep. Diaz- Balart's speech on the floor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSPLax3C9Ow

Has President Obama Forgotten why he won, or have we?

By David Sforza

In 2008, then Senator Barack Obama won a tireless campaign for the presidency, first beating out Senator Hillary Clinton and then Senator John McCain. To contrast himself from Clinton, he described himself as someone who would not play political games, who will reach across the aisle and work with Republicans for common sense solutions. He argued that Clinton was a polarizing figure, and would not be able to get the necessary work done. When he ran against McCain, he tapped the anger of the American public against Bush. He tied McCain to Bush’s economic policies and foreign policy. The sentence that killed McCain was that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.”
Today no one feels more disenfranchised about President Obama than his own base. They were disappointed in President Obama’s healthcare bill. They hoped Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would be repealed, but more importantly, they wanted the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy gone.
Yet his base also forgot another important part of the Obama Candidacy, his campaign against Clinton. Sure his supporters knew where he stood against McCain, but the reason they supported Obama over Hillary is because they wanted change in Washington. His supporters wanted to get rid of gridlock in congress and have less divisive exchange. They were sick of the partisanship of both parties, and Clinton represented the partisanship of the Democratic Party.
Obama tried bipartisanship from the start. He compromised on the Stimulus package to get Republican Senators Specter, Snowe and Collins to vote for it. He even got Specter to switch parties. Over the summer he urged Democratic Senator Max Baucus try hard to get a Republican vote on health care, and succeeded in getting Snowe to vote for the Baucus bill (she ultimately voted against the final bill). If you want to take a single look at why the healthcare debate lasted so long, you have to look no further than the summer long debate that occurred in Baucus’s Committee. Obama eventually dropped the Public Option just to make sure he could get his own party to vote for the bill, but he got everything else that he promised in the 2008 campaign and more. In fact, in contrast to his campaign, he is now mandating health insurance for all, something he did not promise in 2008 and attacked Clinton for.
And yet for all of these compromises, the liberals that chose Obama over Clinton are upset. As someone who voted for Clinton, I ask his base this: what part of reach across the aisle did you not understand? What part of ending the partisan divide did you not understand? Where were you on November of 2010 when the Democrats desperately needed your vote? None of Obama’s compromises come at a surprise, as Obama clearly stated that he would attempt to reach across to Republicans to get ideas through to change Washington.
The Republicans decided to exploit Obama’s promise. They pushed for concessions, and then would ultimately vote against the bills. They continued to be decisive and uncooperative. And worse, Obama never put up a fight to defend himself or attack the Republicans for not even attempting to work with the Democrats. The Republicans knew a major part of Obama’s base voted for him because of bipartisanship, a promise they could make sure Obama would not be able to keep.
So where are we now? The Republicans have taken back the House and now hold the largest majority they have ever had. They have destroyed the Democrats super majority in the Senate, winning in states that have voted for Democrats for decades. Keep in mind 2004 was not a winning year for the Democrats, so the senators that lost in 2010 were ones that were safe six years ago. Many of them had served multiple terms. In 2012, many of the Democrats up for reelection will be going for their second term, and many of them one by razor thin margins the first time around.
So what is President Obama to do? In the first major issue the Democrats and Republicans faced with a new congress coming, Obama decided to be bipartisan. In order to save unemployment insurance and tax cuts for the middle class and mall businesses, including additional tax cuts from his stimulus package, he decided to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, making the tax cuts once again a major campaign issue in 2012.
Obama did this for two reasons, he needed to show that he can keep his promise for bipartisanship, and he needed to pass a bill that would actually stimulate the economy. Obama only hopes that in 2012 he can come out and say that he tried to be bipartisan. In order to get Republicans to help the middle class and unemployed he needed to extend the Bush tax cuts. In other words, the Republicans compromise was helping the middle class when they did not want to.
But this is the compromise where Obama failed. Sure he beat Clinton for her partisanship, but he beat McCain because of Bush economics. In fact, if you could point to one promise throughout his entire campaign it was this: the tax cuts for people making more than 250,000 dollars a year will expire. He bashed McCain over the head with it, and used it as a prime example on how Republican economics favored the rich at the expense of everyone else.
We wanted compromise, we wanted congress to work together, we wanted a healthcare bill that would insure most Americans if not all Americans, we wanted to regulate the banks and make them pay back the TARP dollars, and we wanted to drastically scale back the war in Iraq and focus more on Afghanistan. And to this, Obama succeeded, and yet his base has forgotten that they even asked for him to do these things.
But extending the Bush tax cuts takes all the wind out of Obama’s sail. Sure the compromises that he made were necessary for bipartisanship, and ultimately the deal he got was probably the deal he was going to get. But he did not fight for it. Obama lost his mojo, and caved on his number one campaign promise. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire was the way he was going to pay for everything he promised us. Up until this point the people who voted for Obama had nothing to complain about, as he did almost everything he promised to do. We have forgotten why we voted for President Obama, but today, he forgot why we voted for him.