On the Execution of John Allen Muhammed
If you live in our area you have been following the news: John Allen Muhammed was executed last night. All of us knew somebody who lost somebody to the "DC snipers," or we shopped at a place where they killed, or heard the wail of a hundred sirens rushing to the scene of another random and meaningless death. We have all driven past a quiet scene after the blood had been cleaned up, tapping the brakes and staring at the gas pumps, the parking lot, the shopping-center bench where a neighbor's life was taken. Events were canceled, people were afraid to go out of their houses, crouching down between cars to pump gas, letting grass grow tall, canceling games and events, we were a community terrorized by some unknown dispenser of pointless death. The police had said that white vans were at the scenes of a lot of the killings, and it turned out white vans are everywhere. We learned to follow them with our eyes, every one of them.
Capital punishment is harsh, it is irreversible, and it's terrible when a zealous prosecutor sends an innocent man to an erroneous end from which he cannot be recovered. The circumstances are often pitiful, a disadvantaged defendant, poorly represented, surrounded by mean-hearted people with ugly prejudices. The execution of a prisoner is the occasion for extreme caution and respect for life.
Muhammed and his partner Lee Boyd Malvo blanketed the Washington DC area, and especially Montgomery County, with a pea-soup fog of fear in October, 2002, in a series of random shootings. They drove around in an old Chevy with one of them in the trunk pointing a rifle out through the keyhole, picking off innocent citizens minding their own business. Their modest vehicle and calm demeanor deflected the attention of authorities. Nobody really understands why they did it, a man and a boy overflowing with hatred for their fellow human beings.
Malvo will not be executed, he's given a break for being a juvenile when the crimes were committed. Muhammed though will stand as the justification for capital punishment. No consequence would have been sufficient to atone for the grief he brought to our community -- and, it turned out, to other communities in the country where the two had murdered randomly. The cost of maintaining his life in prison would have been an unfair penalty for the rest of us. No rehabilitation would have ever allowed him to live among us again, no penalty would have been great enough to count as fair punishment for what he had done.
Justice is a vague case, there is no rational explanation for why victims of offenses should feel any better when an offender is punished. It is one of those deep facts of human nature that we do our best to accommodate without losing our heads. There is sadness when a life is lost, but the tears that are wept after Muhammed's death are wept for his victims, not for him.
Capital punishment is harsh, it is irreversible, and it's terrible when a zealous prosecutor sends an innocent man to an erroneous end from which he cannot be recovered. The circumstances are often pitiful, a disadvantaged defendant, poorly represented, surrounded by mean-hearted people with ugly prejudices. The execution of a prisoner is the occasion for extreme caution and respect for life.
Muhammed and his partner Lee Boyd Malvo blanketed the Washington DC area, and especially Montgomery County, with a pea-soup fog of fear in October, 2002, in a series of random shootings. They drove around in an old Chevy with one of them in the trunk pointing a rifle out through the keyhole, picking off innocent citizens minding their own business. Their modest vehicle and calm demeanor deflected the attention of authorities. Nobody really understands why they did it, a man and a boy overflowing with hatred for their fellow human beings.
Malvo will not be executed, he's given a break for being a juvenile when the crimes were committed. Muhammed though will stand as the justification for capital punishment. No consequence would have been sufficient to atone for the grief he brought to our community -- and, it turned out, to other communities in the country where the two had murdered randomly. The cost of maintaining his life in prison would have been an unfair penalty for the rest of us. No rehabilitation would have ever allowed him to live among us again, no penalty would have been great enough to count as fair punishment for what he had done.
Justice is a vague case, there is no rational explanation for why victims of offenses should feel any better when an offender is punished. It is one of those deep facts of human nature that we do our best to accommodate without losing our heads. There is sadness when a life is lost, but the tears that are wept after Muhammed's death are wept for his victims, not for him.
39 Comments:
good one, Jim
personally, I oppose the death penalty but not because it's not justified
my problem is that when it becomes routine, innocent people are inevitably subject to an irreversible consequence
no system is perfect enough to prevent that
and that should never happen
and racism is also a factor, unfortunately
in this case, however, there is no doubt about guilt
so, while an opponent of the death penalty, you wouldn't find me protesting in Greenville yesterday
Jim writes,
The execution of a prisoner is the occasion for extreme caution and respect for life.
And this is but one of the reasons I have for opposing abortion on demand...because a defenseless segment of humankind is destroyed before having any opportunity to live. And all of this is done with no due process of the laws when compared to what John Allen Muhammad was accorded.
I also oppose the death penalty.
Both abortion and the death penalty violate the principle that each member of the human community be treated with respect.
And speaking of abortion...
Did everyone hear about the director of Planned Parenthood who recently left Planned Parenthood?
She was assisting in an ultrasound guided abortion, and she was holding the ultrasound wand on the mother's belly. She saw the full profile of a 13-week-old baby, and she saw the abortionist's instrument coming at the baby. The baby tried to get away, and in that moment, the Planned Parenthood director recoiled in horror as she realized that this baby was fighting for his LIFE! However, in the next instant, she watched this beautiful baby crumple before her eyes.
She dropped the instrument, and then picked it back up. She then went to her office, where she fell apart, with no one to talk to. She looked out the window and saw some people praying for the babies, so she went to them and they embraced her.
What a beautiful lady she is, to realize that what she was doing was horrific, and to have the courage to face up to it.
as the D.C. City Council spurns its constituents, it is in danger of falling into the same fate that befell MCPS
her's a couple of stories so gay, it's like a jolly holiday with Mary:
"The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.
Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.
"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."
The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics.
Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church.
"All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.
Gay council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands.
The archdiocese's statement follows a vote Tuesday by the council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary to reject an amendment that would have allowed individuals, based on their religious beliefs, to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings.
"Lets say an individual caterer is a staunch Christian and someone wants him to do a cake with two grooms on top," said council member Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 6), the sponsor of the amendment. "Why can't they say, based on their religious beliefs, 'I can't do something like that'?"
After the vote, the archdiocese sent out a statement accusing the council of ignoring the right of religious freedom. Gibbs said Wednesday that without Alexander's amendment and other proposed changes, the measure has too narrow an exemption. She said religious groups that receive city funds would be required to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples."
and the federal government also has problems with D.C.:
"The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, worried about widespread lapses in oversight of the District's AIDS program, is threatening to cut off $12.2 million in federal funding.
Assistant Secretary Mercedes M. Márquez said HUD will send a letter to the city this week stipulating that no new AIDS housing money will be awarded unless the D.C. Department of Health's HIV/AIDS Administration improves its tracking of services and spending.
Márquez also wrote last week to D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), saying she was "deeply concerned" that the HIV/AIDS Administration had paid more than $25 million to nonprofit groups that delivered substandard care or failed to account for their work.
"It is absolutely unacceptable that any single person suffers as a result of the District not being able to manage taxpayer dollars," Márquez said this week. "This is where they pushed it to: No new money until you fix this.""
oh my...
I'm no Biblical scholar but I don't recall any part in the Bible saying "Thou shalt only place mixed gender couple dolls upon wedding cakes you bake."
it's actually in the first few chapters
read Genesis 1-3
Last year, the South Carolina state legislature approved a bill to establish a Christian-themed license plate depicting a cross in front of a stained-glass window and bearing the words "I Believe". The vote spurred public advocacy groups into action, decrying the move as a violation of the separation of church and state.
According to the Associated Press, a similar bill in Florida failed to pass into law, and now a U.S. district court has struck down the license plate in South Carolina as a First Amendment violation. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie took specific aim at the state's Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, the driving force behind the initiative, calling the move "an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin."
In addition to banning the plate, Judge Currie also ordered the state to reimburse the legal expenses of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, two groups which fought against the initiative and were, if you'll pardon the pun, decidedly cross.
Latest Birther News from Salon.com:
"Birther lawyer Orly Taitz hasn't been having a great few months. One federal judge fined her $20,000, another dismissed her best shot at bringing one of her lawsuits about President Obama's eligibility for his job to trial. Her stature in the movement has fallen rapidly, as even the other attorneys involved have become disillusioned with her eccentric tactics and her apparent ignorance of basic legal procedure.
Taitz had another setback on Wednesday. She's been promoting the idea of a protest against Fox News and Bill O'Reilly on her Web site for some time now, hoping -- and promising -- for a large crowd to demonstrate against O'Reilly's having dismissed Birthers' concerns and having called Taitz herself a "nut."
Well, the demonstration took place in front of Fox News' Manhattan headquarters on Wednesday, and it was a fairly spectacular failure. Judging by photos of the protest published by Gawker, Taitz got only a few supporters out to join her. A Fox News employee confirmed that to Salon, saying that a security guard who was present had estimated the crowd at just 15-20 people..."
that's really anon-fascinating, anon-B, but what's the anon-point?
TTF seems peculiarly focused on very small demonstrations
you might want to turn your attention to Barry's failing agenda
right now, it doesn't look like his health reform will pass unless insurance companies are effectively banned from paying for abortions and it doesn't look like it will pass if they aren't banned from such
funny thing is, with all the talk about how Repubs are so divided, the Dems are the ones with the problem on unity, at least on the health care bill
kind of like all the talk last year how the Repub party was a fringe southern party and then they sweep the governors' races last Tuesday, including New Jersey- not exactly the bastion of sweet iced tea and Jerry Lee
let's face, the liberal movement is America is a lot of hot air and anon-B is a balloon racing over the plains with a collection of trivial potshots in her basket
let's play "Did you know?"
did you know consulting firm Tillinghast Towers-Perrin estimated the direct cost of medical tort litigation at 30 billion a year?
did you know that PriceWaterhouseCoppers estimates that 240 billion a year in health costs are due to unnecessary procedures performed by doctors to protect themselves legally?
did you know that malpractice insurance costs went down 50% when Texas capped awards?
did you know that Nancy Pelosi's health bill contains a provision that pays incentives to states that don't impose caps on awards?
a lot of people don't know that but, in a 1,990 page bill, there's a lot of places to bury stuff
I wonder where they're hiding subsidies for John Edwards' hair cut costs...
ut-oh:
"The latest numbers on the generic ballot—which party’s candidate for Congress—should strike some terror into the hearts of Democratic incumbents. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that Republicans are leading Democrats this week by a six-point margin, 43% to 37%. Independents, those not identifying with either party, back Republicans 43%-20%. Rasmussen employs a tight likely voter screen, too tight in the view of some Democratic analysts.
Those Democrats who may be inclined to dismiss Rasmussen’s results should take a look at Gallup’s most recent report, which shows Republicans leading 48%-44% on the generic vote question. Gallup finds Republicans leading among Independents by a 52%-30% margin—a collapse of Democratic support among Independents similar to that shown in Rasmussen’s results. Gallup does not use a likely voter screen—it refrains from doing so until the months immediately preceding the election—and so this is a survey of people who say they are registered voters. Gallup analyst Jeffrey M. Jones points out that since Gallup began asking the generic vote question, in 1950, Republicans have seldom been ahead. “Most of the prior Republican registered-voter leads on the generic ballot in Gallup polling occurred in 1994 and 2002,” strong years for the Republicans. In those years Republicans won about 230 House seats, 53 more than they hold today. Democrats gained a total of 54 House seats in the 2006 and 2008 election, a very impressive total. These numbers suggest they could lose an equivalent number in 2010 alone."
keep in mind that the Blue Dog seats are the safe ones for the Dems and you sense the coming disaster for anti-family forces in 2010
here's the news in one swing state that has become fed up with Dems in record time:
"Republican Rob Portman is ahead of the two Democrats in the 2010 race for Ohio's U.S. Senate seat, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Also, Ohio voters disapprove 50 - 45 percent of the job President Barack Obama is doing."
well, it was fun while it lasted, guys
you guys could always check out the scene in Priya's neck of the woods
in another coming triumph outside the South, the Repub challenger now leads the polls in 2010 race against Dem incumbent Chris Dodd
Chris Dodd is one of the more snivelly liberals in the Senate
yes, Dodd is down by 11 points
What's that expression about a bird in hand is worth two in the bush?
While Anon is dreaming of a good GOP showing in the 2010 races based on poll numbers taken a year early, I prefer to focus on actual election results like these from 2009.
Progressive Majority reports:
"In Washington state, Ken Mann has now won his election to the Whatcom County Council by more than 2,000 votes. This has been a long time coming. Two years ago, as a first time candidate, Ken ran a good campaign and learned a lot, but came up just short of winning. He wasn't discouraged and took what he learned from that defeat and turned it into a win this year!
Marilyn Strickland has been elected Mayor of Tacoma, Washington in a very tight race! Two years ago, we helped Marilyn win election to the Tacoma City Council. Now she is the first woman of color elected to lead a large city in the state.
Progressive Majority also flipped control of six governmental bodies from conservative to progressive majorities. Here the six that were flipped to progressive majorities:
Olympia Port Commission (WA)
Beloit School Board (WI)
Kenosha School Board (WI)
Pierce County Auditor (WA)
Racine School Board (WI)
West Chester Mayor (PA)
never fear, anon-B
we'll grant you the Evergreen State
I think they even narrowly passed some gay agenda referendum last Tuesday
don't think Obama will be elected without Virginia, Ohio, Michigan and Connecticut though
do you?
anon-B doesn't get why Senators and the Governor are more significant than the local dogcatcher
pathetic
(hint: evryone in the state votes for them)
I'd hate to be Obama with superstar Repub politicians breathing down his back
I heard he gave a speech this morning and he was shaking in his boots
I see we have one of the brothers Grimm posting here (maybe more than one). Quotes like these are really funny: "in another coming triumph outside the South, the Repub challenger now leads the polls in 2010 race against Dem incumbent Chris Dodd"
Chris Dodd is one of the more snivelly liberals in the Senate"
and "I heard he [the President] gave a speech this morning and he was shaking in his boots" Yuk, yuk
The fairy tales are becoming increasingly more fantastic and delusional! Poor "conservatives" (nee Tea Bagger Partyites)...they've totally lost touch with reality.
Citizen
"The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care."
What a decidedly Christian thing to do!
I know turning D.C. into some sort of theocratic state obeisant to the dictates of the Papacy might be on the Archdiocese's AGENDA, but it will never fly in a secular liberty-loving D.C.!
Diogenes
"The fairy tales are becoming increasingly more fantastic and delusional!"
zit0zen:
check out the poll numbers for the Connecticut race yourself
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
"it will never fly in a secular liberty-loving D.C.!"
only a lunatic like Dio would call a law telling you who you have to do business with liberty
last straw for D.C. citizens
they'll elect a new Council next time
they'll elect a new Council next time
No they won't. The DC Council will find new partners to do the work the Archdiocese is no longer willing to do. If the Archdiocese wants to receive federal money, the Archdiocese must follow federal anti-discrimination laws.
WaPo reports:
"...Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the judiciary committee, said the council "will not legislate based on threats."
"The problem with the individual exemption is anybody could discriminate based on their assertion of religious principle," Mendelson said. "There were many people back in the 1950s and '60s, during the civil rights era, that said separation of the races was ordained by God."
Catania, who said he has been the biggest supporter of Catholic Charities on the council, said he is baffled by the church's stance. From 2006 through 2008, Catania said, Catholic Charities received about $8.2 million in city contracts, as well as several hundred thousand dollars' worth this year through his committee.
"If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes," Catania said. He also said Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.
Terry Lynch, head of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations, said he did not know of any other group in the city that was making such a threat.
"I've not seen any spillover into programming. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen if [the bill] passes," he said.
Cheh said she hopes the Catholic Church will reconsider its stance.
"Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?" Cheh asked. "I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat." "
One of the great things that the Catholic Church in the United States has done is providing a range of services for the poor. In this regard, the Church has taken seriously Jesus' admonitions.
But now the Church threatens to cease many of its social services activities because it wants to perpetuate societal discrimination against gay people.
In essence, the Archbishop is threatening to act in a non-Christian manner in order to adhere to Catholic theological doctrine.
WWJD?
"If the Archdiocese wants to receive federal money, the Archdiocese must follow federal anti-discrimination laws."
actually, Federal laws allow for religious freedom
it's the potential D.C. law that is a problem
"WWJD?"
my guess: keep helping people and refuse to follow any law that required him to do anything against God's will
the result would probably be similar to what happened in the first century
adaptation of Woody Guthrie:
"Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
A hard-working man and brave
He said to the rich,
Give your money to the poor,
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave
He went to the preacher, He went to the sheriff
He told them all the same
Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the poor,
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.
When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
Believed what he did say
But the city councilmen and the preachers,
they nailed Him on the cross,
And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.
This song was written in New York City
Of rich man, preacher, and slave
If Jesus was to preach what He preached in Galilee,
They would lay Jesus Christ in His grave."
"Anonymous" ("check out the poll numbers for the Connecticut race yourself")...I don't trust and generally discount Republican polls...they all are liars like you
Citizen
Would you care to make a comment about the "Christian" decision of the Archdiocese, "Anonymous"? What, exactly, would Christ do in this situation?
Like others of your ilk, you are a typical cafeteria Christian who too often overlooks, ignores, or contradicts the teachings of your Lord, Jesus when you disagree with them.
Your calling Diogenes a lunatic is such a Christian response! No wonder participation in your beloved religion is declining. Who wants to be associated with hypocrites and stone-throwers like you?
Deist
"I don't trust and generally discount Republican polls...they all are liars like you"
I'm glad to hear that. If liberal lunatics continue to deny reality, that makes everything so much easier in 2010.
The Gallup polls before last Tuesday certainly didn't slant Republican.
"Would you care to make a comment about the "Christian" decision of the Archdiocese, "Anonymous"? What, exactly, would Christ do in this situation?"
I thought I addressed that above.
I think Christ would continue to serve the people in homeless shelters and soup kitchens and also refuse to comply with D.C. laws that require one to endorse non-scriptural behavior by doing things like placing orphans with gay couples and renting space to gay advocacy groups.
And leave the consequences of doing what's right to God.
"Like others of your ilk, you are a typical cafeteria Christian who too often overlooks, ignores, or contradicts the teachings of your Lord, Jesus when you disagree with them."
really?
please let me know whenever you think I've done that
"Your calling Diogenes a lunatic is such a Christian response!"
well, it may seem harsh but acquiescing in lunacy tend to allow it to spread
Dio will recover from this honest evaluation and, honestly, he doesn't seem to want us to have a warm and fuzzy rhetorical exchange anyway
"No wonder participation in your beloved religion is declining. Who wants to be associated with hypocrites and stone-throwers like you?"
if you believe statistics, most Americans
Such a comedian you are, "Anonymous"...not only do you seem to believe the tripe your print but you probably laugh at your own jokes, too!
you're in denial, friend
the wacky liberal bus is running on fumes
better find a new mode of transport!!
there's nothing funny about it
if America survives the Obama fiasco, we'll be very fortunate
hopefully, we can conservatize him after the 2010 election like we did with Bill Clinton in 1994
I'm talking DADT, welfare reform, deficit reduction and bank deregulation
hopefully, Barry won't get depressed like Bill and have a midlife crisis with an intern!
The real question is whether we will survive the 8 years of the Bush legacy. The bitterness, nastiness, disrespect for "otherness", the insane slogans, hypocritical "Family Values" rants and threats - the raising of ignorance to a pedestal of honor, will take years to cure.
President Obama can not alone cure this national illness...(even though the Palin/Beck/Limbaugh idolizers, "nabobs of negativity", and various off-centered "Anonymous" posters here really want, and even pray for his failure)...it takes the cooperation of every citizen to get this country back to its true purpose of believing in "liberty and justice" for all.
Citizen
The bitterness, nastiness, disrespect for "otherness", the insane slogans, hypocritical "Gay Agenda" rants and threats - the raising of ignorance to a pedestal of honor, will take years to cure.
President Bush could not alone cure this national illness...(even though the Barney Frank/Rachel Maddow/Al Frankenstein idolizers, "nabobs of negativity", and various off-centered "Anonymous" posters here really wanted, and even prayed for his failure)...it would have taken the cooperation of every citizen to get this country back to its true purpose of believing in "liberty and justice" for all.
Instead, "Yes we can" became "Well, we can't really because the other guy messed things up"
we need someone who can take some responsibility
Instead, "Yes we can" became "Well, we can't really because the other guy messed things up"
Nobody said "Yes we can, immediately."
It took Bush/Cheney/GOP eight years to turn Clinton's budget surplus into the precipice of the second Great Depression. And all they had to do to effect such a change was cut revenues and spend billions a day on things like bogus wars and futile abstinence-only education.
Now that many of President Obama's policies to repair the economy are in place, there are signs that the US economy is recovering. The stock market is up 3,000 points since the lows in March, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Oct. 21, 2009: "Regional and state unemployment rates were generally little changed in September. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia recorded over-the-month unemployment rate increases, 19 states registered rate decreases, and 8 states had no rate change, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today."
We're headed in the right direction, which is toward economic recovery. Anyone who thinks any person, even someone as smart and as capable as President Obama can undo the mess that took eight years to create in a single year is unrealistic.
"It took Bush/Cheney/GOP eight years to turn Clinton's budget surplus into the precipice of the second Great Depression."
so, 28 years of the Reagan era was undone by three months of economic crisis?
get a grip
you got lucky with the timing of the crisis
the seeds were laid in 2006 when Dems took control of Congress and, significantly, the oversight committees for the housing and banking industry
if conservative Republicans controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Ave, the whole thing would have never happened
btw, everyone agrees the domino that started the tumble was the housing bubble
so why has Obama conducting several programs to artficially prop up house prices?
will he be responsible when the current bubble burst or is that Bushs's fault too?
and Great Depression?
please, that was campaign propaganda
unemployment came down during Reagan's term and didn't really crater until Obama was sworn in
"And all they had to do to effect such a change was cut revenues and spend billions a day on things like bogus wars and futile abstinence-only education."
Obama's 69% increase in capital gains tax will cut revenues plenty
any idea how much we spent on ab-only ed vs gay advocacy ed?
"someone as smart and as capable as President Obama"
smart I'll grant you
he's the epitome of the egg-head, ivory tower elitist
but capable?
any evidence to back that up?
he can't even close a prison camp, much less lead the free world
see how he announced the 9/11 trials yesterday to take the embarassing news off the front page that he had to fire the guy in charge of closing Gitmo and the gal in charge of attacking FOX News
he must have got some tips on handling the press from his buddy, Vladimir Putin
so, 28 years of the Reagan era was undone by three months of economic crisis?
No, it was undone by 6 years of absolute GOP rule. When PAYGO expired in 2002, the GOP controlled Congress under the Bush/Cheney administration's leadership did not try to reinstate it. In 2002 the Bush White House proposed the expansion of Medicare and another round of tax cuts, which busted the PAYGO agreement wide open. Then the Bush Administration issued this statement on June 27, 2002:
"Any law that would reduce receipts or increase direct spending is subject to the PAYGO requirements of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act and could cause a sequester of mandatory programs in any fiscal year through 2006. The requirement to score PAYGO costs expires on September 30, 2002, and there are no discretionary caps beyond 2002. Preliminary CBO estimates indicate that the bill would increase direct spending by $440 billion over the next ten years. The Administration will work with Congress to ensure fiscal discipline consistent with the President's Budget and a quick return to a balanced budget. The Administration also will work with Congress to ensure that any unintended sequester of spending does not occur
What a load of crapola that promise to "work with Congress to ensure that fiscal discipline ... and a quick return to a balanced budget" turned out to be!! For the remainder of his time in office as PUSA, never once did Bush consider bringing in enough revenue to cover his administration's spending or to reduce that spending to match the revenues coming in, with VP Cheney insisting, "deficits don't matter." PAYGO was forgotten by the GOP power elites the moment it expired, with GOP leaders like deficits-don't-matter-Cheney wishing it "good riddance."
everyone agrees the domino that started the tumble was the housing bubble
I'm glad to see you've finally come around. And what led to that housing bubble? That's right, it was the repeal of Depression era Glass-Steagall Act, which had to separated banks from investment houses and insurance companies in order to separate savings from risk. The repeal of this protection was written in a bill, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, written by McCain's former campaign budget advisor, Phil Gramm, and signed by Clinton into law.
All those subsequent GOP controlled House deficit spending and tax cutting bills with Bush's signature on them, on top of all that sub-prime mortgage bubble-bursting fiasco while Bush and his cronies did nothing to reinstitute the protections in the Glass-Stegall Act into law, turned Clinton's budget surplus into Bush's budget deficit.
Bush and company depleted the US Treasury, drove it deep into debt, and then left office with the US economy in freefall.
deficits didn't cause the economic crisis, a-B
Bush's deficits were not out of the ordinary as a % of GDP
the ones Obama are projecting are insane economics
economists agree that Bush's tax cuts were extraordinarily well-timed, ending a recession at the end of the Clinton era that wasn't immediately apparent
while deficits should not become so large that they threaten our security, surpluses mean the government is taxing at too high a rate which will always be bad for the economy
"And what led to that housing bubble? That's right, it was the repeal of Depression era Glass-Steagall Act, which had to separated banks from investment houses and insurance companies in order to separate savings from risk."
this is wrong and shows how little you understand economics
there was an insightful piece in last week's WSJ explaining how heavily ACORN, applying pressure on Democratic Congressman who in were in charge of oversight committees, was involved in the economic meltdown
The WSJ tried to blame the economic meltdown on ACORN last week?
Oh that's a hoot!
OK, I found it and see the writer, Mr. Pinto, said "Less well understood is that this bubble was the result of government policies that lowered mortgage-lending standards to increase home ownership," and then talked about ACORN. But Pinto completely ignored the fact that George W. Bush touted and signed into law H. R. 1276: American Dream Downpayment Act which helped minorities with down payments and closing costs, but not monthly mortgage payments. Many of those folks only qualified for ARMs and ended up in foreclosure when the low interest periods ended.
That's a pretty glaring bit of spin by Mr. Pinto to blame "government policies...to increase home ownership" but to fail to mention a single word about the American Dream Downpayment Act enacted by the GOP controlled Congress and signed into by Bush.
"American Dream Downpayment Act which helped minorities with down payments and closing costs, but not monthly mortgage payments."
so, in addition to closing costs and down payments, you believe the government should be making the payment too?
and that would have solved the problem?
Don't be ridiculous.
The problem with Bush's down payment and closing cost aid program for minorities was that it got unqualified minorities into homes with adjustable rate mortgages. Once the low ARM interest rates ballooned to their higher rates, foreclosures increased and banks were left with mountains of unpaid mortgages, which were then repackaged as derivatives of these bad debts and sold to investment houses until finally the bubble burst and the entire stinking pile collapsed.
Post a Comment
<< Home