The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on April 29, 2010 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
The world feels like it has changed drastically since the dawn of this new millennia, but in fact, the United States faces some of the same challenges that we have for generations. The quote here from George Kennan is more than half a century old and was in response to post-WWII changes and pressures. We may be in a new era of international relations, but we can learn from the accomplishments and the mistakes of our predecessors.
As Americans, we feel that the current world we live in is a frightening place, with two wars and an omnipresent threat of terrorism. Many Americans’ natural inclination is to revert to positions of power – a defense mechanism to ensure to safety of the country. Yet, historically we have seen great success by pursuing diplomacy that is entrenched with the principles of democracy and prosperity.
Americans themselves believe in certain core principles, even when frightened by the future that they face. These values include democracy, fairness, and the well-being of others. We cannot lose sight of these ideals, even in the face of a precarious world balance. American diplomacy must strive to maintain these principles at all times, even when tradeoffs exist. These are not idealistic slogans; they are values that can play an integral role in improving our world.
Acting upon these values does not make the United States weak. In fact, it actually may make us stronger. We have seen how when we lose sight of these values, our policies can undermine our standing in the world. At times in our past, the United States has supported dictators, authoritarian regimes, or turned a blind eye to human rights violations. These policies have frequently worsened the United States’ international position, especially in the long term. To take but one example, look at how our support of the authoritarian shah of Iran turned out for the United States.
I feel my fellow MPP1s would have much to say on this topic, considering their recent completion of the Spring Exercise on US-China relations. Encouraging democracy and an open-society in China is likely to be beneficial for both the Americans as well as the Chinese. Trying to strong arm the Chinese into doing our bidding will likely prove ineffective. Yet, if the American diplomatic community promotes a policy of democracy and fairness, we will likely see excellent outcomes for the United States, the Chinese people, and the rest of the world community.
We cannot simply frame this debate as George Kennan did here – it is not as simple as merely stating that these objectives are unreal, that power is the only successful tool, and that there is no room for idealism. Strong American diplomacy will include a full-range of techniques and options, but all of these must be grounded in the principles of why we are doing what we are doing. We will likely face diplomatic situations in the future that require tradeoffs, but if we take American ideals off of the table entirely, we are devaluing our country.
As many of us look towards our own futures and careers, I take immense pride in knowing that the future of American foreign policy and our diplomatic partners abroad rests in many of my fellow classmates. The people I have met at this school are smart, capable, and guided by principles. We may have learned some of those hard skills in our classes, but I believe my fellow Kennedy students are grounded in idealism. We were all drawn to this school in the first place because of our dedication to improving the world through public service. I have faith that the people that I have met here at the Kennedy School will strive to create a world with lasting international peace, freedom, and an open and fair society for all people.
The Republican Caucus at the Kennedy School
by Mary Catherine Andrews on April 29, 2010 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
President Obama and his national security team sadly are missing the point on foreign policy. American foreign policy should support America’s security interests, protect our citizens, and support our values. To critics at home, the Obama Administration leaves the impression that their chief foreign policy objective is to raise the President’s image on foreign soil.
The Obama Administration, dangerously, also seems to be sending the message that those who do not share American values can get by with arresting dissidents – in China and Kazakhstan, for example – or developing nuclear weapons in Iran or North Korea. Is America being bullied by these countries into ignoring our core values and American national security interests?
National security decision-making, such as the surge of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and our policy on Iranian nuclear weapons, is playing out on the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post. The sensitivity of these decisions demands discretion. But instead, informed observers believe that government agencies are trying to push slow-moving policy decisions by leaking substantive disagreements among administration officials to the media. Here, we are told, President Obama’s prolonged consideration of some foreign policy decisions is risking America’s security interests because even small leaks can expose highly-sensitive security processes.
For 50 years, starting in the 1920s, debates raged in foreign policy inner-circles over whether America should actively support democracy advocates and punish human rights abusers. But with President Ford’s signature on the Helsinki accords, President Carter’s support for their implementation, and President Reagan’s 1983 speech at Westminster, the debate largely seemed to have been settled. America stands for some core values, and chief among these are respect for democracy and human rights. We have put American lives and largess to work fostering such rights in the last three decades.
The payoff has been great. The totalitarian Soviet Bloc has become mostly democratic. India, previously a pawn between the Soviet Bloc and the United States, has become the world’s largest democracy. Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, is now a democracy. Freedom House, the respected keeper of the democracy measuring tape, notes, “Many more countries were in the Free category and were designated as electoral democracies in 2009 than in 1989, and the majority of countries that made major progress 20 years ago have retained those improvements.”
This is critical to America’s national interest because free and democratic countries tend to not fight wars with each other. Instead, they support each others’ economies through trade and cooperate to solve some of the world’s most perplexing challenges such as fighting diseases or space exploration.
As evidenced by diminishing budget requests for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the current administration is seeking to decrease funding for important democracy promotion programs. The budget for the NED grew from barely $50 million in FY2001 to $115 million in FY2009. The Obama administration requested a decrease to $100 million in their first budget, and only action by Congress reversed this request.
The point of American foreign policy is not to find ways to make everyone love us. The point is to protect American citizens at home and abroad and optimize our political and economic interests in the world. To many informed observers, the Obama Administration is not meeting these basic objectives.
The Republican Caucus at the Kennedy School
by Ray Martin on March 9, 2010 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
At a time when our country is facing its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, it would be easy to give into xenophobia when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. The nativist wing of my party, the Republican Party, would have you believe that there is something hugely alarming, that we need to be afraid of illegal immigration. The Republican Party and the United States would instead be better to reject the rants coming from the nativists and turn their ear to the great communicator, Ronald Reagan, who said the following at the 1986 re-dedication of the Statue of Liberty:
“I have always believed there was some divine providence that placed this great land here between the two great oceans, to be found by a special kind of people from every corner of the world, who had a special love for freedom and a special courage that enabled them to leave their own land, leave their friends and their countrymen, and come to this new and strange land to build a New World of peace and freedom and hope.”
President Reagan’s words were not just the empty rhetoric of a president reading off of a teleprompter hoping for a bounce in the polls. Instead, they were backed up by action when he signed the November 1986 Immigration Control and Reform Act that provided a path to citizenship for 2.6 million people. The Republican Party of 2010 would be wise to follow the words and actions of its most fabled president if it wants to remain relevant in future elections – the party will only be able to ride the mistakes of Barack Obama for so long.
The Latino vote will be instrumental in deciding upcoming elections and is a voting bloc that Republicans cannot afford to dismiss. Rather than advocating for the draconian round-ups and deportations advocated by the Minutemen and other fringe groups, Republicans should unite behind the immigration reforms advocated by former President George W. Bush. Providing a path to citizenship that favors skilled workers coupled with a fine that would ensure that no one would be allowed to flaunt the laws of the United States would help to protect America’s own vulnerable working class from the ills of illegal immigration.
In addition, a guest worker program along the lines of the 2007 bill would ensure that America would retain enough unskilled labor to avoid any adverse impacts on the agricultural industry. Such an immigration plan would also increase border security and help root out gang members and criminals from amongst our midst.
The benefits of adopting a Reagan-Bush immigration policy should be obvious to the party. By helping millions of Latinos gain citizenship, Republicans could draw many of these new citizens into the party. After all, it was only six years ago that President Bush captured 44 percent of the Latino vote during the 2004 election. This possible gain in the Latino vote would help to offset any loss from defections by nativists to the Tea Party movement or the Libertarian party.
A path to citizenship is consistent with Republican ideals. Upon signing the 1986 immigration bill, President Reagan said, “We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”
The sooner the Republican Party and the nation see that a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is the only tenable immigration policy, the sooner our society can move towards being more open, inclusive, and true to our founding principles.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on March 9, 2010 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
The American public has been simmering angrily on the issue of immigration for too many years. Conservatives have played politics with this issue, driving a wedge between voters while offering little in terms of real ideas on this issue. As Secretary Clinton highlights in her comments on this debate, what we are doing now is not working. Let’s drop the politics and talk seriously about the issue.
Immigration reform should be comprehensive, fair, and tough. Illegal immigrants are coming to the US for many reasons: in search of jobs, in search of the American dream, reconnecting with family members, and many other reasons. We have to address the immigration issue in a deep and complex way, or else we will solve one problem but potentially create several other problems.
The primary reason to have comprehensive reform is to secure US borders, and ensure the safety of our people. Reform must include prosecution for illegal trafficking of people into the United States and identification fraud, as well as tightened security at the borders. Reform packages, stalled over political wrangling, have highlighted the need for border security first before any current illegal immigrant can apply for legal status. But tightening border security alone will not solve the immigration issue. If we do not address the reasons people are illegally crossing the border, we will never achieve full security.
Many illegal immigrants are coming over the border because there are American companies that will purposefully hire undocumented workers. Reform must address businesses like the Agriprocessors company in Potsville, Iowa, which knowingly hired illegal immigrants and helped these illegal immigrants get false Social Security numbers. According to the Des Moines Register, the company paid workers below minimum wage, hired underage workers, and had many cases of unreported worker abuse, including a supervisor striking one employee with a meat hook. The federal government raided this company two years ago, and more than 300 undocumented workers were taken into custody. The behavior of this company is something that, as Americans, we should not condone.
If we gloss over such behavior, we will keep all of the same incentives in place that draw undocumented workers across the border in the first place. Businesses that hire illegal immigrants have shirked their public duty – taking advantage of low-wage immigrant workers, encouraging violation of laws, and avoiding payroll taxes. This must end, and comprehensive immigration reform should take a hard line against businesses that hire illegal workers. If we address the individual illegal immigrants, but ignore the businesses that purposefully hire illegal workers, we will not stem the tide of immigrants for very long.
We must acknowledge a harsh reality: there are more than 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. Mass deportation of illegal immigrants is impractical and expensive. Illegal immigrants, searching for the American dream, have built lives here in the US for themselves and their families. We have to get beyond the political squabbling around the deportation issue and find a way that is fair to American citizens. I believe that an earned path to citizenship is a way to do that.
As proposed by some recent bi-partisan bills, illegal immigrants should be able to earn a path to citizenship by becoming taxpayers and paying off owed back taxes. This proposed reform will bring illegal immigrants out of the shadow economy and bring them forward as taxpaying members of society. If a reform package allows for this earned path to citizenship, this will be fair to current American citizens, while providing a practical solution to the 12 million people who have built lives in the US – making them honest, law-abiding members of American society.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on February 10, 2010 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
We can and should test the achievement of all students in American schools. School testing provides valuable data that can help us understand how well students, teachers, and schools are doing. Testing is an important part of a modern, accountable education system – a system that succeeds for our children and for our country.
But school testing is not a panacea. Testing provides one piece of data, a snapshot of a child on a specific day. Testing alone cannot encapsulate everything that happens within a school or even in a classroom.
A debate about testing is also a way to sidetrack from the real issue at stake – the future of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB has brought much needed attention to some serious issues in the education field, most particularly the achievement gap between white students and students of color.
Our schools should help all students learn and gain skills to be part of strong American workforce. Yet for the good that NCLB did, it did many other things very poor. NCLB requires that states set a proficiency standard that students must pass. NLCB requirements then focus on the gap of proficiency between the highest and lowest students. This gap is an important measure, but it is not the only measure.
Highlighting only the gap places intense focus on students at the lower end, ignoring the achievement needs and capabilities of higher scoring students. Shouldn’t an education system strive to improve the learning of all students, not simply those at the bottom? By using test scores in a multi-faceted way – instead of using them to measure proficiency levels or achievement gaps – you can not only close the achievement gap, but help students across the entire spectrum learn more and do better in their studies.
NCLB also used a false measure of “adequate yearly progress.” If schools do not meet this measure, the federal government will label schools to be “in need of improvement” That is simply semantics; people speak of these schools as failing. Those failing schools can face stiff financial penalties from the federal government. Adequate yearly progress is a measure that can penalize schools for what can often be statistical noise.
Education in the United States has a long-standing history as being under the purview of the states and localities. This national law tried to force a one-size-fits-all approach onto the states when it came to testing. The federal government has a valid interest to see that public education is of the highest quality across the country.
But NCLB has retrofitted an individualized educational system with constrictive standards. The testing requirements under NCLB encouraged states to make easy proficiency exams, so they can guarantee a high pass rate. The standards for students vary wildly across the United States. As one NEA spokesperson joked, “the fastest way for a sub-standard student in Massachusetts, a state where the bar is set high, to become ‘proficient’ is to move to a state where that word means something quite different.”
Recently, President Obama has announced new directions for the federal education agenda. As part of the recovery act, Obama included more than $4 billion of federal funds labeled for a Race to the Top. To improve schools, President Obama has decided on the carrot rather than stick approach. Rather than punishing schools for failing to meet set of standards that do not adequately measure progress, he is incentivizing reform, innovation, and improvement with new federal funds.
Coming out of the era of the unfunded NCLB mandate, this is a positive step for school districts and schools. These funds will be used to rewards school systems that are undergoing key reforms and making strides for their students. The federal government under Obama is looking to make the US educational system modern, innovative, and ready to meet the needs of the American economy going forward.
The Republican Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by MattShiraki on February 10, 2010 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
During his quest for the White House, Candidate Barack Obama incessantly characterized Senator John McCain as one who would perpetuate a “third Bush term.” Ironically, one year later, President Obama is being labeled by some in his own party as “Bush III,” not just for his position on Afghanistan and his anti-terrorism policies, but also for his approach to one of our nation’s most important and lingering challenges: education reform.
Last summer, the Administration launched its $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” grant competition to spur innovation in American education. This competition integrates standardized testing, school accountability, performance pay, and charter schools –not ideas that typically enthuse Democrats. After the launch, President Obama was criticized by the left for embracing some of what has actually worked in improving educational outcomes since the enactment of the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002.
Since President Bush signed NCLB, the results have been clear: children from nearly all backgrounds and schools are performing at higher levels, and low-income students, minority students, and students with disabilities are showing steady improvements, narrowing the achievement gap.
Consider fourth-graders. According to the 2007 Nation’s Report Card, nine and ten-year-olds achieved the highest reading and math scores in history. In reading, the achievement gap between white and African-American students was at an all-time low. In reading and math, Hispanic students made groundbreaking strides, and the average reading scores for fourth-graders with disabilities improved 23 points between 2000 and 2007. Achievement amongst eighth-graders also increased, and high school students are dropping out at the lowest rate in decades.
While NCLB has produced impressive results, serious challenges, especially in our inner-city schools, remain. They should be addressed soon to provide even more accountability and flexibility. Reform will not be easy. With the Democrats’ ambitious plan to “finish the job” on economic recovery, job creation, financial regulation, healthcare, energy, and immigration legislation, all before midterm elections in November, education could again be left to deal with another year.
Education reform depends on an outbreak of a rare condition these days: bipartisanship. Despite the tiresome finger-pointing we see in Washington, federal education policy has been a relatively bipartisan issue for the past twenty years. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who has received praise from Republicans since his confirmation hearings, continues to work well with Congressional Republicans and was recently applauded by Rep. Castle (R-Del.) for leading a meeting to discuss NCLB revisions that “couldn’t have been more bipartisan.”
Another issue that Republicans and Democrats should collaborate on is the spiraling cost of higher education. The President was right to address this in his State of the Union, but his proposal to continue to increase federal subsidies fails to address the fundamental problem of unsustainable college costs, which continue to rise at a much swifter rate than inflation. As precarious as it may be in this economic climate, with reductions in funding for state colleges and withering endowments, federal and state policymakers should take immediate action to reform higher education in a way that fosters efficiency and reduces costs.
In his State of the Union address, the President admitted he “never suggested that change would be easy, or that [he] can do it alone.” He is absolutely right; he certainly cannot do it alone. By working with Republicans and committing to cornerstones of reform that have proved successful – school and parental choice, accountability, and the prioritization of students over unions – the President has a real opportunity to keep his promise to America: to ensure that American children are once again leaders in the world in creativity and achievement.
The Republican Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Ray Martin and Josh Archambault on December 6, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” This excerpt from President Kennedy’s Inaugural Address sums up U.S. foreign policy from World War II until January, 2009. The foreign policy of being willing and able to support friends and oppose foes to assure the survival of liberty had served the U.S. very well.
The policy had directly led to ending the Cold War without a shot being fired and to the growth of one of the only democracies in the Middle East, Israel. Despite these great accomplishments, this foreign policy doctrine was inexplicably dropped by the Obama administration; it has been replaced by the Obama doctrine.
The Obama doctrine has several parts to it. Blame the U.S. for many of the world’s problems. Engage in discourse with mad men like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Abandon our allies in Eastern Europe. Assign all blame for the conflict in the Middle East to Israel. Bow and subject oneself to the rulers of other nations. And lastly, ignore other countries’ human rights violations when it’s convenient for Barack Obama.
At a time when the U.S. needs to stand tall in Asia and send a message to China that it will protect democracy and liberty in places like Japan and Taiwan, President Obama is too afraid to recognize the grave human rights violations that have been committed in Tibet by the Chinese. What sort of message does this send to the Chinese people? What sort of message does this send to Kim Jong-il?
The Obama doctrine on human rights was first revealed during a tour of East Asia in February by Secretary Clinton who, when responding to a question pertaining the leveraging of human rights violations as a bargaining chip with the Chinese, laid out the Administration’s position. Clinton stated, “Our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.”
Scholars from both the right and left considered this public pronouncement jarring for two reasons. Firstly, was she implying that the Chinese people’s liberty and the Chinese government’s human rights violations were not a major priority for President Obama? Simply put, Secretary Clinton was setting up a false dichotomy between the two issues.
To be fair, since the opening of China under President Nixon, past administrations have also paid insufficient attention to human rights when negotiating with China. However, with that being said, for most students of American foreign policy, Clinton’s standpoint was quite disconcerting.
Secondly, a foreign policy in which the U.S. does not strongly pressure a tyrannical regime on human rights is fundamentally different from one that doesn’t raise the issue at all. Some have termed this as a “unilateral moral disarmament.” As much as the Administration may hope otherwise, given the latest violence in Xinjiang and ongoing strain in Tibet, it appears that human rights will remain near the top of the global consciousness in the near future for China.
It would therefore makes sense for the President to articulate to Chinese leaders that America will maintain a robust commitment to freedom worldwide and not lose moral ground by backing down. President Obama and his advisors must ask themselves if trying to be the anti-Bush President is worth the reversal of 50 years of precedent first articulated by JFK. The U.S. should not risk losing its standing in the minds of oppressed people across the globe.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on December 6, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
China is a complex country with a history, a people, and an economy starkly different from the United States. China views this as its time to establish itself as a world leader. For these reasons, the United States has an interesting and difficult task ahead. The United States must figure out approaches which will help shape China’s growth. The United States does not intend to, indeed cannot, dictate how China develops, but resolution of contentious issues such as international security, global economic growth, and human rights are integral parts of our diplomatic relationship with China.
China wants to forge its own path, and part of its path is a different approach toward government. Politically, the Chinese have been very successful with their authoritarian regime and have no reason to reform their government. The Chinese do not want to emulate the United States’ rise to international prominence. They see no reason to copy the American democratic system, when their own system has been so successful.
This places the United States in a weak negotiating position. The United States feels strongly about the moral grounds of democracy, competition, and dissent. Our democracy may not always be very pretty, but we are immensely proud of our system. The Chinese have no practical reasons to adopt a tumultuous democratic system such as our own, when they have seen such developmental success with their own form of government.
For the sake of the Chinese people, we should continue to pressure China to open up their system of government. The Chinese need not adopt a system identical to the Americans, but we should strongly push for a system that allows political competition, free discussion of the media, and dissent by the people. The Chinese people, who comprise one-sixth of the world population, deserve an open and democratic government that reflects the diverse views of the citizens.
China is also a major force in international politics and is helping shape the development of nations all over the globe. Countries, looking to China rather than the Western powers, see the success of China’s authoritarian government. The spread of anti-democratic governments is a threat to everyone, including those under the rule of authoritarian regimes as well as the rest of the world community. We must negotiate forcefully with China on the issue of human rights in order to prevent the spread of authoritarian governments to the developing world. We must do this to protect the people in the developing world, ourselves, and the rest of the international community. We cannot let the 21st century be defined as the era of the spread of authoritarian rule and undemocratic governments.
Addressing the human rights situation in China is a top priority for the United States, but we are also trying to balance environmental safety, trade partnerships, monetary stability, and military dominance in our relationship with China. The U.S. relationship with China is not a simple discussion only about human rights; rather, it is a multifaceted discussion over the future of our countries and the direction in which we will lead the international community. An overemphasis on one issue may lead China to restrict the scope and extent of its diplomatic relationship with the United States. The United States must take a strong but nuanced position to pressure China into opening up their form of government.
The United States must consider several factors before determining its position on human rights. This does not imply that the United States should back down on the issue of human rights. We cannot let any of our short-term interests drown out our opposition to human rights violations perpetuated by the Chinese. Human rights concerns must remain a top priority and a major part of our diplomatic efforts towards China. The issue of human rights is just too important to the lives of the Chinese people as well as to the safety of the world community to ignore.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on November 11, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
Despite popular sentiment, it has been Democratic presidents who have historically made the difficult decisions to balance the budget and help reduce the national debt. Republican presidents, on the other hand, claim fiscal responsibility even as they spend the United States into a massive hole. Now, President Obama is coming under attack for fiscal irresponsibility from Republicans, when he is taking the necessary steps that will help save the American economy.
Looking at history, Republicans have consistently been enormous debtors. Even the champion of small government, President Reagan, spent without limit. In just eight years, Reagan was able to triple the national debt. He never once submitted a balanced budget to Congress during his presidency. He thought cutting taxes meant small government, but if you do not have the political will to follow that up with cuts in spending then you are fooling yourself and the American people. Reagan ran enormous budget deficits that drove the U.S. to its highest ever levels of debt.
After the massive spending years of Reagan and Bush 41, we finally got Bill Clinton. Republican love to accuse Democrats of being the teenager running around with America’s credit card, but by the end of the Clinton years, the government had balanced its budget and was headed towards paying down the national debt.
In the eight years after the Clinton administration, George W. Bush drove the national debt from just over $5 trillion to $10 trillion. In his two terms, Bush amassed more debt than any president did from George Washington through to his father’s administration, combined. Pulling a page from the Reagan playbook, Bush promised small government and his first step was to cut taxes. Unfortunately, he followed up, not with spending cuts, but with massive unfunded programs such as Medicare Part D.
The future of the United States may be bleak indeed because of our crushing debt load. We need to address the debt, but cannot do so at the expense of our economic recovery. We need to distinguish deficits for economic stimulus reasons, such as those proposed by President Obama, and deficits for irresponsible reasons, such as those presented by President Bush. The recovery bill set forth by President Obama is one of the only reasons there are some bright signs in our economic future. According to Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the recovery bill is one of the main reasons that we saw GDP growth this quarter. The current budget deficit and the mounting debt are a major concern for President Obama and the American people, but we cannot stomp on these green shoots of economic recovery by tightening up the federal budget too quickly. We must withstand these short-term deficits in order to address the longer-term debt problem after we have come out of this deep recession.
Putting it all into perspective, according to OMB estimates, the U.S. government will add another $9 trillion to its debt over the next decade. Of that $9 trillion, more than half comes from President Bush’s policies – the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the unfunded Medicare Part D. Only 10 percent comes from the Obama recovery bill. Once the United States comes out of this recession, we will see the Democrats, not the Republicans, making the tough but necessary choices to help pay off the debt.
President Obama faces a political storm, as the deficit hawks – silent for years now – will come down on the president for his economic recovery plans that include deficit spending. As politically difficult as this will be, I know that President Obama will withstand the political pressure and do what is best for the American economy and the future of our country. He will continue his short-term policies encouraging stabilization and economic growth and get serious about reducing the national debt once the economy is back up and running.
The Republican Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Michael Sechrist on November 11, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
During the 2008 presidential election cycle, President Bush took a beating by many on the growing deficit. In a 2007 interview, then Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke with clarity and command when he said that, “[The Bush Administration] has been the fiscally most irresponsible administration that we have seen. We have increased the national debt, almost doubled it, since George Bush took office; it is now over $9 trillion dollars, and that is money that we are all going to have to pay back.”
Obama’s stance dovetailed nicely with a factsheet put out by House Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at the time. His factsheet graphically showed that President Bush borrowed more from foreign governments and financial institutions than the first 42 U.S. presidents combined. It went on to say that the “increased amount of debt held by foreign creditors undermines America’s national security. The United States is more vulnerable to geopolitical pressures in unstable parts of the world.”
Most Republicans would agree that fiscal deficits make our government more vulnerable to global instability. In the past 20 years, foreign holdings of U.S. federal debt have increased from 19 percent to 49 percent. That means that over half of our federal debt is held by countries whose interests may not be our own. China, Japan, the U.K. and oil exporting countries are the biggest holders of U.S. Treasury securities.
But according to The New York Times this past summer, “…Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.” His plans to halve the federal budget by 2013 means little considering that the federal budget will be twice what it is today even after such a reduction. Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package contradicts a key DNC tenet that “[Democrats] will maintain fiscal responsibility, so that we do not mortgage our children’s future on a mountain of debt.”
In fairness, President Bush raised the national debt $1.8 trillion in his first seven years in office. By the time his second term ended, the national debt stood almost $4.9 trillion higher than when he first entered. Obama recently said he “found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.” Well he is re-gifting it now for future generations.
Since taking office, President Obama has added $1.8 trillion to the national debt. What President Bush did in seven years, Obama is doing in his first year. If the Obama administration’s budget projections are right, it will take the national debt four years to rise to what it did in eight under President Bush. But White House economists’ projections are subject to change. For instance, the deepening recession made the Office of Management and Budget recalculate the national debt this summer. In just five months, from February to August 2009, OMB calculated that $2 trillion was added to the national debt. This will require the national debt limit, which Congress approves, to be increased by another trillion dollars this month to $13 trillion. This is the second increase since Obama took office in February.
As discussed, the problem does not lie with one party. It is a problem that all Americans, on both sides of the aisle, need to address. Right now, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, beyond our explicit liabilities of $13 trillion, implicit liabilities in Medicare and Social Security run close to $43 trillion. The total deficit then, all told, runs closer to $56 trillion, which comes down to $184,000 for every person living in the U.S.
The GAO describes this path as “unsustainable.” They estimate that government debt as a percentage of GDP will rise from 90 percent today to “170 percent by 2040 to over 600 percent by 2080 – far exceeding the historical high of 109 percent that occurred immediately following WWII.” By comparison, the E.U. does not let countries accede to it if debt levels exceed 60 percent of GDP; so by all accounts, we would not be let in.
Right now, when you type in “national debt” on the DNC website, you get a broken link. As voters, we need to demand that our elected officials move from this broken path of spending and burdening future generations. We must demand that a plan be produced and executed. Our security, in all areas, is at stake.
To further highlight this important issue, the HKS GOP caucus will host a series of events next semester, during National Debt Week. Details are currently being finalized, but we encourage the HKS Democratic Caucus to join us in supporting the events. We hope that all students will attend at least one event so that we can collaborate on fixing this important issue. Stay tuned.
