Mr. President, your silence on immigration reform will be golden

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 19, 2013 — Sometimes the political environment requires a president to act and act quickly, perhaps even unilaterally. There are other times when the moment calls for the president to use his bully pulpit to lead and call on Congress to act.

However, in some unique circumstances when Congress is already trying to act, a president should practice silence.

With that in mind, President Obama should take a backseat to the “Gang of 8” on immigration reform.

The Gang of 8 is a group of eight senators who came together to provide a bipartisan solution for immigration reform.

The four Democrats are: Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Robert Menendez (R-NJ), Chuck Schumer (R-NY), and Michael Bennet (R-CO).

The four Republicans are: Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

In a rare moment of bipartisanship in Congress, these eight senators unveiled their framework for immigration reform at a press conference in January. Their plan calls for expanding visas for high-tech workers, creating an employment verification system that will prevent the hiring of undocumented workers, tightening security along the Mexican border, and providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Their press conference on Capitol Hill came a day before President Obama’s immigration speech. Their strategy to deliberately preempt the president is noteworthy because the indirect message was: Get out of the way Mr. President, we will lead on this issue.

Senators are men and women of pride like everyone else. They want to prove to the American public that they are competent. They do not like that their institution has only a 14 percent approval rating. Many of them are tired of watching President Obama scold them. “You know, Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time. They don’t wait until the night before. They’re not pulling all-nighters. They’re 13 and 10. You know, Congress can do the same thing…” President Obama said at a press conference on the debt ceiling in 2011.

Members of Congress generally do not like to see their president condescendingly suggest that his 10 and 13 year old daughters have more discipline than they do. So whenever they can, they will try to advance an agenda before he does, which is what the Gang of 8 is doing on immigration reform.

Meanwhile, instead of focusing on constructive ways to help them reach a solution, the Obama administration was busy preparing an alternative immigration reform proposal, as if the White House proposal will magically become law if the Gang of 8 fails.

The backup proposal was leaked and obtained by USA Today.

President Obama’s Chief of staff Denis McDonough defended the plan: “We’ll be prepared in the event that the bipartisan talks going on the Hill – which by the way we’re aggressively supporting – if those do not work out, then we’ll have an option we’re ready to put out there,” McDonough said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

Having a backup plan is always wise, but President Obama’s attempt to re-insert himself into the immigration reform debate seems self-serving. He wants sole ownership of the immigration issue. He needs it for his legacy. He would like to dominate the conversation with his big speeches and TV appearances so he can take full credit when the job is done, and remind the public that he is still in charge – the big boss calling the shots and running the show. It is a positioning strategy, and presidents often need to position themselves as leaders.

But at this critical juncture, the best form of leadership Obama can offer the Gang of 8 is silence. He can work the phones and offer to help but he should not be patronizing or overbearing. Doing so will intensify partisanship and make deal-making more difficult.

If members of Congress had not taken the initiative to reform the immigration system, then it would have been incumbent on the president to lead. But the Senate is already moving on the issue. The Gang of 8 is already making progress. Their blueprint is not much different from what President Obama is talking about. They are slowly building trust, and the prospect of a bipartisan package looks promising.

If President Obama wants to take full credit for immigration reform, he can do so after the signing ceremony. But what the Gang of 8 need from him right now is his silent encouragement.

So, please, Mr. President, get out of the way and let the “Gang of 8” finish the job.

Advice for Senator Ted Cruz: Speak softly but carry a big stick

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 16, 2013 — There is something admirable and refreshing about U.S. Senators who keep a low profile and fly under the radar. They are the serious legislators who get things done. They usually do not have the time or inclination to engage in partisan rancor or self-aggrandizing showiness. They know they are big, so they act modest.

Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Carl Levin (D-MI) come to mind. They try to uphold the tradition of statesmanship in the U.S Senate. They have been around the block long enough to understand the importance of focusing on the serious, and ignoring the frivolous. They go about their business quietly and discreetly. When they speak, it becomes important, so people listen.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) could learn something from their approach.

Cruz has been in the United States Senate for less than two months and is making his voice heard, but he is doing it in the wrong ways.

He voted against the Violence Against Women Act. He was one of three senators who voted against confirming Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) as secretary of state. Most notably, in the final meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense, Cruz suggested that Hagel had accepted money from countries that oppose American interests. “It is at a minimum relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea,” Cruz said.

It is one thing to question Hagel’s past policy positions and how they may adversely affect his ability to meet the challenges America will face from Iran, North Korea, and Islamic terrorism. It is another to impugn his character and patriotism.

Chuck Hagel loved his country enough to volunteer to serve in the Vietnam War, and has two Purple Hearts to show for it. So a little more respect for a decorated war hero would not be out of line.

For someone who has been in the Senate for less than two months, Cruz is already over-exposed. Meanwhile, one of his fellow newly elected senators has been strategically more circumspect.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been keeping her head down, deliberately avoiding the spotlight, and even hiding from the Beltway media. But the minute she asks a panel of top regulators at a Senate Banking Committee hearing to cite the last time they took a Wall Street Bank to trial, it becomes a big story. Wall Street bankers may be upset, but Main Street is not. They see someone who is protecting consumers against the “too big to fail,” “too powerful to sue” banks. Ted Cruz can learn something from her approach also.

We live in a world of oversized egos.

Everyone wants to talk every time. People are constantly looking for the next spotlight to stand under because they think that they are larger than life. Former Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-IL) illegally spends $750,000 in campaign funds on a $43,000 Rolex watch and fur coats, among other things. President Barack Obama wins an election so he thinks he can steamroll Republicans. Senate Republicans are filibustering Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense because of personal beefs because Hagel was critical of his own party during the Bush administration.

There is too much “me” and not enough “us” in American politics today, too much selfishness and too little magnanimity.

So here is a piece of advice for Ted Cruz: disappear for a while.

Stay off the cable talk shows for a couple of weeks. No appearances on “Fox News Sunday,” “Face the Nation,” or “Meet the Press.” Go back and begin to repair your relationship with some of your colleagues. Start introducing legislation that will make a difference in the lives of all Americans, or at least attach your name to the ones that might.

You have a chance to be a major player in shaping the future of your party. So start by becoming a serious legislator. When you come out for a major speech or interview, make it count. But for now, get behind the scenes, and stay there for a while.

Speak softly but carry a big stick.

Ayobami is a graduate student in George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

Pelosi denies spending problem: Why young Americans should care

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb.12, 2013 — In just one television appearance, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) managed to remind the nation that ideological intransigence is not unique to the Republican Party. There are Democratic ideologues as well.

In an interview on “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace, Pelosi said “it is almost a false argument to suggest that we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem that we have to address.”  Well, yes, America does have a deficit problem. But isn’t that because the government continues to spend more money than it receives in revenue?

It is unclear if this fiscal denialism is a case of delusion or dishonesty. Either way, Pelosi is wrong. America has a serious spending problem, and young people should pay attention to it.

Pelosi also went on to say: “The challenge in Medicare is not Medicare. The challenge is rising medical health care costs in general. …I think that there is money to be saved there and I don’t think it has to come out of benefits for beneficiaries and I don’t think you have to raise the [retirement] age.”

During the fiscal cliff negotiations, Democrats successfully portrayed Republicans as ideologues. The party that was willing to go off the fiscal cliff just to protect tax rates for the one percent. If Democrats continue to take a hardline approach to Medicare, and refuse to acknowledge that federal spending needs to be curtailed, they run the risk of being the party that is out of touch, and willing to jeopardize the future retirement benefits of the young in order to secure benefits for the elderly.

The first step to solving a problem is to recognize that the problem exists. The spending problem in America is real. The Republican talking point that “Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem” is true.

The national debt is over $16 trillion. From 2008-2013, discretionary spending went from $933 to $1.062 trillion--an increase of 14 percent. Domestic programs grew by 16.6 percent. This year, federal spending will reach $3.6 trillion and rise to nearly $6 trillion by 2023. At that pace, government spending will reach 23 percent of GDP by 2023, far higher than the 20 percent historical level according to the Congressional Budget Office.

This should be of great concern to young Americans.

College-age Americans and young twenty-something-year-olds care about many things. They want jobs; they want more access to student loans and grants. They are passionate about gay marriage, many of them believe in a woman’s right to choose, they want to see young undocumented immigrants (DREAMers) become U.S citizens. They would like to see something done on climate change.

When it comes to the issue of debt and deficits however, young people seem disinterested. A $16 trillion national debt seems too abstract to conceptualize. Its consequences are unclear to them or too far into the future to warrant any sense of urgency.

But they should understand that politicians in Washington are stealing their futures.

Medicare and Social Security may not be there for the younger generation if politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to demagogue entitlements out of fear of the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons). Young voters should understand that their parents' generation is leaving a mountain of debt behind.

They should be concerned that an escalating national debt means high interest rates in the future. When interest rates go up, everything from mortgage payments to car loans, to credit card payments and student loan rates will rise. Cost of living will increase. Taxes will go up. The economy will be slower, and the job market will be weaker.

Young people are already getting hit by high unemployment, if they are lucky enough to find good jobs in the future, they will have to work longer to pay off their student loans, and wait longer to buy their first house or open their first retirement account. 

The young twenty-something-year-olds should be concerned about all of this. They should be worried that some politicians deny America’s spending problem. They should be weary of economists like Paul Krugman who argue that it is “irresponsible and destructive” not to kick-the-can-down-the-road on the national debt. Finally, they should organize and mobilize themselves to put pressure on their elected officials to solve the long-term debt. 

Their future is at stake.

Ayobami Olugbemiga is a graduate student in George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

The Justice Department makes case for drone strikes on Americans

It’s official: An intelligence officer in the U.S government can now order the remote control killing of an American citizen without judicial review, due process, or actionable intelligence indicating a specific terror threat.

In a 16 page memo obtained by NBC News, the Justice Department outlined the legal reasoning behind the use of drone strikes on Al-Qaeda targets abroad, including those aimed at U.S citizens.

One of the conditions that must be met before the use of a drone strike on an American citizen is that the targeted individual must pose “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”

At the same time, the memo also states that “the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

In other words, a drone strike can still be used in cases where there is no “clear evidence” of an imminent threat.

The idea that an American citizen can be killed by a drone missile based on uncorroborated intelligence or mere suspicion of loose association with Al-Qaeda members should raise concerns in the minds of all Americans.

In 2011 for example, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16 year old American citizen and the son of Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike two weeks after the death of his father. Former Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs justified the drone strike by saying, “he should have had a far more responsible father…”

So the only reason an underage American boy deserved the verdict of death by drone is because he happened to be the son of a terrorist? Somehow the Bush administration’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” sounds a little more merciful compared to this.

If there are progressives within the Democratic Party who have serious questions and concerns about this drone policy, preferably the same voices that were outraged by the waterboarding of three terrorists under the Bush administration, they should come forward now ‒ with the same righteous indignation.

If there are human rights activists, preferably the same voices that vociferously criticized the Bush administration for the lack of due process for Guantanamo Bay prisoners, they should also speak out now.

The failure to do so will be a sign of selective morality and self-serving hypocrisy. The Obama administration’s drone program deserves serious scrutiny.

Also read: The mass torture of drone strikes