Boehner May Look Like A Dried Up Old Catcher's Mitt, But President Obama Used Him As A Punching Bag Yesterday

President Obama was back in Ohio yesterday, pushing back against Republican obstructionism. And he had a good reason for picking Ohio. Early in his Senate term GOP trade policies came up for a vote in the form of CAFTA. Obama, as we explained yesterday, voted against that legislation-- so did then-Congressmen Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown. In fact every Ohio Democrat voted against a bill that was clearly designed to decimate the whole idea of a high wage/high standard of living society by shipping good manufacturing jobs to slave-wage countries. The impact on Ohio has been especially devastating. Other Ohio Democrats fighting these unfair corporate trade policies then and now: Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, Tim Ryan.

Leading the way on passing this destructive Republican bill-- and every piece of bad trade legislation that's come up in the last two decades-- was Wall Street whore John Boehner. Every Republican in the House except Bob Ney followed his lead and among the ones asking hard-pressed Ohio voters to return them to office in November are, aside from the orange drunk golfer, Steve Chabot, Steve LaTourette, Pat Tiberi, and Mike Turner. On top of that, another of the bad trade policy architects, former Congressman Rob Portman (Mean Jean Schmidt's predecessor) didn't vote on CAFTA because he left Congress exactly two months before the final vote... to serve as Bush's Trade Representative and implement all the policies of shipping Ohio's manufacturing base off shore. He's now running for the U.S. Senate!

The picture President Obama painted in Cleveland yesterday wasn't especially kind to these Ohio Republicans:

I ran for President because for much of the last decade, a very specific governing philosophy had reigned about how America should work: 
 
Cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires. Cut regulations for special interests. Cut trade deals even if they didn’t benefit our workers. Cut back on investments in our people and our future-- in education and clean energy; in research and technology. The idea was that if we had blind faith in the market; if we let corporations play by their own rules; if we left everyone else to fend for themselves, America would grow and prosper. 
 
For a time, this idea gave us the illusion of prosperity. We saw financial firms and CEOs take in record profits and record bonuses. We saw a housing boom that led to new homeowners and new jobs in construction. Consumers bought more condos and bigger cars and better televisions. 
 
But while all this was happening, the broader economy was becoming weaker. Job growth between 2000 and 2008 was slower than it had been in any economic expansion since World War II-- even slower than it’s been over the past year. The wages and incomes of middle-class families kept falling while the cost of everything from tuition to health care kept rising. Folks were forced to put more debt on their credit cards and borrow against homes that many couldn’t afford in the first place. Meanwhile, a failure to pay for two wars and two tax cuts for the wealthy helped turn a record surplus into a record deficit. 
 
I ran for President because I believed that this kind of economy was unsustainable-- for the middle-class and for our nation’s future. I ran because I had a different idea about how America was built-- an idea rooted in my own family’s story.
 
...[M]uch has happened since that election. The flawed policies and economic weaknesses of the previous decade culminated in the worst recession of our lifetimes. My hope was that the crisis would cause everyone, Democrats and Republicans, to pull together and tackle our problems in a practical way. But as we all know, things didn’t work out that way. 
 
Some Republican leaders figured it was smart politics to sit on the sidelines and let Democrats solve the mess. Others believed on principle that government shouldn’t meddle in the markets, even when the markets were broken. But with the nation losing nearly 800,000 jobs the month I was sworn in, my most urgent task was to stop a financial meltdown and prevent this recession from becoming a second depression. 
 
We’ve done that. The economy is growing again. The financial markets have stabilized. The private sector has created jobs for the last eight months in a row. And there are roughly three million Americans who are working today because of the economic plan we put in place.
 
But the truth is, progress has been painfully slow. Millions of jobs were lost before our policies even had a chance to take effect-- a hole so deep that even though we’ve added jobs again, millions of Americans remain unemployed. Hundreds of thousands of families have lost their homes; millions more can barely pay the bills or make the mortgage. The middle-class is still treading water, while those aspiring to reach the middle class are doing everything they can to keep from drowning. 
 
Meanwhile, some of the very steps that were necessary to save the economy-- like temporarily supporting the banks and the auto industry-- fed the perception that Washington is still ignoring the middle class in favor of special interests.
 
And so people are frustrated and angry and anxious about the future. I understand that. I also understand that in a political campaign, the easiest thing for the other side to do is ride this fear and anger all the way to Election Day.    
 
That’s what’s happening right now. A few weeks ago, the Republican leader of the House came here to Cleveland and offered his party’s answer to our economic challenges. Now, it would be one thing if he admitted his party’s mistakes during the eight years they were in power, and was offering a credible new approach to solving our country’s problems.
 
But that’s not what happened. There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner. There were no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy we already tried for the last decade-- the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place: cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations. Instead of coming together like past generations did to build a better country for our children and grandchildren, their argument is that we should let insurance companies go back to denying care to folks who are sick, and let credit card companies go back to raising rates without any reason. Instead of setting our sights higher, they’re asking us to settle for a status quo of stagnant growth, eroding competitiveness, and a shrinking middle class.   
 
...I have a different vision for the future. I’ve never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, the skill and dedication of our workers, that has made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine of our recovery. 
 
I believe government should be lean, it should be efficient, and it should leave people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and their families, so long as those choices don’t hurt others. 
 
But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, I also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. 
 
That means making long-term investments in this country’s future that individuals and corporations cannot make on their own: investments in education and clean energy; in basic research, technology, and infrastructure
 
That means making sure corporations live up to their responsibilities to treat consumers fairly and play by the same rules as everyone else; to look out for their workers and create jobs here at home.
 
And that means providing a hand up for middle-class families-- so that if they work hard and meet their responsibilities, they can afford to raise their children, send them to college, see a doctor when they get sick, and retire with dignity and respect. 
 
That’s what we Democrats believe in-- a vibrant free market, but one that works for everybody.  That’s our vision for a stronger economy and a growing middle-class. And that’s the difference between what we and the Republicans in Congress are offering the American people right now.

Let me give you a few specific examples of our different approaches. This week, I proposed some additional steps to grow the economy and help businesses spur hiring. One of the keys to job creation is to encourage companies to invest more in the United States. But for years, our tax code has actually given billions of dollars in tax breaks that encourage companies to create jobs and profits in other countries. 
 
I want to change that. Instead of tax loopholes that incentivize investment in overseas jobs, I’m proposing a more generous, permanent extension of the tax credit that goes to companies for all the research and innovation they do right here in America. And I’m proposing that all American businesses should be allowed to write off all the investment they do in 2011. This will help small businesses upgrade their plants and equipment, and will encourage large corporations to get off the sidelines and start putting their profits to work in places like Cleveland and Toledo and Dayton. 
 
To most of you, this is just common sense. But not to Mr. Boehner and his allies. For years, Republicans have fought to keep these corporate loopholes open. In fact, when Mr. Boehner was here in Cleveland he attacked us for closing a few of these loopholes-- and using the money to help states like Ohio keep hundreds of thousands of teachers and cops and firefighters on the job. He dismissed these jobs-- teaching our kids, patrolling our streets, rushing into burning buildings-- as quote “government jobs”-- jobs that I guess he thought just weren’t worth saving. 
 
I couldn’t disagree more. I think teachers and police officers and firefighters are part of what keep America strong. And I think if we’re going to give tax breaks to companies, they should go to companies that create jobs in America-- not those that create jobs overseas. That’s one difference between the Republican vision and the Democratic vision. And that’s what this election is all about. 
 
Let me give you another example. We want to put more Americans back to work rebuilding America-- our roads, railways, and runways. When the housing sector collapsed and the recession hit, one in every four jobs lost were in the construction industry. That’s partly why our economic plan has invested in badly needed infrastructure projects over the last nineteen months-- not just roads and bridges, but high-speed railroads and expanded broadband access. Altogether, these are projects that have led to thousands of good, private sector jobs, especially for those in the trades.
 
Mr. Boehner and the Republicans in Congress said no to these projects. Fought them tooth and nail. Though I should say that didn’t stop a lot of them from showing up at the ribbon-cutting ceremonies and trying to take credit. That’s always a sight to see.

Now, there are still thousands of miles of roads, railways, and runways left to repair and improve.  And engineers, economists, governors and mayors of every political stripe believe that if we want to compete, we need to rebuild this vital infrastructure. There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains or the most modern airports-- we want to put people to work building them right here in America. So this week, I’ve proposed a six year infrastructure plan that would start putting Americans to work right away. But despite the fact that this has traditionally been an issue with bipartisan support, Mr. Boehner has so far said no to infrastructure. That’s bad for America-- and that too is what this election is about. 
 
I’ll give you one final example of the differences between us and the Republicans, and that’s on the issue of tax cuts. Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. Now, I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. These families are the ones who saw their wages and incomes flatline over the last decade – and they deserve a break. And because they are more likely to spend on basic necessities, this will strengthen the economy as a whole.
 
But the Republican leader of the House doesn’t want to stop there. Make no mistake: he and his party believe we should also give a permanent tax cut to the wealthiest two percent of Americans.  With all the other budgetary pressures we have-- with all the Republicans’ talk about wanting to shrink the deficit-- they would have us borrow $700 billion over the next ten years to give a tax cut of about $100,000 to folks who are already millionaires. These are among the only folks who saw their incomes rise when Republicans were in charge. And these are folks who are less likely to spend the money, which is why economists don’t think tax breaks for the wealthy would do much to boost the economy.
 
So let me be clear to Mr. Boehner and everyone else: we should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer. We are ready, this week, to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less. For any income over this amount, the tax rates would go back to what they were under President Clinton. This isn’t to punish folks who are better off – it’s because we can’t afford the $700 billion price tag. And for those who claim that this is bad for growth and bad for small businesses, let me remind you that with those tax rates in place, this country created 22 million jobs, raised incomes, and had the largest surplus in history. 
 
In fact, if the Republican leadership in Congress really wants to help small businesses, they’ll stop using legislative maneuvers to block an up-or-down vote on a small business jobs bill that’s before the Senate right now. This is a bill that would do two things: cut taxes for small businesses and make loans more available for small businesses. It is fully paid for, and it was written by Democrats and Republicans. And yet, the other party continues to block this jobs bill-- a delay that small business owners have said is actually leading them to put off hiring.
 
Look, I recognize that most of the Republicans in Congress have said no to just about every policy I’ve proposed since taking office. And on some issues, I realize it’s because there are genuine philosophical differences. But on issues like this one, the only reason they’re holding this up is politics, pure and simple. They’re making the same calculation they made just before the inauguration: if I fail, they win. Well, they might think this will get them where they need to go in November, but it won’t get our country where it needs to go in the long run.

 
Meanwhile, take a look at some of the salient points about Boehner's budget gimmicks Jen Psaki made on the White House blog yesterday.

It is disturbing but unfortunately not surprising that an entire political party would rally together to hold tax relief for middle class families hostage as leverage to push through tax cuts for the very richest Americans-- people who don’t need them and haven’t even asked for them. But that is apparently what exactly what Republican Minority Leader John Boehner is trying to do.

Even as the Republican Party has tried to shed its dismal record on fiscal discipline, they have been consistent and unwavering in their attempts to borrow more than $700 billion to support permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. But giving an average $100,000 tax break to those making over $1,000,000 a year when we can’t afford them and they don’t need them is not sound economic policy.

The latest trick from Republican Minority Leader John Boehner says a lot about Republican priorities and strategy-- and seems like an obvious recognition of just how irresponsible their position is. 

In an interview this morning he issued a half-hearted call for a two year extension of these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. This is nothing more than a throwback to Bush-era budget gimmicks that helped get us into the fiscal mess we're in today, an attempt to mask the true budget-busting cost of the Republican agenda. If there was any doubt about that, it was eliminated when immediately after the interview he issued a press release making clear the Party’s continuing desire to borrow more than $700 billion to make these tax cuts permanent (“House Republicans will continue to fight to permanently stop job-killing tax hikes.”)

But President Obama isn't running against John Boehner and can't defeat him. The DCCC is trying to use him as a whipping boy but is doing absolutely nothing to help the ONLY Democrat who can defeat Boehner in November, Justin Coussoule. See that thermometer above? You can click it to donate to Justin's campaign efforts directly and/or to contribute to Blue America's TV campaign against Boehner and on behalf of Justin. John Boehner isn't a theory; he's a clear and present danger to our country and our families. The DCCC is too cowardly to take him on; Justin, a former Army captain and West Point grad, isn't. If you can, please help him. Like in the case of Donna Edwards and Alan Grayson, DC Democrats aren't going to lift a finger; it's up to us.