|
The Country We
Believe In
Improving America's Fiscal Future
Speech by Barack
Obama on Reducing the Budget
13 April 2011
George Washington University
Thank you very much. Please have a
seat. Please have a seat, everyone. It is wonderful to
be back at GW. I want you to know that one of the
reasons that I worked so hard with Democrats and
Republicans to keep the government open was so that I
could show up here today. I wanted to make sure that all
of you had one more excuse to skip class. You're
welcome.
I want to give a special thanks to
Steven Knapp, the president of GW. I just saw him—where
is he? There he is right there.
We've got a lot of
distinguished guests here—a couple of people I want to
acknowledge. First of all, my outstanding Vice
President, Joe Biden, is here. Our Secretary of the
Treasury, Tim Geithner, is in the house. Jack Lew, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Gene
Sperling, Chair of the National Economic Council, is
here. Members of our bipartisan Fiscal Commission are
here, including the two outstanding chairs—Erskine
Bowles and Alan Simpson—are here. And we have a number
of members of Congress here today. I'm grateful for all
of you taking the time to attend.
What we've been
debating here in Washington over the last few weeks will
affect the lives of the students here and families all
across America in potentially profound ways. This debate
over budgets and deficits is about more than just
numbers on a page; it's about more than just cutting and
spending. It's about the kind of future that we want.
It's about the kind of country that we believe in. And
that's what I want to spend some time talking about
today.
From our first days
as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and
free enterprise as the engine of America's wealth and
prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we
are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a
healthy skepticism of too much government.
But there's always
been another thread running through our history—a belief
that we're all connected, and that there are some things
we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the
words of our first Republican President, Abraham
Lincoln, that through government, we should do together
what we cannot do as well for ourselves.
And so we've built
a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools
and universities to educate our citizens. We've laid
down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and
commerce. We've supported the work of scientists and
researchers whose discoveries have saved lives,
unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to
countless new jobs and entire new industries. Each of us
has benefitted from these investments, and we're a more
prosperous country as a result.
Part of this
American belief that we're all connected also expresses
itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some
basic measure of security and dignity. We recognize that
no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times
or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike
any one of us. "There but for the grace of God go I," we
say to ourselves. And so we contribute to programs like
Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health
care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of
hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us
against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which
provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes,
poor children, those with disabilities. We're a better
country because of these commitments. I'll go further.
We would not be a great country without those
commitments.
Now, for much of
the last century, our nation found a way to afford these
investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its
citizens. As a country that values fairness, wealthier
individuals have traditionally borne a greater share of
this burden than the middle class or those less
fortunate. Everybody pays, but the wealthier have borne
a little more. This is not because we begrudge those
who've done well—we rightly celebrate their success.
Instead, it's a basic reflection of our belief that
those who've benefited most from our way of life can
afford to give back a little bit more. Moreover, this
belief hasn't hindered the success of those at the top
of the income scale. They continue to do better and
better with each passing year.
Now, at certain
times—particularly during war or recession—our nation
has had to borrow money to pay for some of our
priorities. And as most families understand, a little
credit card debt isn't going to hurt if it's temporary.
But as far back as
the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more
alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a
larger challenge was on the horizon. They knew that
eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire, which
meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be
relying on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and
possibly Medicaid. Like parents with young children who
know they have to start saving for the college years,
America had to start borrowing less and saving more to
prepare for the retirement of an entire generation.
To meet this
challenge, our leaders came together three times during
the 1990s to reduce our nation's deficit—three times.
They forged historic agreements that required tough
decisions made by the first President Bush, then made by
President Clinton, by Democratic Congresses and by a
Republican Congress. All three agreements asked for
shared responsibility and shared sacrifice. But they
largely protected the middle class; they largely
protected our commitment to seniors; they protected our
key investments in our future.
As a result of
these bipartisan efforts, America's finances were in
great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to
surplus. America was actually on track to becoming
completely debt free, and we were prepared for the
retirement of the Baby Boomers.
But after Democrats
and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during
the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed.
We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an
expensive prescription drug program—but we didn't pay
for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the
problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for
tax cuts—tax cuts that went to every millionaire and
billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us
to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the
next decade.
To give you an idea
of how much damage this caused to our nation's
checkbook, consider this: In the last decade, if we had
simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the
prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently
be at low historical levels in the coming years.
But that's not what
happened. And so, by the time I took office, we once
again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for
a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take
place. When I took office, our projected deficit,
annually, was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we
faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that,
like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even
more.
In this case, we
took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of
jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families
extra money in their pocket. It was absolutely the right
thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added
to our deficits in the short term.
So that's how our
fiscal challenge was created. That's how we got here.
And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength,
Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore
the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the
1990s. We have to live within our means. We have to
reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path
that will allow us to pay down our debt. And we have to
do it in a way that protects the recovery, protects the
investments we need to grow, create jobs, and helps us
win the future.
Now, before I get
into how we can achieve this goal, some of you,
particularly the younger people here—you don't qualify,
Joe. Some of you might be wondering, "Why is this so
important? Why does this matter to me?"
Well, here's why.
Even after our economy recovers, our government will
still be on track to spend more money than it takes in
throughout this decade and beyond. That means we'll have
to keep borrowing more from countries like China. That
means more of your tax dollars each year will go towards
paying off the interest on all the loans that we keep
taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest that
we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion.
Think about that. That's the interest—just the interest
payments.
Then, as the Baby
Boomers start to retire in greater numbers and health
care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even
worse. By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay
will only be enough to finance our health care
programs—Medicare and Medicaid—Social Security, and the
interest we owe on our debt. That's it. Every other
national priority—education, transportation, even our
national security—will have to be paid for with borrowed
money.
Now, ultimately,
all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our
economy. It will prevent us from making the investments
we need to win the future. We won't be able to afford
good schools, new research, or the repair of roads—all
the things that create new jobs and businesses here in
America. Businesses will be less likely to invest and
open shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to
balance its books. And if our creditors start worrying
that we may be unable to pay back our debts, that could
drive up interest rates for everybody who borrows
money—making it harder for businesses to expand and
hire, or families to take out a mortgage.
Here's the good
news: That doesn't have to be our future. That doesn't
have to be the country that we leave our children. We
can solve this problem. We came together as Democrats
and Republicans to meet this challenge before; we can do
it again.
But that starts by
being honest about what's causing our deficit. You see,
most Americans tend to dislike government spending in
the abstract, but like the stuff that it buys. Most of
us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we
should have a strong military and a strong defense. Most
Americans believe we should invest in education and
medical research. Most Americans think we should protect
commitments like Social Security and Medicare. And
without even looking at a poll, my finely honed
political instincts tell me that almost nobody believes
they should be paying higher taxes.
So because all this
spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats
alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes,
politicians are often eager to feed the impression that
solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating
waste and abuse. You'll hear that phrase a lot. "We just
need to eliminate waste and abuse." The implication is
that tackling the deficit issue won't require tough
choices. Or politicians suggest that we can somehow
close our entire deficit by eliminating things like
foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1
percent of our entire federal budget.
So here's the
truth. Around two-thirds of our budget—two-thirds—is
spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and
national security. Two-thirds.
Programs like
unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans'
benefits, and tax credits for working families take up
another 20 percent. What's left, after interest on the
debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That's 12
percent for all of our national priorities -- education,
clean energy, medical research, transportation, our
national parks, food safety, keeping our air and water
clean—you name it—all of that accounts for 12 percent of
our budget.
Now, up till now,
the debate here in Washington, the cuts proposed by a
lot of folks in Washington, have focused exclusively on
that 12 percent. But cuts to that 12 percent alone won't
solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our
deficit will require us to put everything on the table,
and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the
budget.
A serious plan
doesn't require us to balance our budget overnight—in
fact, economists think that with the economy just
starting to grow again, we need a phased-in approach—but it does require tough decisions and support from our
leaders in both parties now. Above all, it will require
us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five
years, 10 years, 20 years down the road.
Now, to their
credit, one vision has been presented and championed by
Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced
by several of their party's presidential candidates.
It's a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4
trillion over the next 10 years, and one that addresses
the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years
after that. These are both worthy goals. They're worthy
goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves
those goals would lead to a fundamentally different
America than the one we've known certainly in my
lifetime. In fact, I think it would be fundamentally
different than what we've known throughout our history.
A 70 percent cut in
clean energy. A 25 percent cut in education. A 30
percent cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell
Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year.
That's the proposal. These aren't the kind of cuts you
make when you're trying to get rid of some waste or find
extra savings in the budget. These aren't the kinds of
cuts that the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the
kinds of cuts that tell us we can't afford the America
that I believe in and I think you believe in.
I believe it paints
a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic. It's
a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges
collapse, we can't afford to fix them. If there are
bright young Americans who have the drive and the will
but not the money to go to college, we can't afford to
send them.
Go to China and
you'll see businesses opening research labs and solar
facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids
in math and science. They're scrambling to figure out
how they put more money into education. Brazil is
investing billions in new infrastructure and can run
half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but on
biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that
says the American people, the United States of
America—the greatest nation on Earth—can't afford any of
this.
It's a vision that
says America can't afford to keep the promise we've made
to care for our seniors. It says that 10 years from now,
if you're a 65-year-old who's eligible for Medicare, you
should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would
today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you
will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn't worth
enough to buy the insurance that's available in the open
marketplace, well, tough luck -– you're on your own. Put
simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.
It's a vision that
says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their
health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit.
Who are these 50 million Americans? Many are somebody's
grandparents—may be one of yours—who wouldn't be able to
afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor
children. Some are middle-class families who have
children with autism or Down's syndrome. Some of these
kids with disabilities are—the disabilities are so
severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the
Americans we'd be telling to fend for themselves.
And worst of all,
this is a vision that says even though Americans can't
afford to invest in education at current levels, or
clean energy, even though we can't afford to maintain
our commitment on Medicare and Medicaid, we can somehow
afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the
wealthy. Think about that.
In the last decade,
the average income of the bottom 90 percent of all
working Americans actually declined. Meanwhile, the top
1 percent saw their income rise by an average of more
than a quarter of a million dollars each. That's who
needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like
me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33
seniors each to pay $6,000 more in health costs. That's
not right. And it's not going to happen as long as I'm
President.
This vision is less
about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the
basic social compact in America. Ronald Reagan's own
budget director said, there's nothing "serious" or
"courageous" about this plan. There's nothing serious
about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by
spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires
and billionaires. And I don't think there's anything
courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can
least afford it and don't have any clout on Capitol
Hill. That's not a vision of the America I know.
The America I know
is generous and compassionate. It's a land of
opportunity and optimism. Yes, we take responsibility
for ourselves, but we also take responsibility for each
other; for the country we want and the future that we
share. We're a nation that built a railroad across a
continent and brought light to communities shrouded in
darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI Bill
and we saved millions of seniors from poverty with
Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in
scientific research and technological breakthroughs that
have transformed millions of lives. That's who we are.
This is the America that I know. We don't have to choose
between a future of spiraling debt and one where we
forfeit our investment in our people and our country.
To meet our fiscal
challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all
need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice
the America we believe in. And as long as I'm President,
we won't.
So today, I'm
proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4
trillion in deficit reduction over 12 years. It's an
approach that borrows from the recommendations of the
bipartisan Fiscal Commission that I appointed last year,
and it builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit
reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It's an
approach that puts every kind of spending on the
table—but one that protects the middle class, our
promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.
The first step in
our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by
building on the savings that both parties agreed to last
week. That step alone will save us about $750 billion
over 12 years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to
achieve these savings, including in programs that I care
deeply about, but I will not sacrifice the core
investments that we need to grow and create jobs. We
will invest in medical research. We will invest in clean
energy technology. We will invest in new roads and
airports and broadband access. We will invest in
education. We will invest in job training. We will do
what we need to do to compete, and we will win the
future.
The second step in
our approach is to find additional savings in our
defense budget. Now, as Commander-in-Chief, I have no
greater responsibility than protecting our national
security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise
our ability to defend our homeland or America's
interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest
long-term threat to America's national security is
America's debt. So just as we must find more savings in
domestic programs, we must do the same in defense.
And we can do that
while still keeping ourselves safe. Over the last two
years, Secretary Bob Gates has courageously taken on
wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and
future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need
to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and
effectiveness, but we're going to have to conduct a
fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities,
and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with
Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and
I will make specific decisions about spending after it's
complete.
The third step in
our approach is to further reduce health care spending
in our budget. Now, here, the difference with the House
Republican plan could not be clearer. Their plan
essentially lowers the government's health care bills by
asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead.
Our approach lowers the government's health care bills
by reducing the cost of health care itself.
Already, the
reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our
deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these
reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous
payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by
using Medicare's purchasing power to drive greater
efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the
market. We will work with governors of both parties to
demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid.
We will change the
way we pay for health care—not by the procedure or the
number of days spent in a hospital, but with new
incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries
and improve results. And we will slow the growth of
Medicare costs by strengthening an independent
commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and
consumers who will look at all the evidence and
recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending
while protecting access to the services that seniors
need.
Now, we believe the
reforms we've proposed to strengthen Medicare and
Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our
citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an
additional $1 trillion in the decade after that. But if
we're wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we
expect, then this approach will give the independent
commission the authority to make additional savings by
further improving Medicare.
But let me be absolutely clear: I
will preserve these health care programs as a promise we
make to each other in this society. I will not allow
Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors
at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking
benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell
families with children who have disabilities that they
have to fend for themselves. We will reform these
programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental
commitment this country has kept for generations.
That includes, by
the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social
Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real
long-term challenges in a country that's growing older.
As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should
work together now to strengthen Social Security for
future generations. But we have to do it without putting
at risk current retirees, or the most vulnerable, or
people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for
future generations; and without subjecting Americans'
guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock
market. And it can be done.
The fourth step in
our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code,
so-called tax expenditures. In December, I agreed to
extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because
it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on
middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion
worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire
in our society. We can't afford it. And I refuse to
renew them again.
Beyond that, the
tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like
itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of
many of these deductions, from homeownership to
charitable giving, we can't ignore the fact that they
provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 but
do nothing for the typical middle-class family that
doesn't itemize. So my budget calls for limiting
itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of
Americans—a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320
billion over 10 years.
But to reduce the
deficit, I believe we should go further. And that's why
I'm calling on Congress to reform our individual tax
code so that it is fair and simple—so that the amount of
taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of
accountant you can afford.
I believe reform
should protect the middle class, promote economic
growth, and build on the fiscal commission's model of
reducing tax expenditures so that there's enough savings
to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I
called for in the State of the Union, we should reform
our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses
and our economy more competitive.
So this is my
approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the
next 12 years. It's an approach that achieves about $2
trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will
lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion.
It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in tax
expenditures—spending in the tax code. And it achieves
these goals while protecting the middle class,
protecting our commitment to seniors, and protecting our
investments in the future.
Now, in the coming
years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows
faster than our current projections, we can make even
greater progress than I've pledged here. But just to
hold Washington—and to hold me—accountable and make sure
that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan
includes a debt failsafe. If, by 2014, our debt is not
projected to fall as a share of the economy—if we
haven't hit our targets, if Congress has failed to
act—then my plan will require us to come together and
make up the additional savings with more spending cuts
and more spending reductions in the tax code. That
should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead
of kicking our problems further down the road.
So this is our
vision for America—this is my vision for America—a
vision where we live within our means while still
investing in our future; where everyone makes sacrifices
but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a
basic measure of security for our citizens and we
provide rising opportunity for our children.
There will be those
who vigorously disagree with my approach. I can
guarantee that as well. Some will argue we should not
even consider ever—ever—raising taxes, even if only on
the wealthiest Americans. It's just an article of faith
to them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the
wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the
most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more.
I don't need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn't
need another tax cut. Not if we have to pay for it by
making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids
from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships
that I wouldn't be here without and that some of you
would not be here without.
And here's the
thing: I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree
with me. They want to give back to their country, a
country that's done so much for them. It's just
Washington hasn't asked them to.
Others will say
that we shouldn't even talk about cutting spending until
the economy is fully recovered. These are mostly folks
in my party. I'm sympathetic to this view—which is one
of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we
passed in December. It's also why we have to use a
scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit, so that
we can keep making the investments that create jobs. But
doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option. Our
debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to
the economy if we don't begin a process now to get our
fiscal house in order.
Finally, there are
those who believe we shouldn't make any reforms to
Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, out of fear that
any talk of change to these programs will immediately
usher in the sort of steps that the House Republicans
have proposed. And I understand those fears. But I
guarantee that if we don't make any changes at all, we
won't be able to keep our commitment to a retiring
generation that will live longer and will face higher
health care costs than those who came before.
Indeed, to those in
my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a
progressive vision of our society, we have an obligation
to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we
believe the government can make a difference in people's
lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works—by
making government smarter, and leaner and more
effective.
Of course, there
are those who simply say there's no way we can come
together at all and agree on a solution to this
challenge. They'll say the politics of this city are
just too broken; the choices are just too hard; the
parties are just too far apart. And after a few years on
this job, I have some sympathy for this view.
But I also know
that we've come together before and met big challenges.
Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill came together to save
Social Security for future generations. The first
President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together
to reduce the deficit. President Clinton and a
Republican Congress battled each other ferociously,
disagreed on just about everything, but they still found
a way to balance the budget. And in the last few months,
both parties have come together to pass historic tax
relief and spending cuts.
And I know there
are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to
see a balanced approach to deficit reduction. And even
those Republicans I disagree with most strongly I
believe are sincere about wanting to do right by their
country. We may disagree on our visions, but I truly
believe they want to do the right thing.
So I believe we
can, and must, come together again. This morning, I met
with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to
discuss the approach that I laid out today. And in early
May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with
leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final
agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit and get it
done by the end of June.
I don't expect the
details in any final agreement to look exactly like the
approach I laid out today. This is a democracy; that's
not how things work. I'm eager to hear other ideas from
all ends of the political spectrum. And though I'm sure
the criticism of what I've said here today will be
fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House
Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve
and will demand that we all make an effort to bridge our
differences and find common ground.
This larger debate
that we're having—this larger debate about the size and
the role of government—it has been with us since our
founding days. And during moments of great challenge and
change, like the one that we're living through now, the
debate gets sharper and it gets more vigorous. That's
not a bad thing. In fact, it's a good thing. As a
country that prizes both our individual freedom and our
obligations to one another, this is one of the most
important debates that we can have.
But no matter what
we argue, no matter where we stand, we've always held
certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order
to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own
happiness, we can't just think about ourselves. We have
to think about the country that made these liberties
possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens
with whom we share a community. And we have to think
about what's required to preserve the American Dream for
future generations.
This sense of
responsibility—to each other and to our country—this
isn't a partisan feeling. It isn't a Democratic or a
Republican idea. It's patriotism.
The other day I
received a letter from a man in Florida. He started off
by telling me he didn't vote for me and he hasn't always
agreed with me. But even though he's worried about our
economy and the state of our politics—here's what he
said—he said, "I still believe. I believe in that great
country that my grandfather told me about. I believe
that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering
on every news station, the 'American Dream' is still
alive. . . . We need to use our dollars here rebuilding,
refurbishing and restoring all that our ancestors
struggled to create and maintain. . . . We as a people
must do this together, no matter the color of the state
one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit
on."
"I still believe."
I still believe as well. And I know that if we can come
together and uphold our responsibilities to one another
and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will
keep the dream of our founding alive -- in our time; and
we will pass it on to our children. We will pass on to
our children a country that we believe in.
Thank you. God bless you, and may
God bless the United States of America.
Source:
WhiteHouse
* *
* * *
The Country We Believe In
Improving America's Fiscal
Future (video)
* *
* * *
The Reagan Doctrine of National Suicide
/Open
Letter to President Barack Obama
A Time for
Peace: A Time for War
/
Obama’s Libyan Choices
The Country We Believe In
(Obama)
/
Tea
Party,
Schmee
Party
(Moses)
Cornel West and the fight against
injustice /
Cornel West Calls Out Barack Obama
* *
* * *
At War in Libya: NYTimes Editorial /
Speech on Libya
Situation
Planning for a Post-Qaddafi Libya /
Africans
Beware the Saviors of Libya
US Senate discusses sending troops to Libya
* *
* * *
 |
Malcolm X
A Life of Reinvention
By
Manning Marable
Years
in the making-the definitive biography of
the legendary black activist.
Of the great figure in twentieth-century
American history perhaps none is more
complex and controversial than Malcolm X.
Constantly rewriting his own story, he
became a criminal, a minister, a leader, and
an icon, all before being felled by
assassins' bullets at age thirty-nine.
Through his tireless work and countless
speeches he empowered hundreds of thousands
of black Americans to create better lives
and stronger communities while establishing
the template for the self-actualized,
independent African American man. In death
he became a broad symbol of both resistance
and reconciliation for millions around the
world. |
Manning Marable's
new biography of Malcolm is a stunning achievement.
Filled with new information and shocking revelations
that go beyond the Autobiography, Malcolm X unfolds a
sweeping story of race and class in America, from the
rise of Marcus Garvey and the Ku Klux Klan to the
struggles of the civil rights movement in the fifties
and sixties.
Reaching into
Malcolm's troubled youth, it traces a path from his
parents' activism through his own engagement with the
Nation of Islam, charting his astronomical rise in the
world of Black Nationalism and culminating in the
never-before-told true story of his assassination.
Malcolm X will stand as the definitive work on one of
the most singular forces for social change, capturing
with revelatory clarity a man who constantly strove, in
the great American tradition, to remake himself anew.
* * *
* *
* *
* * *
|
The Persistence of the Color Line
Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency
By Randall Kennedy
Among the best things about
The Persistence of the Color Line
is watching Mr. Kennedy hash through the
positions about Mr. Obama staked out by
black commentators on the left and
right, from Stanley Crouch and Cornel
West to Juan Williams and Tavis Smiley.
He can be pointed. Noting the way Mr.
Smiley consistently “voiced skepticism
regarding whether blacks should back
Obama” . . .
The
finest chapter in
The Persistence of the Color Line
is so resonant, and so personal, it
could nearly be the basis for a book of
its own. That chapter is titled
“Reverend Wright and My Father:
Reflections on Blacks and Patriotism.”
Recalling some of the criticisms of
America’s past made by Mr. Obama’s
former pastor, Mr. Kennedy writes with
feeling about his own father, who put
each of his three of his children
through Princeton but who “never forgave
American society for its racist
mistreatment of him and those whom he
most loved.” His father distrusted
the police, who had frequently called
him “boy,” and rejected patriotism. Mr.
Kennedy’s father “relished Muhammad
Ali’s quip that the Vietcong had never
called him ‘nigger.’ ” The author places
his father, and Mr. Wright, in
sympathetic historical light. |
 |
* *
* * *
 |
The Price of Civilization
Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity
By
Jeffrey D. Sachs
The Price of Civilization is a book
that is essential reading for every
American. In a forceful, impassioned, and
personal voice, he offers not only a searing
and incisive diagnosis of our country’s
economic ills but also an urgent call for
Americans to restore the virtues of
fairness, honesty, and foresight as the
foundations of national prosperity. Sachs
finds that both political parties—and many
leading economists—have missed the big
picture, offering shortsighted solutions
such as stimulus spending or tax cuts to
address complex economic problems that
require deeper solutions. Sachs argues that
we have profoundly underestimated
globalization’s long-term effects on our
country, which create deep and largely unmet
challenges with regard to jobs, incomes,
poverty, and the environment. America’s
single biggest economic failure, Sachs
argues, is its inability to come to grips
with the new global economic realities.
Sachs describes a political system that has
lost its ethical moorings, in which
ever-rising campaign contributions and
lobbying outlays overpower the voice of the
citizenry. . . . Sachs offers a plan to turn
the crisis around. He argues persuasively
that the problem is not America’s abiding
values, which remain generous and pragmatic,
but the ease with which political spin and
consumerism run circles around those values.
|
* * * * *
The White Masters of the
World
From
The World and Africa, 1965
By W. E. B. Du Bois
W. E. B. Du Bois’
Arraignment and Indictment of White Civilization
(Fletcher)
* *
* * *
Ancient African Nations
* * * * *
If you like this page consider making a donation
* * * * *
Negro Digest /
Black World
Browse all issues
1950
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
____ 2005
Enjoy!
* * * * *
The Death of Emmett Till by Bob Dylan
/
The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll
/
Only a Pawn in Their Game
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson Thanks America for
Slavery /
George Jackson /
Hurricane Carter
* *
* * *
The Journal of Negro History issues at Project Gutenberg
The
Haitian Declaration of Independence 1804
/
January 1, 1804 -- The Founding of
Haiti
* * * * *
* *
* * *
ChickenBones Store
(Books, DVDs, Music, and more)
posted 15 April 2011
|
